Vitamin and mineral supplement use is associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer

Cancer Prevention Research Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington 98109-1024, USA.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (Impact Factor: 4.32). 10/1999; 8(10):887-92.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This population-based, case-control study in King County, Washington examined supplement use in 697 incident prostate cancer cases (ages 40-64) identified from the Puget Sound Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program registry and 666 controls recruited from the same overall population using random-digit dialing sampling. Participants reported their frequency of use of three types of multivitamins and single supplements of vitamins A, C, and E, calcium, iron, and zinc over the 2 years before diagnosis. Logistic regression analyses controlled for age, race, education, family history of prostate cancer, body mass index, number of prostate-specific antigen tests in the previous 5 years, and dietary fat intake. Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence limits) for the contrast of > or =7/week versus no use were as follows: multivitamins, 0.96 (0.73, 1.26); vitamin A, 0.59 (0.32, 1.06); vitamin C, 0.77 (0.57, 1.04); vitamin E, 0.76 (0.54, 1.08); calcium, 1.04 (0.61, 1.78); iron, 0.50 (0.13, 1.76); and zinc, 0.55 (0.30, 1.00). Odds ratios differed little when cases were stratified by stage of disease at diagnosis or by histopathological grade. There were significant dose-response effects for zinc and ordered dose-response trends for vitamins C and E. Overall, these results suggest that multivitamin use is not associated with prostate cancer risk, but use of individual supplements of zinc, vitamin C, and vitamin E may be protective. Further study is needed to investigate the direct role of these dietary supplements, as well as the role of lifestyle variables associated with supplement use, on prostate cancer risk.

  • Source
    • "The latest cohort studies [5Á7] and randomized trials [8] showed no association between prostate cancer and vitamin E serum levels or supplement intake [6Á8] alone or in combination with vitamin C intake [9]. Some case-control studies have reported slight reductions in prostate cancer risk associated to dietary intake of vitamin E [10] [11], but not others [12] [13]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The epidemiologic evidence on dietary vitamins E and C and prostate cancer is controversial. Therefore, a case-control study was carried out to investigate the role of dietary intake of vitamins E and C in the etiology of prostate cancer. Cases were 1 294 men with incident, histologically confirmed prostate cancer, admitted to the major teaching and general hospitals of five Italian areas between 1991 and 2002. Controls were 1 451 men admitted for acute, non-neoplastic conditions to the same hospitals. Information on dietary habits and nutrient intake was elicited using a validated food frequency questionnaire including 78 food groups and recipes. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for increasing levels of vitamin intake were estimated after allowance for total energy intake and other confounding factors. Vitamin E showed a significant inverse association with prostate cancer (OR = 0.78 for the highest versus the lowest tertile of intake, 95% CI: 0.58-0.96; p-value for trend = 0.02), whereas for vitamin C the inverse association was of borderline statistical significance (OR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.65-1.08). Results were consistent in strata of age, body mass index, and family history of prostate cancer. The present study shows an inverse association between dietary intake of vitamins E and prostate cancer incidence. This finding is likely to reflect the influence of diet itself since supplementation or food fortification with vitamins is rare in the Italian population.
    Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 06/2009; 48(6):890-4. DOI:10.1080/02841860902946546 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Notwithstanding the authors' recognition that further studies are necessary, the power of focus on adverse effects of zinc has had its obvious consequences as evidenced by the above pronouncements. In contrast , an earlier epidemiological report by Kristal et al. [4] had concluded that the daily use of zinc supplement was associated with a significant decrease in prostate cancer. However , one cannot find any public pronouncements that proclaim " studies show that zinc will prevent prostate cancer! "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the prevalence of prostate cancer, the etiology and factors associated with its development and progression are largely unknown. An important relationship in prostate cancer is the role of zinc. Clinical evidence and experimental evidence have established that prostate cancer is associated with a decrease in the zinc uptake and accumulation in the malignant cells; and that the accumulation of zinc in the prostate cells prevents malignancy. In contrast to this established consistent clinical relationship, numerous epidemiology studies and reports of the effect of dietary and supplemental zinc on the incidence of prostate cancer have provided divergent, inconsistent, and inconclusive results; which range from adverse effects of zinc, protective effects of zinc, and no effect of zinc on the risk of prostate cancer. Despite these divergent and inconclusive results, a prevailing view and public warning has evolved from unsubstantiated and uncorroborated epidemiology studies that zinc consumption increases the risk of developing advanced stage prostate cancer. Such a conclusion is not well-founded and has serious, confusing and erroneous implications for the medical/scientific community and for the public-at-large. The admonition of Dimitrios Trichopoulos over a decade ago [1] that, "… (epidemiology) studies will inevitably generate false positive and false negative results with disturbing frequency. …, when (people) do take us seriously, we may unintentionally do more harm than good" can be applied to the situation that is the subject of this report. Therefore it is extremely important to review the epidemiology studies that have lead to the conclusion of an adverse effect of zinc, and also that have produced such inconsistent and divergent results. This critical review defines issues, problems, and shortcomings that exist in the conduct, conclusions, and dissemination of the epidemiology studies. We caution that one should be knowledgeable and understanding of these issues in assessing the validity and the conclusiveness of the outcomes from the epidemiology studies of purported associations of dietary and supplemental zinc on the risk of prostate cancer; particularly when the unsubstantiated conclusions are at odds with clinical and experimental evidence. It is in the interest of the medical, scientific and public communities that this critical review is undertaken. We hope that this review will generate an open, objective, scientific and medical discussion and assessment of this important issue.
    The Open Urology & Nephrology Journal 11/2008; 1(1). DOI:10.2174/1874303X00801010026
  • Source
    • "A case-control study from the United States, based on 697 prostate cancer cases, reported a favourable effect of zinc supplements, the OR for daily versus never use being 0.55 (95% CI, 0.30–1.00) [11]. Another case-control study from Sweden, based on 1499 cases, found no association between supplemental zinc use and prostate cancer risk, the age-adjusted OR for users being 1.3 (95% CI, 0.8–2.1). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Zinc concentration is higher in the prostate than in most other tissues. Since information on the role of zinc on prostate carcinogenesis is controversial, we analysed the issue in a case-control study. Between 1991 and 2002, we conducted a multicentre hospital-based case-control study on prostate cancer in Italy. Cases included 1294 men with incident, histologically confirmed prostate cancer. Controls included 1451 patients admitted to the same hospitals as cases for a wide spectrum of acute non-neoplastic, non-hormone-related diseases. Zinc intake was computed from a valid and reproducible food frequency questionnaire, with the use of an Italian food composition database. Odds ratios (OR) of dietary intake of zinc and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by unconditional multiple logistic regression models, after allowance for several covariates, including total energy. Compared with the lowest quintile, the OR for the highest quintile was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.07-2.26), with a significant trend in risk (p=0.04). The trend in risk was significant for advanced cancers only, the OR being 2.02 (95% CI, 1.14-3.59) for prostate cancers with a high Gleason score. In this large study we found a direct association between high zinc intake and prostate cancer risk, particularly for advanced cancers. Our findings allow one to exclude a favourable effect of zinc on prostate carcinogenesis.
    European Urology 11/2007; 52(4):1052-6. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.01.094 · 12.48 Impact Factor
Show more