Optimal vitamin D status for colorectal cancer prevention: a quantitative meta analysis

Previous studies, such as the Women's Health Initiative, have shown that a low dose of vitamin D did not protect against colorectal cancer, yet a meta-analysis indicates that a higher dose may reduce its incidence. Five studies of serum 25(OH)D in association with colorectal cancer risk were id...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of preventive medicine 2007-03, Vol.32 (3), p.210
Main Authors: Gorham, Edward D, Garland, Cedric F, Garland, Frank C, Grant, William B, Mohr, Sharif B, Lipkin, Martin, Newmark, Harold L, Giovannucci, Edward, Wei, Melissa, Holick, Michael F
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
California - epidemiology
Colorectal Neoplasms - epidemiology
Colorectal Neoplasms - prevention & control
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Humans
Incidence
Nutritional Status
Odds Ratio
Preventive Medicine
Risk Factors
Vitamin D - administration & dosage
Vitamin D - adverse effects
Vitamin D - blood
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Previous studies, such as the Women's Health Initiative, have shown that a low dose of vitamin D did not protect against colorectal cancer, yet a meta-analysis indicates that a higher dose may reduce its incidence. Five studies of serum 25(OH)D in association with colorectal cancer risk were identified using PubMed. The results of all five serum studies were combined using standard methods for pooled analysis. The pooled results were divided into quintiles with median 25(OH)D values of 6, 16, 22, 27, and 37 ng/mL. Odds ratios were calculated by quintile of the pooled data using Peto's Assumption-Free Method, with the lowest quintile of 25(OH)D as the reference group. A dose-response curve was plotted based on the odds for each quintile of the pooled data. Data were abstracted and analyzed in 2006. Odds ratios for the combined serum 25(OH)D studies, from lowest to highest quintile, were 1.00, 0.82, 0.66, 0.59, and 0.46 (p(trend)
ISSN:0749-3797
DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.11.004