Topic: Vitamin D levels at diagnosis

Jul 17, 2012 06:23 PM coraleliz wrote:

I didn't "login" just read the summary. Here's my thoughts & i live in California & get year round sun. The dermatologist is always getting after me. The vitamin D level will have to be addressed at an early age. Since many of our tumors are years in the making. I don't really believe that one can acheive a "therapuetic" vitamin D level after 40 without suplementation. I haven't done or read of any studies, but I have many freinds & coworkers who have had there Vitamin D levels check. We were all low. I was the highest at 25. I guess I don't need to say it..........but.........I'm the one who got the cancer. I know very unscientific.......

Jul 17, 2012 08:31 PM mary625 wrote:

Does the study state desirable levels for Vit. D?

Jul 18, 2012 01:27 AM Thatgirl wrote:

Coral, be careful out in the sun. Supplementation may be a better option for you. No one should  blame themselves for their cancer. Science has not found out what causes cancer, they only have risk factors.

Jul 18, 2012 06:39 AM slousha wrote:

I'm a little longer on this therapy so some information about Vit D3. Before taking Femara I was at Endocrinologist
to see how my bones are doing. I have had slightly osteopenia in my hips and beginning of osteoporosis on backbone.  My D3 was 37 and it was said BC ladies should have it 60-80. Last summer having a  sunny balcony, was taking sun bath every day at midday, without sun crème, only 15 minutes each site. In 9 months my levels raised from 37 to 72 without medicines.
Now I'm still taking 1000 units per day to retain the state in months without sun.

Sorry, English isn't my native language

Greetings and best wishes

Usha

Jul 18, 2012 09:44 AM Timothy wrote:

Is the article accessable to readers without joining a forum?  If not, I'll cut and paste it here.

Jul 19, 2012 07:52 AM Timothy wrote:

Vitamin D Status at Breast Cancer Diagnosis: Correlation With Tumor Characteristics, Disease Outcome and Genetic Determinants of Vitamin D Insufficiency

Carcinogenesis. 2012 May 23;[Epub Ahead of Print], S Hatse, D Lambrechts, A Verstuyf, A Smeets, B Brouwers, T Vandorpe, O Brouckaert, G Peuteman, A Laenen, L Verlinden, C Kriebitzsch, AS Dieudonne, R Paridaens, P Neven, MR Christiaens, R Bouillon, H Wildiers

Abstract

A large cohort study correlated vitamin D levels with tumor size and overall survival, showing improved breast-cancer specific outcomes associated with increased vitamin D levels in postmenopausal women.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

A large cohort study correlated vitamin D levels with tumor size and overall survival, showing improved breast-cancer specific outcomes associated with increased vitamin D levels in postmenopausal women.

SUMMARY

OncologySTAT Editorial Team

Hatse and colleagues set out to examine the association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D₃ (25OHD) levels, dietary vitamin D intake, and the risk of cancer. They noted that vitamin D supplementation has not yet been a standard element of cancer prevention. The controversy surrounding the effect of vitamin D supplementation on certain malignancies and whether its use should be encouraged is particularly relevant in women with breast cancer. It is known that more than 60% of cases occur in postmenopausal women, a population characterized by a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and osteoporosis.

In this study, 1,800 patients were randomly classified into three categories according to 25OHD levels: low, intermediate, and high. Patients in the low group had 25OHD levels <20 ng/mL. The intermediate group had 25OHD levels between 20 and 30 ng/mL. The high group had levels of 25OHD >30 ng/mL. In all, 35.9% of patients were in the high group, 31.7% were in the intermediate group, and 32.4% were in the low group.

The investigators utilized linear regression models to examine the association between 25OHD levels and tumor characteristics. These characteristics included tumor size, tumor grade, nodal stage, estrogen receptor levels, and HER2 status. Lymph node involvement was also analyzed. Primary outcomes were twofold: disease-specific survival (DSS) and disease-free interval (DFI). The latter was defined as the time elapsing between breast cancer diagnosis and local recurrence and/or lymph node metastasis and/or distant metastasis. Regarding overall survival, significant effects were observed for age, tumor size, lymph node involvement, tumor grade, and estrogen-receptor status.

In terms of DSS, the investigators found a significant inverse correlation between serum 25OHD levels and the risk of breast cancer-related mortality. High 25OHD levels were associated with improved DSS in postmenopausal women (hazard ratio [HR], 0.15 for 25OHD > 30 ng/mL vs ≤30 ng/mL; 95% CI, 0.03-0.63; P = .0097), compared with premenopausal women (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.43-2.02; P = .8527). In addition, favorable vitamin D status appeared to be linked to improved outcomes in postmenopausal women.

It was suggested by the investigators that this vitamin D benefit in postmenopausal women may be due to the favorable effect of vitamin D on bone density and metabolism and the low estrogen environment in bone. In premenopausal women, higher levels of estrogen may negate the bone-protecting benefits of vitamin D supplementation.

In closing, this study demonstrated that reduced 25OHD levels were associated with increased tumor size in women with breast cancer and improved outcome in postmenopausal women. Vitamin D could be involved in local growth-inhibitory effects on breast tumors. However, further studies are warranted to clarify the role of vitamin D supplementation as a cancer preventive or inhibitory therapy.

Jul 24, 2012 09:21 PM Shayne wrote:

Just got my results - 22.  Going to get Vit D3 tomorrow - My Onc recommended 3,000 units......

Jul 25, 2012 01:28 AM camillegal wrote:

I take 1 capsule a week 50,000 units==She wrote a persciption--It's so silly cuz it's once a week and I have to write what day it is or I'll forget.--I didn't even ask my numbers--I never think of those things--I'm going to be going every week for a workup for blood cuz my numbers vary to to much-so this way they can watch them so I won't keep on ending up in the hospital for days. Since i moved I have all new Drs. so it's my fault I didn't start cuz I know I have big blood count probs. And I put it off so I have to catch up--I'm still low on others but not critical so I can just take more pills for now.--This goes on and on and it's aggrevating when people tell me what I'm doing wrong cuz I should feel fine now--Sorry for my rant. )Not my close friends and family at least)

Aug 8, 2012 01:05 PM MILCHICK wrote:

Just "bumping" this up and praying that everyone will chime in pretty soon.

God bless you all.

Aug 8, 2012 03:41 PM dipad wrote:

I never had my vitD checked prior to bc. When diagnosed I was at 29. I dropped during the next two months down to 12. Onc put me on 50,000 units of vit D per week for 6 weeks, I am now back to 29. 

Aug 15, 2012 09:16 AM nancyjac wrote:

I'm getting into this whole vitamin D thing very late and boy, it sure is confusing.  Conflicting info everywhere.  I just had my vitamin D levels tested, to my knowledge, for the first time.  Result was 26 with normal range being 30-100 (according to the lab).  My MO is looking to reach an initial target of at least 40. Because I already had osteopenia before cancer DX, MO had me bump up my calcium supplementation which includes Vit D, so prior to testing, I was taking 3000 IU with my calcium supplement, plus another 800 IU with my multivitamin.  She now wants me to add another 1000 IU of Vit. D, making a daily total of 4800 IU.  She told me that bringing up Vit D levels is hard, particularly post menopausal and that it will probably take several months just to get it up to 40.