The association between breast cancer prognostic indicators and serum 25-OH vitamin D levels.

Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, NY, USA.
Annals of Surgical Oncology (Impact Factor: 3.94). 03/2012; 19(8):2590-9. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2297-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Studies show that women with low vitamin D levels have an increased risk of breast cancer (BC) incidence and mortality, but there is a lack of research examining vitamin D levels and prognostic variables in BC patients. The aim of this study is to examine 25-OH vitamin D levels between BC cases and controls and by prognostic indicators among BC cases.
25-OH vitamin D levels were collected from 194 women who underwent BC surgery and 194 cancer-free (CF) controls at the University of Rochester between January 2009 and October 2010. Mean 25-OH vitamin D levels and odds ratios (OR) were calculated by case/control status for the overall cohort and by prognostic indicators (invasiveness, ER status, triple-negative status, Oncotype DX score, molecular phenotype) for BC cases.
BC cases had significantly lower 25-OH vitamin D levels than CF controls (BC: 32.7 ng/mL vs. CF: 37.4 ng/mL; P = .02). In case-series analyses, women with suboptimal 25-OH vitamin D concentrations (<32 ng/mL) had significantly higher odds of having ER- (OR = 2.59, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.08-6.23) and triple-negative cancer (OR = 3.15, 95% CI = 1.05-9.49) than those with optimal 25-OH D concentrations. Women with basal-like phenotype had lower 25-OH vitamin D levels than women luminal A phenotype (basal-like: 24.2 ng/mL vs. luminal A: 32.8 ng/mL; P = 0.04).
BC patients with a more aggressive molecular phenotype (basal-like) and worse prognostic indicators (ER- and triple-negative) had lower mean 25-OH vitamin D levels. Further research is needed to elucidate the biological relationship between vitamin D and BC progression.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The active form of vitamin D, in conjunction with his own receptor, affect a multitude of biological processes in the cell (inter alia it influences the expression of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes). There is an increasing volume of scientific publications examining the relationships between serum vitamin D levels, vitamin D supplementation and malignant diseases. Some articles suggest inverse relationship between the low serum levels of vitamin D and the breast cancer risk and mortality, whilst other publications do not support this view. Thus the present opinion is conflicted. Vitamin D can exert a beneficial influence on the symptoms and outcomes of a large number of ailments, but its role in affecting cancer is still not completely clear. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(28), 1091-1096.
    Orvosi Hetilap 07/2014; 155(28):1091-6. DOI:10.1556/OH.2014.29906
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nuclear receptors exert profound effects on mammary gland physiology and have complex roles in the etiology of breast cancer. In addition to receptors for classic steroid hormones such as estrogen and progesterone, the nuclear vitamin D receptor (VDR) interacts with its ligand 1α,25(OH)2D3 to modulate the normal mammary epithelial cell genome and subsequent phenotype. Observational studies suggest that vitamin D deficiency is common in breast cancer patients and that low vitamin D status enhances the risk for disease development or progression. Genomic profiling has characterized many 1α,25(OH)2D3 responsive targets in normal mammary cells and in breast cancers, providing insight into the molecular actions of 1α,25(OH)2D3 and the VDR in regulation of cell cycle, apoptosis, and differentiation. New areas of emphasis include regulation of tumor metabolism and innate immune responses. However, the role of VDR in individual cell types (i.e., epithelial, adipose, fibroblast, endothelial, immune) of normal and tumor tissues remains to be clarified. Furthermore, the mechanisms by which VDR integrates signaling between diverse cell types and controls soluble signals and paracrine pathways in the tissue/tumor microenvironment remain to be defined. Model systems of carcinogenesis have provided evidence that both VDR expression and 1α,25(OH)2D3 actions change with transformation but clinical data regarding vitamin D responsiveness of established tumors is limited and inconclusive. Because breast cancer is heterogeneous, analysis of VDR actions in specific molecular subtypes of the disease may help to clarify the conflicting data. The expanded use of genomic, proteomic and metabolomic approaches on a diverse array of in vitro and in vivo model systems is clearly warranted to comprehensively understand the network of vitamin D regulated pathways in the context of breast cancer.
    Frontiers in Physiology 06/2014; 5:213. DOI:10.3389/fphys.2014.00213
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) is associated with a reduction in risk of some cancers but its association with prognosis among cancer patients is poorly understood. In view of the increasing number of cancer survivors in the United States and the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among cancer patients, an evaluation of the role circulating 25-OHD in prognosis among cancer patients is essential. We conducted a systematic review of studies published in following databases: PubMed, OvidSP, BioMed Central, EMBASE, and Scopus till September 2013 using the following search terms: "vitamin D", "25-hydroxyvitamin D", "calcidiol", "cancer", "survival", "mortality", "prognosis". Our search yielded 1,397 articles. From the 1,397 articles, we identified 26 studies that evaluated the associations of circulating 25-OHD with prognosis among cancer patients. Evidence suggests that circulating 25-OHD levels may be associated with better prognosis in breast and colorectal cancer patients but there is paucity of information on its association with prognosis in other cancers. This review highlights the need for further studies evaluating the role of vitamin D in prognosis among cancer patients.
    Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 04/2014; 23(6). DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0053 · 4.56 Impact Factor


Available from
May 22, 2014