Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Review ArticlePROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM “BIOLOGIC EFFECTS OF LIGHT” (Homburg/Saar, Germany)R

Roles of Solar UVB and Vitamin D in Reducing Cancer Risk and Increasing Survival

WILLIAM B. GRANT
Anticancer Research March 2016, 36 (3) 1357-1370;
WILLIAM B. GRANT
Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: wbgrant@infionline.net
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The present article reviews existing scientific evidence in support of the ultraviolet-B (UVB)–vitamin D–cancer hypothesis, now being in its 35th year. Literature evidence comes from geographical ecological and observational studies, two successful clinical trials, and an understanding of how vitamin D reduces risk of and increases survival from cancer. Each approach has its strengths and limitations, and considering findings from all of these approaches yields the best conclusions. There exist over 15 types of cancer for which UVB exposure and/or 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations have been found associated with reduced risk. The optimal 25(OH)D concentration for preventing and surviving cancer appears to be above 75-100 nmol/l. There exists mounting evidence that individuals with higher 25(OH)D concentration at the time of cancer diagnosis have better cancer-specific and overall survival rates, suggesting that cancer-affected people should raise their 25(OH)D concentrations.

  • Ultraviolet-B
  • UVB
  • vitamin D
  • 25-hydroxyvitamin D
  • survival
  • review

The first epidemiological study linking vitamin D to reduced risk of cancer mortality was an ecological study of colon cancer mortality rates with respect to annual mean daily solar radiation in the United States (1). The brothers Cedric and Frank Garland noticed a pronounced geographic variation in colon cancer rates (highest in the cloudy northeast, lowest in the sunny southwest), found a significant inverse correlation with respect to solar radiation, and hypothesized that vitamin D production provided the mechanism to reduce cancer risk. They later added breast cancer (2) and ovarian cancer (3) to the list, and Schwartz added prostate cancer (4). I added 10 more types of cancer in 2002 (5). Several observational studies analyzed cancer incidence and/or mortality rates with respect to circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations (6-9). Also, two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found reduced incidence rates of cancer with vitamin D and calcium supplementation (10, 11).

According to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database, more than 10,400 publications since 1980 have included “cancer” and “vitamin D” or “25-hydroxyvitamin D” in their title or abstract. Several reviews have discussed the understanding of the roles of UVB and vitamin D in preventing or treating cancer (12-17).

The present article reviews evidence showing that higher UVB exposure and 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations are associated with lower cancer incidence and mortality rates as well as increased survival after diagnosis of cancer.

Types of Studies

There exist several types of studies used to assess the roles of UVB exposure and/or vitamin D on incidence and/or survival of cancer. The primary ones are geographical ecological, observational, clinical, and mechanism studies. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Thus, considering all types of studies leads to the best conclusions regarding the roles of UVB exposure and vitamin D in reducing risk of cancer. Table I summarizes the important advantages and disadvantages of each. Results from each type of study are examined in the rest of this review article.

Ecological studies of cancer incidence and mortality rates. Ecological studies of cancer incidence and/or mortality rate were the first to find the beneficial effects of solar UVB exposure in reducing cancer risk. The paper credited with proposing the ultraviolet-B (UVB)–vitamin D–cancer hypothesis is one by the brothers Cedric and Frank Garland. Their study linked annual solar radiation to reduced colon cancer mortality rates (1). However, a 1974 study published in a Japanese University Journal revealed a strong inverse correlation between incidence of stomach cancer and annual hours of sunshine at various locations. But it also found comparable inverse correlations with respect to concentrations of calcium sulfate in rivers. According to the abstract, “The sunshine duration may be concerned with calcium absorption through its action of vitamin D production on skin” (27). However, probably owing to the title and the fact that it was published in a university journal, it has received no citations as of this writing.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Advantages and disadvantages of types of studies used to evaluate the roles of UVB exposure and/or vitamin D and cancer incidence and/or mortality rates

I have reviewed geographical ecological studies of cancer incidence and/or mortality rates with respect to solar UVB doses (14, 28). Ecological studies have many advantages: the large number of cases; the large range of UVB doses in larger mid-latitude countries; and, since people generally live in the same region for many years, UVB doses are a reasonable proxy for vitamin D concentrations. From my perspective, single-country geographical ecological studies are ideally suited for studying the role of UVB and vitamin D in cancer risk. On one hand, populations in single countries are generally relatively homogeneous in diet, religion (which can affect clothing style), ethnic background and skin pigmentation, alcohol consumption, and smoking. If not, the geographical variations can generally be characterized by suitable indices such as lung cancer rates for the adverse health effects of smoking or ethnic background for skin pigmentation (29).

The most comprehensive ecological studies were performed in the United States (5, 29) (30), Japan (31), China (32), Spain (33), and France (34). The study in Spain used latitude and non-melanoma skin cancer mortality rates by province as indices of solar UVB doses and exposure. A study based on latitude as a proxy for cosmic rays in Australia found inverse correlations for breast, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer, as well as leukemia (35). Observational studies from Australia with respect to latitude as a proxy for solar UVB doses found inverse correlations for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (36) and for esophageal (37), ovarian (38), and pancreatic cancer (39). For esophageal cancer, lower latitude was associated with a reduced risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma but not esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (37). Overall, ecological studies support the role of solar UVB–and by extension vitamin D–in reducing mortality rates of 19 types of cancer: bladder, breast, colon, endometrial, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, lung, oral/pharyngeal, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, rectal, renal, thyroid, vulvar cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma, NHL, and leukemia. The evidence is stronger for more common cancers (14). Although these studies used UVB indices such as latitude, which may also be correlated with other factors such as temperature, the UVB index in the United States is not highly correlated with latitude. Rather, the index is asymmetrical with highest UVB doses in summer in the southwest and lowest in the northeast (40), due to higher surface elevation and thinner stratospheric ozone layer in the west and higher aerosol burden and cloud cover in the northeast.

The beneficial effects of UVB exposure and vitamin D were proposed based on the latitude dependence of prostate cancer mortality rate in the U.S. (4). However, observational studies report that both low and high 25(OH)D concentrations are associated with similar risk (41). Evidence also exists to associate high UVB doses with increased risk of prostate cancer. A recent study in Australia found an increased risk of prostate cancer for men living in regions of higher UVB exposures (42). Many cancers, such as breast and colon, have strong evidence for beneficial effects of solar UVB exposure and vitamin D (43). In the U.S., mortality rates for such cancers are highest in the northeast and lowest in the southwest. By contrast, prostate cancer mortality rates are highest in the northwest and lowest in the southeast, whereas lung cancer rates are highest in the southeast. Mapping shows that the average life expectancy for white males in 1997-2001 was ~65-73 years in the southeast and ~76-80 years in the northwest (44). That finding supports the idea that men who die from prostate cancer live longer, a fact that could be due, in part, to having higher 25(OH)D concentrations.

The data used to carry out ecological studies of cancer mortality rate in the United States are available at http://ratecalc.cancer.gov/ratecalc/archivedatlas/ and http://ratecalc.cancer.gov/.

Two geographical ecological studies found stronger correlations with cancer mortality rates than cancer incidence rates with respect to indices of solar UVB doses. One was in the United States (30), the other in China (32). The study in China was extended to examine the effect of UVB dose on cancer survival rates by calculating one minus the mortality-to-incidence ratio (45). Increased survival rates were found for all cancer and cancers of esophagus, stomach, and bladder in both sexes together and breast cancer in women.

Cancer incidence with respect to 25(OH)D concentration. Although geographical ecological studies offer strong support for the role of solar UVB exposure in reducing mortality risk from many types of cancer, the evidence from observational studies with respect to 25(OH)D concentrations or vitamin D supplementation has been less supportive. Substantial agreement exists that 25(OH)D concentrations are inversely correlated with incidence of colorectal cancer (46). For breast cancer, both prospective (23) and case-control studies (21) found significant inverse correlations. However, no statistically significant associations were observed in European prospective studies and for premenopausal women, respectively (23). For prostate cancer, either no correlation generally occurs (46) or a slight positive correlation appears with respect to high versus low 25(OH)D concentration (24). As to other types of cancer, the Vitamin D Pooling Project found no inverse correlation between 25(OH)D concentrations and incidence of six rarer types of cancer: endometrial, esophageal, gastric, kidney, NHL, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers (47). That finding may have been due to the small number of cases and long (9 years) follow-up periods, during which time 25(OH)D concentrations changed (24). A recent meta-analysis found a 12% (95% confidence interval [CI]=3%-22%) reduction of lung cancer incidence with respect to 25(OH)D concentrations for an increase from 20 to 50 nmol/l (48). Another meta-analysis found a relative risk of 0.83 (95% CI=0.77-0.90; p<0.001) for high versus low 25(OH)D concentration (49).

The situation regarding breast cancer observational studies is as follows: case–control studies always find an inverse correlation between 25(OH)D and incidence, but prospective studies with a mean follow-up after blood draw of longer than 3 years generally do not (21). In a meta-analysis of 11 case–control studies from seven countries (Australia, Germany, Iran, Mexico, Shanghai, the United States, and the UK), the values of relative risk for breast cancer incidence with respect to 25(OH)D concentration overlaid each other very well, rapidly decreasing in incidence from 15 to 40 nmol/l, then more slowly out to approximately 80 nmol/l. Critics of the case–control studies raise the possibility of reverse causality–that the disease state may affect the 25(OH)D concentration. A recent article discussed this possibility (22). That article noted that cancer begins some time before it is diagnosed and has physiological effects that may lead to behavioral and dietary changes, possibly affecting 25(OH)D concentrations at time of diagnosis. The physiological effects of 25(OH)D concentrations on cancer were discussed, but they seem to be minor. However, reverse causality seems unlikely for several reasons. First, in at least one study in that meta-analysis, 25(OH)D concentrations were measured up to a year before diagnosis. Secondly, the shape of the relation between breast cancer incidence risk and 25(OH)D concentration is similar to that for breast cancer and colorectal cancer with prospective studies included (6). Third, although 25(OH)D concentrations may be lower at diagnosis for stage III and IV breast cancer, most breast cancers are diagnosed at stages I and II; moreover, stage at diagnosis had little effect on cancer survival with respect to 25(OH)D concentration near the time of diagnosis (50). Finally, strong evidence indicates that breast cancer develops rapidly (21), and since 25(OH)D concentrations change with time (24, 51), it is not surprising that prospective studies do not find an inverse correlation between 25(OH)D and breast cancer incidence.

Another way to look at the effect of solar UVB exposure and cancer incidence is to use the “predicted vitamin D level” approach that Giovannucci introduced with the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (52). In this approach, a regression model of 25(OH)D concentration is based on 25(OH)D concentration measurements with respect to such factors as oral vitamin D intake, geographical location, skin pigmentation, and leisure time in the sun for some individuals in a cohort. Those findings are then applied to the entire cohort. The approach found significant inverse correlations between predicted vitamin D and five cancers (colorectal, esophageal, oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic cancer, and leukemia) and found non-significant inverse correlations for six other types (bladder, kidney, lung, prostate [advanced], and stomach cancer as well as NHL) (52). Later use of this approach also found a significant inverse correlation for pancreatic cancer (53).

Two recent observational studies found no significant inverse correlations between 25(OH)D concentrations and cancer incidence but did for cancer mortality rates. The study in Australia involved elderly women with a median follow-up time of 10 years. Excess death rates were found for 25(OH)D concentrations below 64 nmol/l. For a 30-nmol/l drop in 25(OH)D, the mortality rate increased by 30% (54). In the ESTHER study in Germany, which had a 10-year follow-up period, the relative risk for all-cancer incidence was 1.10 (95% CI=0.93-1.30), whereas the relative risk for all-cancer mortality was 1.25 (95% CI=0.96-1.62) (55). Although the long follow-up periods in those two studies would be expected to reduce the vitamin D effect (24), the fact that the effect was stronger for mortality rate than incidence rate supports the idea that vitamin D has a greater impact on cancer progression and mortality than on cancer incidence.

There have been reports that higher 25(OH)D concentrations are associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer (56, 57). The first study was from the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study, a cohort study of Finnish male smokers followed-up to 16.7 years. The studies based on this cohort are often at odds with others such as the finding that pre-diagnostic 25(OH)D concentration was not associated with colon or rectal cancer incidence except for colon cancer when the data were analyzed in a season-specific manner, in which case the highest three 25(OH)D quartiles were associated with a significant increased risk compared to the lowest quartile (58). In the second study, 25(OH)D concentration was associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer in regions of the U.S. with low UVB doses but not in the rest of the U.S.A. likely reason for this finding is that those with higher 25(OH)D concentrations likely started supplementing with vitamin D later in life, perhaps with vitamin D2 rather than vitamin D3. A recent analysis of several million 25(OH)D assays by Quest Diagnostics between 2007 and 2009 found that in the northern states, those with 25(OH)D concentrations >125 nmol/l were very likely to have supplemented with vitamin D2 (25). A recent meta-analysis of all-cause mortality rate with respect to vitamin D supplementation found that vitamin D3 supplementation was associated with a 11% (95% CI=1%-20%) reduction in all cause mortality rate but that vitamin D2 supplementation was associated with a 4% (95% CI=–3%-11%) increase in mortality rate (15).

UVB exposure. Observational studies have also examined UVB exposure. Several reported reduced risk of breast cancer for women who had higher UVB exposure, some in early life (59-62), others later in life (63, 64). Evidence is mounting that risk of breast cancer starts accumulating when people are in their teens and twenties (9).

Observational studies have also found inverse correlations between UVB exposure and risk of several other cancers. Many studies reported inverse correlations for incidence of lymphoma, especially NHL, with respect to solar UVB exposure (36, 65-70). Similar findings have also emerged for endometrial (71) and pancreatic cancer (39). However, a meta-analysis of studies examining 25(OH)D and the incidence of NHL found no significant correlation (72).

A study of cancer incidence in Nordic countries with respect to solar UV exposure was made using cancer incidence data by occupation. A total of 1.4 million male cancer cases and 1.36 female cancer cases occurred in 54 occupational categories from 1960 to 2005 (73). In this study, the amount of solar UVB exposure was calculated as the incidence rate of lip cancer less incidence rate of lung cancer for males; neither melanoma nor non-melanoma skin cancer was found to be a useful UVB exposure index (74). That index was significantly inversely correlated with melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer for males, and lip cancer was also significantly inversely correlated with melanoma for males. Lip cancer for females did not yield a good index, probably because women wear lipstick. That UVB index was significantly inversely correlated with 14 types of cancer for males and 4 for females (bladder, beast, colon, and corpus uteri). The occupations with the lowest all-cancer rates were farming (standard incidence rate [SIR]=0.83), forestry (SIR=0.84), gardening (SIR=0.85), and teaching (SIR=0.88); occupations with the highest all-cancer rates were waiting tables (SIR=1.48), bartending (SIR=1.27), tobacco industry workers (SIR=1.23), and military service at sea (SIR=1.22). Three occupations with the lowest all-cancer SIRs involve working outdoors, whereas three with the highest all-cancer SIRs involve indoor work. Smoking rates probably also contribute to the findings. All the types of cancer inversely correlated with this UVB index are also linked to reduced incidence and/or mortality rates in geographical ecological studies with respect to indices of solar UVB doses (14).

One possible confounding factor is physical activity, a considerable part of outdoor occupations. As of 2010, strong epidemiological evidence existed that physical activity reduced risk of breast, colon, and endometrial cancer, with weaker evidence for lung, ovarian, and prostate cancer (75). Physical activity was more strongly inversely correlated with colon cancer than with rectal cancer in the U.S. (76), whereas smoking is a greater risk for rectal cancer than colon cancer (77). In the Nordic study, the inverse correlation of the UVB index in a linear analysis was nearly the same for colon and rectal cancer. More recently, strong evidence was also found for physical activity reducing risk of esophageal cancer (78). In the Nordic study, the UVB index was not correlated with esophageal cancer in a multiple linear regression analysis with lung cancer, although it was inversely correlated with several other smoking-related cancers. Lifetime vigorous-intensity physical activity was inversely associated with NHL risk in a study in Canada (79). In the Nordic study, the UVB index was not significantly correlated with NHL. A reason might be that the ratio of UVA to UVB intensity is higher in Nordic countries than at lower latitudes, and UVA seems to increase risk of NHL by affecting the immune system (80). A recent U.S. study associated physical activity indoors or outdoors with a modest increase in 25(OH)D concentration, apparently with an effect partly independent of solar UVB exposure. People with the highest activity level had 25(OH)D concentration of 63 nmol/l, whereas those with the lowest activity level had a concentration of 55 nmol/l (81). According to the 25(OH)D concentration–incidence rate relation for breast cancer from case–control studies, that would make a 5% difference in NHL incidence rates (21). However, some indoor occupations, such as waiting tables, may involve considerable activity walking back and forth between the kitchen and the tables. Thus, whereas physical activity reduces risk of several cancers, it appears to play only a modest role in the Nordic study and does not seem to detract from the interpretation of a protective effect of UVB exposure.

Racial disparities. The U.S. has pronounced black–white racial disparities in cancer incidence, mortality and survival rates (82). Because black Americans have 25(OH)D concentrations about 60% of those of white Americans (83), one can reasonably expect that this difference may explain much of the cancer disparity between races (84). In fact, my 2012 article outlined the evidence that the black–white disparities in cancer survival rates were probably due to differences in 25(OH)D concentrations (84). Many of the observational studies reporting such disparities for 13 cancers found unexplained racial disparities averaging 25% after considering socioeconomic status, stage at diagnosis, and treatment–similar to what was expected on the basis of differences in 25(OH)D concentrations. Although black Americans have stronger bones than many white Americans, the reason is probably due to differences in such things as a calcium economy that adapted to a hot, dry environment. There is no expectation that anything similar would apply to cancer.

Cancer Survival

Effects of season on diagnosis and survival. Since 25(OH)D concentrations are higher in summer than in winter (85), one might expect people diagnosed with cancer in summer to have better short- to intermediate-term survival rates than people diagnosed in winter. The first evidence for this effect was reported for breast, colon, and prostate cancer in Norway (86). Hodgkin's lymphoma was added later (87). A UK study replicated the results for breast cancer, also adding lung cancer (88). A review of the Norwegian studies showed a 15%-25% reduced risk of death within 36 months of diagnosis for breast, colon, prostate cancer, and Hodgkin's lymphoma for summer versus winter diagnosis (89). More recently, season of recurrence, but not season of diagnosis, were shown to affect survival for ovarian cancer in China, where “median progression-free survival of patients with recurrence month from April to November and December to March was 20 and 8 months, respectively (p<0.001)” (90).

A study in Finland found that mortality rates for brain tumors during the 2 months after surgery during the darkest 4 months of the year were much higher (ratio=1.7 [95% CI=1.1-2.3]) than for other months (91). Most of these patients had stage II-IV gliomas.

On the other hand, a recent paper from Italy examined the effect of season on the effectiveness of chemotherapy and survival on patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer (92). The 1,601 patients were diagnosed with Stage I (12%), Stage II (27%), Stage III (27%), and Stage IV (56%). The COSINOR analysis of response rate to adjuvant chemotherapy varied from 43% in winter to 32% in summer. The COSINOR analysis of probability of progression at six months varied from 82% in winter to 76% in summer. The COSINOR analysis of survival probability at one year varied from 82% in winter to 78% in summer. The authors suggested a number of factors that might explain the findings including changes in 25(OH)D concentrations and folate destruction by UVB in summer. However, the link to vitamin D was considered unlikely since most people diagnosed with Stage IV colorectal cancer are vitamin D-insufficient (93) and patients are advised to limit sun exposure. Not considered were seasonal variations in gene expression, which has been found to be quite pronounced (94). This study found peaks and valleys in January and July, which corresponds more closely with photoperiod than 25(OH)D concentration, with peak and valley in the UK in September and March (85). Vitamin D supplementation can also correct reductions in 25(OH)D concentrations arising from chemotherapy (95).

Randomized controlled trials for cancer prevention. Articles regarding findings on vitamin D and cancer often call for RCTs of vitamin D supplementation. RCTs would serve two purposes: to check whether vitamin D reduces cancer risk and to determine whether vitamin D supplementation has any adverse effects.

Two RCTs found a beneficial effect of vitamin D-plus-calcium supplementation in reducing cancer risk. The first was conducted at Creighton University, involving 1,179 community-dwelling post-menopausal women living in rural areas of Nebraska (10). Participants were assigned, over 4 years, to take 1,450 mg/d of calcium, 1,450 mg/d of calcium plus 1,100 IU/d of vitamin D3, or a placebo. Baseline 25(OH)D concentrations were 72 nmol/L, and people taking vitamin D plus calcium increased their 25(OH)D concentration to 96 nmol/L. Between the end of years 1 and 4, participants taking calcium had a non-significant 41% (95% CI=73%-104%) lower incidence of cancer, whereas those taking calcium plus vitamin D had a significant reduction of 77% (95% CI=18%-80%). The second successful trial was the Women's Health Initiative, as shown in a re-analysis of data. That study was conducted over 7 years and had participants take 1 g of calcium and 400 IU/d of vitamin D3 or a placebo. For women who had not taken vitamin D or calcium supplements before entering the study, supplementation with calcium plus vitamin D significantly decreased risk of total, breast, and invasive breast cancers by 14%-20% and nonsignificantly reduced risk of colorectal cancer by 17%. (11).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Meta-analyses, high vs. low 25(OH)D concentration.

Most vitamin D trials conducted to date have been poorly designed. The most common flaws are using too little vitamin D, not measuring baseline and achieved 25(OH)D concentrations, and not enrolling people with relatively low 25(OH)D concentrations. Vitamin D trials should seek to evaluate the 25(OH)D concentration–health outcome relations determined from observational or other studies. As seen for breast cancer, risk rises rapidly for 25(OH)D concentrations below 40 nmol/L but drops slowly at concentrations above 50 nmol/L (21). A recent meta-analysis of vitamin D trials with respect to biomarkers of inflammation found that half the trials with baseline 25(OH)D concentration below 48 nmol/L found significant reductions in biomarkers of inflammation; however, only a quarter of those with baseline concentrations above 50 nmol/L did (96). Heaney outlined the guidelines for nutrient trials that apply to vitamin D trials (26). The important criteria for vitamin D include starting with an understanding of the 25(OH)D concentration-health outcome of interest, measuring 25(OH)D concentrations of prospective participants, only enrolling those with low concentrations, giving sufficient vitamin D in the treatment arm to raise 25(OH)D concentrations significantly along the 25(OH)D concentration-health outcome relation, and measuring achieved 25(OH)D concentration.

While the evidence that vitamin D reduces risk of cancer is supported by ecological and observational studies and two RCTs, the evidence that would be most convincing would be the successful completion of a clinical trial finding that cancer incidence is significantly reduced with vitamin D supplementation. Hopefully, some of the ongoing trials will make such a finding.

Observational studies of survival after diagnosis of cancer. A growing number of studies have looked at survival rates after diagnosis of cancer. As Table II shows, for cancers with sufficient prospective studies of survival after diagnosis, the overall and cancer-specific survival rates are significantly better for high versus low 25(OH)D concentration at time of cancer diagnosis. Disease-free survival rates were also significantly better for three of the types, but not for lung cancer.

For cancers with only one to three prospective studies of survival after diagnosis, certain evidence exists that higher 25(OH)D concentrations are associated with significantly better overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and/or disease-free survival: gastric cancer (101), head and neck cancer (102, 103), melanoma (104), ovarian cancer (105), prostate cancer (50), and renal cancer (106). Results for all but ovarian and renal cancer are tabulated in two articles (8, 9). Table III summarizes the findings from many of these studies.

A recent study from Finland involving 670 deaths (209 from cancer) of elderly men found that serum 25(OH)D concentration was significantly correlated with death only for those with dietary intake of magnesium less than 414 mg/d (112). A study in Poland found from measurements of 25(OH)D concentration at several times after cancer diagnosis that if 25(OH)D concentration rose above 40 nmol/l at any time, there was a profound difference in disease outcomes (113).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Prospective studies, high vs. low 25OHD, for cancers or papers not included in meta-analyses in Table I.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Mechanisms by which vitamin D affects cancer incidence, progression, and metastasis.

Mechanisms of vitamin D affecting cancer incidence, progression, and metastasis. Studies have identified several mechanisms that mediate vitamin D's effect on cancer incidence, progression, and metastasis. Several recent papers reviewed the mechanisms whereby vitamin D reduces risk of cancer and its progression (13). Table IV gives an overview of the mechanisms of vitamin D affecting cancer.

Vitamin D generally works by influencing gene expression through the action of 1,25(OH)2D though vitamin D receptors (VDRs). VDRs have several alleles, with polymorphisms that have different associations with the most common cancers (121-123), providing additional evidence that vitamin D affects risk of cancer.

While 1,25(OH)2D works through VDRs to fight cancer, the organs that develop cancer convert circulating 25(OH)D to 1,25(OH)2D (124). Thus, high concentrations of 1,25(OH)2D are not in the blood; if they were, risk of hypercalcemia would increase.

One vitamin D mechanism not widely discussed is the reduction of cancer cachexia (CC), that is characterized by systemic inflammation, weight loss, body-fat atrophy, and muscle wasting (125). Up to 50% of cancer patients suffer from CC (126) and up to 30% may die from it (127). Several mechanisms associated with CC involve cytokines such as interleukin 1 (IL-1), IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α (126). A review discusses the role of various chemokines, cytokines, and other factors that play a role in cancer networks (128). Vitamin D affects many of these factors, especially those associated with inflammation (96, 129). A recent paper reviewed the role of vitamin D in reducing CC (130). IL-6 seemed to be a key mediator of muscle wasting in CC. IL-6 is one cytokine that vitamin D suppresses. A vitamin D supplementation study with colorectal cancer patients showed that precise effect, albeit non-significantly in a 6-month trial with 800 IU/d of vitamin D3 (131). Although no studies appear to directly address vitamin D' s role in reducing risk of CC, it may explain some of the beneficial effects of 25(OH)D concentrations in survival, and increasing 25(OH)D concentrations would reduce risk of CC.

Treating cancer with vitamin D. Given the strong inverse correlations of cancer survival and mortality rates with respect to UVB dose or exposure and 25(OH)D concentrations, one would expect that raising 25(OH)D concentrations in persons diagnosed with many types of cancer would improve survival rates. To investigate this possibility, I searched PubMed, using search terms treatment, vitamin D, cancer, survival. I herein discuss the articles with beneficial effects.

A trial in which 44 men with low-grade prostate cancer were given 4,000 IU/d of vitamin D3 for 1 year showed that “No adverse events associated with vitamin D(3) supplementation were observed. No significant changes in PSA levels were observed. However, 24 out of 44 subjects (55%) showed a decrease in the number of positive cores or decrease in Gleason score; five subjects (11%) showed no change; 15 subjects (34%) showed an increase in the number of positive cores or Gleason score.” (132).

A Harvard researcher who has published 27 papers on vitamin D wrote, “Prospective observational studies suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with lower risk of incident CRC (colorectal cancer) as well as improved survival in patients with established CRC, and randomized clinical trials are desperately needed to establish causality. Moreover, there remains a great need to improve prognosis for patients with CRC, and investigating vitamin D as a potential therapeutic modality is an attractive option in regards to safety and cost, particularly in this era of expensive and often toxic anti-neoplastic agents” (133).

Vitamin D was also associated with decreased risk of recurrence among estrogen receptor–positive, but not estrogen receptor–negative, tumors (pinteraction=0.01) (134). Similar results were found in a study in Florida in which breast cancer patients received 10,000 IU/wk of vitamin D3. Vitamin D use was associated with improved disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI=0.15-0.88; p=0.03), but not overall survival (135).

A study from the Czech Republic noted that “Insufficient vitamin D plasma levels are found in 20-60% of cancer patients at diagnosis” and “it should become standard-of-care to examine 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum levels and correct vitamin D insufficiency in cancer patients” (136).

Other benefits of vitamin D relevant to cancer patients. Results primarily from observational studies showed that low 25(OH)D concentrations are correlated with poorer health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease (137), diabetes mellitus (138), and all-cause mortality rate (139). Several recent reviews summarize the beneficial effects of vitamin D (140-142). For colorectal cancer patients in particular, vitamin D supplementation has been found to increase quality of life also taking calcium supplements (143).

Concerns regarding vitamin D supplementation. Hypercalcemia in cancer patients can be due to parathyroid hormone–related protein secreted by cancer cells (144). Bisphosphonates are used to treat bone metastasis from breast cancer (145). But use of bisphosphonates leads to vitamin D deficiency (146). However, in lymphoma, the macrophages can produce 1,25(OH)2D, which leads to hypercalcemia (147). Thus, most cancer patients should have no concern about risk of hypercalcemia when using vitamin D supplements to raise 25(OH)D concentrations. That was shown to be the case in a 4-month trial in Canada in which breast cancer patients with bone metastasis were given 10,000 IU/d of vitamin D3 plus 1,000 mg/d of calcium (146). During this trial, 25(OH)D concentrations were raised from a mean value of 72 nmol/L to 155 nmol/L, and the mean number of pain sites decreased from 3.2 to 2.0. Two patients developed hypercalcemia, but the cause was primary hyperparathyroidism, which vitamin D supplementation unmasked.

Discussion

A limited number of trials show the benefits of UVB exposure or vitamin D supplementation in preventing or treating cancer. However, an alternative method can be used to evaluate the evidence obtained to date: Hill's criteria for causality in a biological system (148). The Hill criteria relevant for UVB, vitamin D, and cancer include the following: Strength of association; Consistent findings in different populations; Temporality; Biological gradient (dose–response relation); Plausibility (e.g., mechanisms); Coherence (no serious conflict with known natural history and biology); Experiment (e.g., RCT); Analogy.

Confounding factors should also be accounted for (149). Not all criteria need be satisfied to claim causality; however, the more they are, the stronger the case. Researchers have evaluated these criteria for cancer in general (150) and breast cancer in particular (151). Readers of this article can evaluate how well they think the criteria have been satisfied now.

One other test of a good hypothesis is the extent to which predictions made based on the hypothesis are found consistent with the hypothesis. The original hypothesis by Cedric and Frank Garland was that solar UVB reduced cancer risk by stimulating production of vitamin D (1). Many studies since then have supported this hypothesis, including other ecological studies, observational studies, mechanism studies, two RCTs, and the consideration of black–white cancer disparities in the United States. Although not all studies support the hypothesis, enough do that it should be considered largely verified. In addition, design flaws often limited failed studies' ability to find beneficial effects of UVB or 25(OH)D concentration.

Conclusion

Evidence is abundant that UVB exposure, vitamin D intake, and 25(OH)D concentrations are inversely correlated with many cancers. The evidence is not perfect, and the findings of ostensibly similar studies do not always agree. However, when one considers the results as a whole, a much greater likelihood exists that UVB and vitamin D do reduce the risk of many cancers and increase survival rates once cancer is diagnosed. Health officials and medical systems will probably wait for more definitive vitamin D trials before recommending that people use vitamin D supplementation to reduce the risk of and treat cancer, in part because officials rely heavily on RCTs to make such decisions. However, on the basis of existing evidence, physicians and patients can add vitamin D supplementation to the other modalities used to prevent and treat cancer.

  • Received October 30, 2015.
  • Revision received December 14, 2015.
  • Accepted January 4, 2016.
  • Copyright© 2016 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Garland CF,
    2. Garland FC
    : Do sunlight and vitamin d reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol 9(3): 227-231, 1980.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Garland FC,
    2. Garland CF,
    3. Gorham ED,
    4. Young JF
    : Geographic variation in breast cancer mortality in the united states: A hypothesis involving exposure to solar radiation. Prev Med 19(6): 614-622, 1990.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Lefkowitz ES,
    2. Garland CF
    : Sunlight, vitamin d, and ovarian cancer mortality rates in us women. Int J Epidemiol 23(6): 1133-1136, 1994.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Schwartz GG,
    2. Hulka BS
    : Is vitamin d deficiency a risk factor for prostate cancer? (hypothesis). Anticancer Res 10(5A): 1307-1311, 1990.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : An estimate of premature cancer mortality in the u.S. Due to inadequate doses of solar ultraviolet-b radiation. Cancer 94(6): 1867-1875, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : Relation between prediagnostic serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d level and incidence of breast, colorectal, and other cancers. J Photochem Photobiol B 101(2): 130-136, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Robsahm TE,
    2. Schwartz GG,
    3. Tretli S
    : The inverse relationship between 25-hydroxyvitamin d and cancer survival: Discussion of causation. Cancers (Basel) 5(4): 1439-1455, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Li M,
    2. Chen P,
    3. Li J,
    4. Chu R,
    5. Xie D,
    6. Wang H
    : Review: The impacts of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin d levels on cancer patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99(7): 2327-2336, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Toriola AT,
    2. Nguyen N,
    3. Scheitler-Ring K,
    4. Colditz GA
    : Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin d levels and prognosis among cancer patients: A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 23(6): 917-933, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Lappe JM,
    2. Travers-Gustafson D,
    3. Davies KM,
    4. Recker RR,
    5. Heaney RP
    : Vitamin d and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: Results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr 85(6): 1586-1591, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Bolland MJ,
    2. Grey A,
    3. Gamble GD,
    4. Reid IR
    : Calcium and vitamin d supplements and health outcomes: A reanalysis of the women's health initiative (whi) limited-access data set. Am J Clin Nutr 94(4): 1144-1149, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Garland CF,
    2. Garland FC,
    3. Gorham ED,
    4. Lipkin M,
    5. Newmark H,
    6. Mohr SB,
    7. Holick MF
    : The role of vitamin d in cancer prevention. Am J Public Health 96(2): 252-261, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Garland CF,
    2. Gorham ED,
    3. Mohr SB,
    4. Garland FC
    : Vitamin d for cancer prevention: Global perspective. Ann Epidemiol 19(7): 468-483, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Moukayed M,
    2. Grant WB
    : Molecular link between vitamin d and cancer prevention. Nutrients 5(10): 3993-4021, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Chowdhury R,
    2. Kunutsor S,
    3. Vitezova A,
    4. Oliver-Williams C,
    5. Chowdhury S,
    6. Kiefte-de-Jong JC,
    7. Khan H,
    8. Baena CP,
    9. Prabhakaran D,
    10. Hoshen MB,
    11. Feldman BS,
    12. Pan A,
    13. Johnson L,
    14. Crowe F,
    15. Hu FB,
    16. Franco OH
    : Vitamin d and risk of cause specific death: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort and randomised intervention studies. BMJ 348: g1903, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Shui I,
    2. Giovannucci E
    : Vitamin d status and cancer incidence and mortality. Adv Exp Med Biol 810: 33-51, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Giammanco M,
    2. Di Majo D,
    3. La Guardia M,
    4. Aiello S,
    5. Crescimannno M,
    6. Flandina C,
    7. Tumminello FM,
    8. Leto G
    : Vitamin d in cancer chemoprevention. Pharm Biol 53(10): 1399-1434, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Grant WB
    : A multicountry ecological study of cancer incidence rates in 2008 with respect to various risk-modifying factors. Nutrients 6(1): 163-189, 2014.
    OpenUrl
    1. Hilger J,
    2. Friedel A,
    3. Herr R,
    4. Rausch T,
    5. Roos F,
    6. Wahl DA,
    7. Pierroz DD,
    8. Weber P,
    9. Hoffmann K
    : A systematic review of vitamin d status in populations worldwide. Br J Nutr 111(1): 23-45, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rebel H,
    2. der Spek CD,
    3. Salvatori D,
    4. van Leeuwen JP,
    5. Robanus-Maandag EC,
    6. de Gruijl FR
    : Uv exposure inhibits intestinal tumor growth and progression to malignancy in intestine-specific apc mutant mice kept on low vitamin d diet. Int J Cancer 136(2): 271-277, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : 25-hydroxyvitamin d and breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and colorectal adenomas: Case-control versus nested case-control studies. Anticancer Res 35(2): 1153-1160, 2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Autier P,
    2. Boniol M,
    3. Pizot C,
    4. Mullie P
    : Vitamin d status and ill health: A systematic review. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2(1): 76-89, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Wang D,
    2. Velez de-la-Paz OI,
    3. Zhai JX,
    4. Liu DW
    : Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d and breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Tumour Biol 34(6): 3509-3517, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : Effect of interval between serum draw and follow-up period on relative risk of cancer incidence with respect to 25-hydroxyvitamin d level: Implications for meta-analyses and setting vitamin d guidelines. Dermatoendocrinol 3(3): 199-204, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Kroll MH,
    2. Bi C,
    3. Garber CC,
    4. Kaufman HW,
    5. Liu D,
    6. Caston-Balderrama A,
    7. Zhang K,
    8. Clarke N,
    9. Xie M,
    10. Reitz RE,
    11. Suffin SC,
    12. Holick MF
    : Temporal relationship between vitamin d status and parathyroid hormone in the united states. PLoS One 10(3): e0118108, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Heaney RP
    : Guidelines for optimizing design and analysis of clinical studies of nutrient effects. Nutr Rev 72(1): 48-54, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Takahashi E
    : Stomach cancer and ecologic factors in japan. Tohoku J Exp Med 113(2): 129-133, 1974.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : How strong is the evidence that solar ultraviolet b and vitamin d reduce the risk of cancer? An examination using hill's criteria for causality. Dermato-Endocrinology 1(1): 14-21, 2009.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Grant WB,
    2. Garland CF
    : The association of solar ultraviolet b (uvb) with reducing risk of cancer: Multifactorial ecologic analysis of geographic variation in age-adjusted cancer mortality rates. Anticancer Res 26(4A): 2687-2699, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Boscoe FP,
    2. Schymura MJ
    : Solar ultraviolet-b exposure and cancer incidence and mortality in the united states, 1993-2002. BMC Cancer 6: 264, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Mizoue T
    : Ecological study of solar radiation and cancer mortality in japan. Health Phys 87(5): 532-538, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Chen W,
    2. Clements M,
    3. Rahman B,
    4. Zhang S,
    5. Qiao Y,
    6. Armstrong BK
    : Relationship between cancer mortality/incidence and ambient ultraviolet b irradiance in china. Cancer Causes Control 21(10): 1701-1709, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : An ecologic study of cancer mortality rates in spain with respect to indices of solar uvb irradiance and smoking. Int J Cancer 120(5): 1123-1128, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : An ecological study of cancer incidence and mortality rates in france with respect to latitude, an index for vitamin d production. Dermatoendocrinol 2(2): 62-67, 2010.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Astbury A
    : Cancer mortality, cosmic ray neutron dose, and summer solar UV-B flux share similar geographical distributions in the USA. Triumf report TRI-PP-05-24. June 2005.
  31. ↵
    1. Hughes AM,
    2. Armstrong BK,
    3. Vajdic CM,
    4. Turner J,
    5. Grulich AE,
    6. Fritschi L,
    7. Milliken S,
    8. Kaldor J,
    9. Benke G,
    10. Kricker A
    : Sun exposure may protect against non-hodgkin lymphoma: A case-control study. Int J Cancer 112(5): 865-871, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Tran B,
    2. Lucas R,
    3. Kimlin M,
    4. Whiteman D,
    5. Neale R
    : Association between ambient ultraviolet radiation and risk of esophageal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 107(12): 1803-1813, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Tran B,
    2. Jordan SJ,
    3. Lucas R,
    4. Webb PM,
    5. Neale R
    : Association between ambient ultraviolet radiation and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 5(11): 1330-1336, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Tran B,
    2. Whiteman DC,
    3. Webb PM,
    4. Fritschi L,
    5. Fawcett J,
    6. Risch HA,
    7. Lucas R,
    8. Pandeya N,
    9. Schulte A,
    10. Neale RE
    : Association between ultraviolet radiation, skin sun sensitivity and risk of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Epidemiol 37(6): 886-892, 2013.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Leffell DJ,
    2. Brash DE
    : Sunlight and skin cancer. Sci Am 275(1): 52-53, 56-59, 1996.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Xu Y,
    2. Shao X,
    3. Yao Y,
    4. Xu L,
    5. Chang L,
    6. Jiang Z,
    7. Lin Z
    : Positive association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin d levels and prostate cancer risk: New findings from an updated meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 140(9): 1465-1477, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Nair-Shalliker V,
    2. Armstrong BK,
    3. Fenech M
    : Does vitamin d protect against DNA damage? Mutat Res 733(1-2): 50-57, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Devesa SS,
    2. Grauman DJ,
    3. Blot WJ,
    4. Pennello GA,
    5. Hoover RN,
    6. Fraumenia JR Jr..,
    7. National Institute of Health
    : Atlas of cancer mortality in the united states, 1950-1994. NIH Publication No. 99-4564 (1999). Figures available at http:ratecalc.cancer.gor/ratecalc/archivedatlas/; http://ratecalc.cancer.gov/ Accessed January 9, 2016.
  39. ↵
    1. Murray CJ,
    2. Kulkarni SC,
    3. Michaud C,
    4. Tomijima N,
    5. Bulzacchelli MT,
    6. Iandiorio TJ,
    7. Ezzati M
    : Eight americas: Investigating mortality disparities across races, counties, and race-counties in the united states. PLoS Med 3(9): e260, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Chen W,
    2. Armstrong BK,
    3. Rahman B,
    4. Zheng R,
    5. Zhang S,
    6. Clements M
    : Relationship between cancer survival and ambient ultraviolet b irradiance in china. Cancer Causes Control 24(7): 1323-1330, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Gandini S,
    2. Boniol M,
    3. Haukka J,
    4. Byrnes G,
    5. Cox B,
    6. Sneyd MJ,
    7. Mullie P,
    8. Autier P
    : Meta-analysis of observational studies of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d levels and colorectal, breast and prostate cancer and colorectal adenoma. Int J Cancer 128(6): 1414-1424, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Helzlsouer KJ,
    2. Committee VS
    : Overview of the cohort consortium vitamin d pooling project of rarer cancers. Am J Epidemiol 172(1): 4-9, 2010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Chen GC,
    2. Zhang ZL,
    3. Wan Z,
    4. Wang L,
    5. Weber P,
    6. Eggersdorfer M,
    7. Qin LQ,
    8. Zhang W
    : Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin d and risk of lung cancer: A dose-response meta-analysis. Cancer Causes Control 26(12): 1719-1728, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Zhang L,
    2. Wang S,
    3. Che X,
    4. Li X
    : Vitamin d and lung cancer risk: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem 36(1): 299-305, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Tretli S,
    2. Schwartz GG,
    3. Torjesen PA,
    4. Robsahm TE
    : Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin d and survival in norwegian patients with cancer of breast, colon, lung, and lymphoma: A population-based study. Cancer Causes Control 23(2): 363-370, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : Effect of follow-up time on the relation between prediagnostic serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d and all-cause mortality rate. Dermatoendocrinol 4(2): 198-202, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Giovannucci E,
    2. Liu Y,
    3. Rimm EB,
    4. Hollis BW,
    5. Fuchs CS,
    6. Stampfer MJ,
    7. Willett WC
    : Prospective study of predictors of vitamin d status and cancer incidence and mortality in men. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(7): 451-459, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Wolpin BM,
    2. Ng K,
    3. Bao Y,
    4. Kraft P,
    5. Stampfer MJ,
    6. Michaud DS,
    7. Ma J,
    8. Buring JE,
    9. Sesso HD,
    10. Lee IM,
    11. Rifai N,
    12. Cochrane BB,
    13. Wactawski-Wende J,
    14. Chlebowski RT,
    15. Willett WC,
    16. Manson JE,
    17. Giovannucci EL,
    18. Fuchs CS
    : Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin d and risk of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21(1): 82-91, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Wong G,
    2. Lim WH,
    3. Lewis J,
    4. Craig JC,
    5. Turner R,
    6. Zhu K,
    7. Lim EM,
    8. Prince R
    : Vitamin d and cancer mortality in elderly women. BMC Cancer 15: 106, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Schottker B,
    2. Haug U,
    3. Schomburg L,
    4. Kohrle J,
    5. Perna L,
    6. Muller H,
    7. Holleczek B,
    8. Brenner H
    : Strong associations of 25-hydroxyvitamin d concentrations with all-cause, cardiovascular, cancer, and respiratory disease mortality in a large cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr 97(4): 782-793, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ,
    2. Vieth R,
    3. Azad A,
    4. Pietinen P,
    5. Taylor PR,
    6. Virtamo J,
    7. Albanes D
    : A prospective nested case-control study of vitamin d status and pancreatic cancer risk in male smokers. Cancer Res 66(20): 10213-10219, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ,
    2. Hayes RB,
    3. Horst RL,
    4. Anderson KE,
    5. Hollis BW,
    6. Silverman DT
    : Serum vitamin d and risk of pancreatic cancer in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian screening trial. Cancer Res 69(4): 1439-1447, 2009.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Weinstein SJ,
    2. Yu K,
    3. Horst RL,
    4. Ashby J,
    5. Virtamo J,
    6. Albanes D
    : Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d and risks of colon and rectal cancer in finnish men. Am J Epidemiol 173(5): 499-508, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. John EM,
    2. Koo J,
    3. Schwartz GG
    : Sun exposure and prostate cancer risk: Evidence for a protective effect of early-life exposure. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16(6): 1283-1286, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Anderson LN,
    2. Cotterchio M,
    3. Kirsh VA,
    4. Knight JA
    : Ultraviolet sunlight exposure during adolescence and adulthood and breast cancer risk: A population-based case-control study among ontario women. Am J Epidemiol 174(3): 293-304, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Yang L,
    2. Veierod MB,
    3. Lof M,
    4. Sandin S,
    5. Adami HO,
    6. Weiderpass E
    : Prospective study of uv exposure and cancer incidence among swedish women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20(7): 1358-1367, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Fuhrman BJ,
    2. Freedman DM,
    3. Bhatti P,
    4. Doody MM,
    5. Fu YP,
    6. Chang SC,
    7. Linet MS,
    8. Sigurdson AJ
    : Sunlight, polymorphisms of vitamin d-related genes and risk of breast cancer. Anticancer Res 33(2): 543-551, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Blackmore KM,
    2. Lesosky M,
    3. Barnett H,
    4. Raboud JM,
    5. Vieth R,
    6. Knight JA
    : Vitamin d from dietary intake and sunlight exposure and the risk of hormone-receptor-defined breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 168(8): 915-924, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    1. Engel P,
    2. Fagherazzi G,
    3. Mesrine S,
    4. Boutron-Ruault MC,
    5. Clavel-Chapelon F
    : Joint effects of dietary vitamin d and sun exposure on breast cancer risk: Results from the french e3n cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20(1): 187-198, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Kricker A,
    2. Armstrong BK,
    3. Hughes AM,
    4. Goumas C,
    5. Smedby KE,
    6. Zheng T,
    7. Spinelli JJ,
    8. De Sanjose S,
    9. Hartge P,
    10. Melbye M,
    11. Willett EV,
    12. Becker N,
    13. Chiu BC,
    14. Cerhan JR,
    15. Maynadie M,
    16. Staines A,
    17. Cocco P,
    18. Boffeta P
    : Personal sun exposure and risk of non hodgkin lymphoma: A pooled analysis from the interlymph consortium. Int J Cancer 122(1): 144-154, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Freedman DM,
    2. Kimlin MG,
    3. Hoffbeck RW,
    4. Alexander BH,
    5. Linet MS
    : Multiple indicators of ambient and personal ultraviolet radiation exposure and risk of non-hodgkin lymphoma (united states). J Photochem Photobiol B 101(3): 321-325, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chang ET,
    2. Canchola AJ,
    3. Cockburn M,
    4. Lu Y,
    5. Wang SS,
    6. Bernstein L,
    7. Clarke CA,
    8. Horn-Ross PL
    : Adulthood residential ultraviolet radiation, sun sensitivity, dietary vitamin d, and risk of lymphoid malignancies in the california teachers study. Blood 118(6): 1591-1599, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hughes AM,
    2. Lucas RM,
    3. Ponsonby AL,
    4. Chapman C,
    5. Coulthard A,
    6. Dear K,
    7. Dwyer T,
    8. Kilpatrick TJ,
    9. McMichael AJ,
    10. Pender MP,
    11. Taylor BV,
    12. Valery P,
    13. van der Mei IA,
    14. Williams D
    : The role of latitude, ultraviolet radiation exposure and vitamin d in childhood asthma and hayfever: An australian multicenter study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 22(3): 327-333, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kelly JL,
    2. Drake MT,
    3. Fredericksen ZS,
    4. Asmann YW,
    5. Liebow M,
    6. Shanafelt TD,
    7. Feldman AL,
    8. Ansell SM,
    9. Macon WR,
    10. Herr MM,
    11. Wang AH,
    12. Nowakowski GS,
    13. Call TG,
    14. Habermann TM,
    15. Slager SL,
    16. Witzig TE,
    17. Cerhan JR
    : Early life sun exposure, vitamin d-related gene variants, and risk of non-hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer Causes Control 23(7): 1017-1029, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Monnereau A,
    2. Glaser SL,
    3. Schupp CW,
    4. Ekstrom Smedby K,
    5. de Sanjose S,
    6. Kane E,
    7. Melbye M,
    8. Foretova L,
    9. Maynadie M,
    10. Staines A,
    11. Becker N,
    12. Nieters A,
    13. Brennan P,
    14. Boffetta P,
    15. Cocco P,
    16. Glimelius I,
    17. Clavel J,
    18. Hjalgrim H,
    19. Chang ET
    : Exposure to uv radiation and risk of hodgkin lymphoma: A pooled analysis. Blood 122(20): 3492-3499, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Epstein E,
    2. Lindqvist PG,
    3. Geppert B,
    4. Olsson H
    : A population-based cohort study on sun habits and endometrial cancer. Br J Cancer 101(3): 537-540, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Lu D,
    2. Chen J,
    3. Jin J
    : Vitamin d status and risk of non-hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis. Cancer Causes Control 25(11): 1553-1563, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Pukkala E,
    2. Martinsen JI,
    3. Lynge E,
    4. Gunnarsdottir HK,
    5. Sparen P,
    6. Tryggvadottir L,
    7. Weiderpass E,
    8. Kjaerheim K
    : Occupation and cancer - follow-up of 15 million people in five nordic countries. Acta Oncol 48(5): 646-790, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : Role of solar uvb irradiance and smoking in cancer as inferred from cancer incidence rates by occupation in nordic countries. Dermatoendocrinol 4(2): 203-211, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Friedenreich CM,
    2. Neilson HK,
    3. Lynch BM
    : State of the epidemiological evidence on physical activity and cancer prevention. Eur J Cancer 46(14): 2593-2604, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Howard RA,
    2. Freedman DM,
    3. Park Y,
    4. Hollenbeck A,
    5. Schatzkin A,
    6. Leitzmann MF
    : Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and the risk of colon and rectal cancer in the nih-aarp diet and health study. Cancer Causes Control 19(9): 939-953, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Cheng J,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Wang X,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Yan Z,
    6. Gong G,
    7. Li G,
    8. Li C
    : Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies of cigarette smoking and the incidence of colon and rectal cancers. Eur J Cancer Prev 24(1): 6-15, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Singh S,
    2. Devanna S,
    3. Edakkanambeth Varayil J,
    4. Murad MH,
    5. Iyer PG
    : Physical activity is associated with reduced risk of esophageal cancer, particularly esophageal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 14: 101, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Boyle T,
    2. Gallagher RP,
    3. Gascoyne RD,
    4. Connors JM,
    5. Le ND,
    6. Spinelli JJ
    : Lifetime physical activity and the risk of non-hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24(5): 873-877, 2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : Ultraviolet exposure and non-hodgkin's lymphoma: Beneficial and adverse effects? Cancer Causes Control 23(4): 653-655; author reply 657-658, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Wanner M,
    2. Richard A,
    3. Martin B,
    4. Linseisen J,
    5. Rohrmann S
    : Associations between objective and self-reported physical activity and vitamin d serum levels in the us population. Cancer Causes Control 26(6): 881-891, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Sahar L,
    3. Portier KM,
    4. Ward EM,
    5. Jemal A
    : Cancer death rates in us congressional districts. CA Cancer J Clin 65(5): 339-344, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Ginde AA,
    2. Liu MC,
    3. Camargo CA Jr..
    : Demographic differences and trends of vitamin d insufficiency in the us population, 1988-2004. Arch Intern Med 169(6): 626-632, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Grant WB,
    2. Peiris AN
    : Differences in vitamin d status may account for unexplained disparities in cancer survival rates between african and white americans. Dermatoendocrinol 4(2): 85-94, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Hypponen E,
    2. Power C
    : Hypovitaminosis d in british adults at age 45 y: Nationwide cohort study of dietary and lifestyle predictors. Am J Clin Nutr 85(3): 860-868, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    1. Robsahm TE,
    2. Tretli S,
    3. Dahlback A,
    4. Moan J
    : Vitamin d3 from sunlight may improve the prognosis of breast-, colon- and prostate cancer (norway). Cancer Causes Control 15(2): 149-158, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Porojnicu AC,
    2. Robsahm TE,
    3. Ree AH,
    4. Moan J
    : Season of diagnosis is a prognostic factor in hodgkin's lymphoma: A possible role of sun-induced vitamin d. Br J Cancer 93(5): 571-574, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Lim HS,
    2. Roychoudhuri R,
    3. Peto J,
    4. Schwartz G,
    5. Baade P,
    6. Moller H
    : Cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure. Int J Cancer 119: 1530-1536, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Porojnicu A,
    2. Robsahm TE,
    3. Berg JP,
    4. Moan J
    : Season of diagnosis is a predictor of cancer survival. Sun-induced vitamin d may be involved: A possible role of sun-induced vitamin d. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 103(3-5): 675-678, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Liu XH,
    2. Man YN,
    3. Wu XZ
    : Recurrence season impacts the survival of epithelial ovarian cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15(4): 1627-1632, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Hakko H,
    2. Rasanen P,
    3. Niemela A,
    4. Koivukangas J,
    5. Mainio A
    : Season of tumor surgery in relation to deaths among brain tumor patients: Does sunlight and month of surgery play a role in brain tumor deaths? Acta Neurochir (Wien) 151(11): 1369-1375, 2009.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Tampellini M,
    2. Polverari RS,
    3. Ottone A,
    4. Alabiso I,
    5. Baratelli C,
    6. Bitossi R,
    7. Brizzi MP,
    8. Leone F,
    9. Forti L,
    10. Bertona E,
    11. Racca P,
    12. Mecca C,
    13. Alabiso O,
    14. Aglietta M,
    15. Berruti A,
    16. Scagliotti GV
    : Circannual variation of efficacy outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer and treated with first-line chemotherapy. Chronobiol Int 32(10): 1359-1366, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Zgaga L,
    2. Theodoratou E,
    3. Farrington SM,
    4. Din FV,
    5. Ooi LY,
    6. Glodzik D,
    7. Johnston S,
    8. Tenesa A,
    9. Campbell H,
    10. Dunlop MG
    : Plasma vitamin d concentration influences survival outcome after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 32(23): 2430-2439, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. ↵
    1. Dopico XC,
    2. Evangelou M,
    3. Ferreira RC,
    4. Guo H,
    5. Pekalski ML,
    6. Smyth DJ,
    7. Cooper N,
    8. Burren OS,
    9. Fulford AJ,
    10. Hennig BJ,
    11. Prentice AM,
    12. Ziegler AG,
    13. Bonifacio E,
    14. Wallace C,
    15. Todd JA
    : Widespread seasonal gene expression reveals annual differences in human immunity and physiology. Nat Commun 6: 7000, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Charehbili A,
    2. Hamdy NA,
    3. Smit VT,
    4. Kessels L,
    5. van Bochove A,
    6. van Laarhoven HW,
    7. Putter H,
    8. Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg E,
    9. van Leeuwen-Stok AE,
    10. van der Hoeven JJ,
    11. van de Velde CJ,
    12. Nortier JW,
    13. Kroep JR,
    14. Dutch Breast Cancer Research G
    : Vitamin d (25-0h d3) status and pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage ii/iii breast cancer: Data from the neozotac trial (boog 10-01). Breast, 2015.
  85. ↵
    1. Cannell JJ,
    2. Grant WB,
    3. Holick MF
    : Vitamin d and inflammation. Dermatoendocrinol 6(1): e983401, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Kim Y,
    2. Franke AA,
    3. Shvetsov YB,
    4. Wilkens LR,
    5. Cooney RV,
    6. Lurie G,
    7. Maskarinec G,
    8. Hernandez BY,
    9. Le Marchand L,
    10. Henderson BE,
    11. Kolonel LN,
    12. Goodman MT
    : Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin d3 is associated with decreased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in whites: A nested case-control study in the multiethnic cohort study. BMC Cancer 14: 29, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mohr SB,
    2. Gorham ED,
    3. Alcaraz JE,
    4. Kane CJ,
    5. Macera CA,
    6. Parsons JK,
    7. Wingard DL,
    8. Garland CF
    : Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d and prevention of breast cancer: Pooled analysis. Anticancer Res 31(9): 2939-2948, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Mohr SB,
    2. Gorham ED,
    3. Kim J,
    4. Hofflich H,
    5. Cuomo RE,
    6. Garland CF
    : Could vitamin d sufficiency improve the survival of colorectal cancer patients? J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 148: 239-244, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Wang W,
    2. Li G,
    3. He X,
    4. Gao J,
    5. Wang R,
    6. Wang Y,
    7. Zhao W
    : Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d levels and prognosis in hematological malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem 35(5): 1999-2005, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Ren C,
    2. Qiu MZ,
    3. Wang DS,
    4. Luo HY,
    5. Zhang DS,
    6. Wang ZQ,
    7. Wang FH,
    8. Li YH,
    9. Zhou ZW,
    10. Xu RH
    : Prognostic effects of 25-hydroxyvitamin d levels in gastric cancer. J Transl Med 10: 16, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Meyer F,
    2. Liu G,
    3. Douville P,
    4. Samson E,
    5. Xu W,
    6. Adjei A,
    7. Bairati I
    : Dietary vitamin d intake and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d level in relation to disease outcomes in head and neck cancer patients. Int J Cancer 128(7): 1741-1746, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Gugatschka M,
    2. Kiesler K,
    3. Obermayer-Pietsch B,
    4. Groselj-Strele A,
    5. Griesbacher A,
    6. Friedrich G
    : Vitamin d status is associated with disease-free survival and overall survival time in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268(8): 1201-1204, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Bade B,
    2. Zdebik A,
    3. Wagenpfeil S,
    4. Graber S,
    5. Geisel J,
    6. Vogt T,
    7. Reichrath J
    : Low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d concentrations are associated with increased risk for melanoma and unfavourable prognosis. PLoS One 9(12): e112863, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Webb PM,
    2. de Fazio A,
    3. Protani MM,
    4. Ibiebele TI,
    5. Nagle CM,
    6. Brand AH,
    7. Blomfield PI,
    8. Grant P,
    9. Perrin LC,
    10. Neale RE,
    11. Australian Ovarian Cancer Study G
    : Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin d and survival in women with ovarian cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 102(1): 109-114, 2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. ↵
    1. Muller DC,
    2. Scelo G,
    3. Zaridze D,
    4. Janout V,
    5. Holcatova I,
    6. Navratilova M,
    7. Mates D,
    8. Midttun O,
    9. Ueland PM,
    10. Brennan P,
    11. Johansson M
    : Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin d3 and survival after diagnosis with kidney cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24(8): 1277-1281, 2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Wesa KM,
    2. Segal NH,
    3. Cronin AM,
    4. Sjoberg DD,
    5. Jacobs GN,
    6. Coleton MI,
    7. Fleisher M,
    8. Dnistrian AM,
    9. Saltz LB,
    10. Cassileth BR
    : Serum 25-hydroxy vitamin d and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: A retrospective analysis. Nutr Cancer 67(3): 424-430, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Fedirko V,
    2. Torres-Mejia G,
    3. Ortega-Olvera C,
    4. Biessy C,
    5. Angeles-Llerenas A,
    6. Lazcano-Ponce E,
    7. Saldana-Quiroz VA,
    8. Romieu I
    : Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d and risk of breast cancer: Results of a large population-based case-control study in mexican women. Cancer Causes Control 23(7): 1149-1162, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Newton-Bishop JA,
    2. Beswick S,
    3. Randerson-Moor J,
    4. Chang YM,
    5. Affleck P,
    6. Elliott F,
    7. Chan M,
    8. Leake S,
    9. Karpavicius B,
    10. Haynes S,
    11. Kukalizch K,
    12. Whitaker L,
    13. Jackson S,
    14. Gerry E,
    15. Nolan C,
    16. Bertram C,
    17. Marsden J,
    18. Elder DE,
    19. Barrett JH,
    20. Bishop DT
    : Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d3 levels are associated with breslow thickness at presentation and survival from melanoma. J Clin Oncol 27(32): 5439-5444, 2009.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Fang F,
    2. Kasperzyk JL,
    3. Shui I,
    4. Hendrickson W,
    5. Hollis BW,
    6. Fall K,
    7. Ma J,
    8. Gaziano JM,
    9. Stampfer MJ,
    10. Mucci LA,
    11. Giovannucci E
    : Prediagnostic plasma vitamin d metabolites and mortality among patients with prostate cancer. PLoS One 6(4): e18625, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Muller DC,
    2. Fanidi A,
    3. Midttun O,
    4. Steffen A,
    5. Dossus L,
    6. Boutron-Ruault MC,
    7. Severi G,
    8. Kuhn T,
    9. Katzke V,
    10. de la Torre RA,
    11. Gonzalez CA,
    12. Sanchez MJ,
    13. Dorronsoro M,
    14. Santiuste C,
    15. Barricarte A,
    16. Khaw KT,
    17. Wareham N,
    18. Travis RC,
    19. Trichopoulou A,
    20. Giotaki M,
    21. Trichopoulos D,
    22. Palli D,
    23. Krogh V,
    24. Tumino R,
    25. Vineis P,
    26. Panico S,
    27. Tjonneland A,
    28. Olsen A,
    29. Bueno-de-Mesquita HB,
    30. Peeters PH,
    31. Ljungberg B,
    32. Wennberg M,
    33. Weiderpass E,
    34. Murphy N,
    35. Riboli E,
    36. Ueland PM,
    37. Boeing H,
    38. Brennan P,
    39. Johansson M
    : Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin d3 in relation to renal cell carcinoma incidence and survival in the epic cohort. Am J Epidemiol 180(8): 810-820, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    1. Mursu J,
    2. Nurmi T,
    3. Voutilainen S,
    4. Tuomainen TP,
    5. Virtanen JK
    : The association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d3 concentration and risk of disease death in men: Modification by magnesium intake. Eur J Epidemiol 30(4): 343-347, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Obermannova R,
    2. Dusek L,
    3. Greplova K,
    4. Jarkovsky J,
    5. Sterba J,
    6. Vyzula R,
    7. Demlova R,
    8. Zdrazilova-Dubska L,
    9. Valik D
    : Time-course pattern of blood 25-hydroxycholecalciferol is a significant predictor of survival outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer: A clinical practice-based study. Neoplasma 62(6): 958-965, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Gocek E,
    2. Studzinski GP
    : Vitamin d and differentiation in cancer. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 46(4): 190-209, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Stubbins RE,
    2. Hakeem A,
    3. Nunez NP
    : Using components of the vitamin d pathway to prevent and treat colon cancer. Nutr Rev 70(12): 721-729, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Guo J,
    2. Ma Z,
    3. Ma Q,
    4. Wu Z,
    5. Fan P,
    6. Zhou X,
    7. Chen L,
    8. Zhou S,
    9. Goltzman D,
    10. Miao D,
    11. Wu E
    : 1, 25(oh)(2)d(3) inhibits hepatocellular carcinoma development through reducing secretion of inflammatory cytokines from immunocytes. Curr Med Chem 20(33): 4131-4141, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Nakagawa K,
    2. Kawaura A,
    3. Kato S,
    4. Takeda E,
    5. Okano T
    : 1 alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin d(3) is a preventive factor in the metastasis of lung cancer. Carcinogenesis 26(2): 429-440, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Halder SK,
    2. Osteen KG,
    3. Al-Hendy A
    : Vitamin d3 inhibits expression and activities of matrix metalloproteinase-2 and -9 in human uterine fibroid cells. Hum Reprod 28(9): 2407-2416, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Prevarskaya N,
    2. Skryma R,
    3. Shuba Y
    : Calcium in tumour metastasis: New roles for known actors. Nat Rev Cancer 11(8): 609-618, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Berridge MJ
    : Vitamin d cell signalling in health and disease. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 460(1): 53-71, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Raimondi S,
    2. Pasquali E,
    3. Gnagnarella P,
    4. Serrano D,
    5. Disalvatore D,
    6. Johansson HA,
    7. Gandini S
    : Bsmi polymorphism of vitamin d receptor gene and cancer risk: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Mutat Res 769: 17-34, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Gnagnarella P,
    2. Pasquali E,
    3. Serrano D,
    4. Raimondi S,
    5. Disalvatore D,
    6. Gandini S
    : Vitamin d receptor polymorphism foki and cancer risk: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Carcinogenesis 35(9): 1913-1919, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. ↵
    1. Serrano D,
    2. Gnagnarella P,
    3. Raimondi S,
    4. Gandini S
    : Meta-analysis on vitamin d receptor and cancer risk: Focus on the role of taqi, apai, and cdx2 polymorphisms. Eur J Cancer Prev 25(1): 85-96, 2016.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Zehnder D,
    2. Bland R,
    3. Williams MC,
    4. McNinch RW,
    5. Howie AJ,
    6. Stewart PM,
    7. Hewison M
    : Extrarenal expression of 25-hydroxyvitamin d(3)-1 alpha-hydroxylase. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86(2): 888-894, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Baggerly CA,
    2. Cuomo RE,
    3. French CB,
    4. Garland CF,
    5. Gorham ED,
    6. Grant WB,
    7. Heaney RP,
    8. Holick MF,
    9. Hollis BW,
    10. McDonnell SL,
    11. Pittaway M,
    12. Seaton P,
    13. Wagner CL,
    14. Wunsch A
    : Sunlight and vitamin d: Necessary for public health. J Am Coll Nutr 34(4): 359-365, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  98. ↵
    1. Tisdale MJ
    : Mechanisms of cancer cachexia. Physiol Rev 89(2): 381-410, 2009.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. ↵
    1. Fearon KC
    : Cancer cachexia: Developing multimodal therapy for a multidimensional problem. Eur J Cancer 44(8): 1124-1132, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Camacho DF,
    2. Pienta KJ
    : Disrupting the networks of cancer. Clin Cancer Res 18(10): 2801-2808, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  101. ↵
    1. Guillot X,
    2. Semerano L,
    3. Saidenberg-Kermanac'h N,
    4. Falgarone G,
    5. Boissier MC
    : Vitamin d and inflammation. Joint Bone Spine 77(6): 552-557, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Polly P,
    2. Tan TC
    : The role of vitamin d in skeletal and cardiac muscle function. Front Physiol 5: 145, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Hopkins MH,
    2. Owen J,
    3. Ahearn T,
    4. Fedirko V,
    5. Flanders WD,
    6. Jones DP,
    7. Bostick RM
    : Effects of supplemental vitamin d and calcium on biomarkers of inflammation in colorectal adenoma patients: A randomized, controlled clinical trial. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 4(10): 1645-1654, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  104. ↵
    1. Marshall DT,
    2. Savage SJ,
    3. Garrett-Mayer E,
    4. Keane TE,
    5. Hollis BW,
    6. Horst RL,
    7. Ambrose LH,
    8. Kindy MS,
    9. Gattoni-Celli S
    : Vitamin d3 supplementation at 4000 international units per day for one year results in a decrease of positive cores at repeat biopsy in subjects with low-risk prostate cancer under active surveillance. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97(7): 2315-2324, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Ng K,
    2. Scott JB,
    3. Drake BF,
    4. Chan AT,
    5. Hollis BW,
    6. Chandler PD,
    7. Bennett GG,
    8. Giovannucci EL,
    9. Gonzalez-Suarez E,
    10. Meyerhardt JA,
    11. Emmons KM,
    12. Fuchs CS
    : Dose response to vitamin d supplementation in african americans: Results of a 4-arm, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 99(3): 587-598, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  106. ↵
    1. Poole EM,
    2. Shu X,
    3. Caan BJ,
    4. Flatt SW,
    5. Holmes MD,
    6. Lu W,
    7. Kwan ML,
    8. Nechuta SJ,
    9. Pierce JP,
    10. Chen WY
    : Postdiagnosis supplement use and breast cancer prognosis in the after breast cancer pooling project. Breast Cancer Res Treat 139(2): 529-537, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Zeichner SB,
    2. Koru-Sengul T,
    3. Shah N,
    4. Liu Q,
    5. Markward NJ,
    6. Montero AJ,
    7. Gluck S,
    8. Silva O,
    9. Ahn ER
    : Improved clinical outcomes associated with vitamin d supplementation during adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with her2+ nonmetastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 15(1): e1-11, 2015.
    OpenUrl
  108. ↵
    1. Tomiska M,
    2. Novotna S,
    3. Klvacova L,
    4. Tumova J,
    5. Janikova A
    : Vitamin d during cancer treatment. Klin Onkol 28(2): 99-104, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Wang L,
    2. Song Y,
    3. Manson JE,
    4. Pilz S,
    5. Marz W,
    6. Michaelsson K,
    7. Lundqvist A,
    8. Jassal SK,
    9. Barrett-Connor E,
    10. Zhang C,
    11. Eaton CB,
    12. May HT,
    13. Anderson JL,
    14. Sesso HD
    : Circulating 25-hydroxy-vitamin d and risk of cardiovascular disease: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 5(6): 819-829, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. ↵
    1. Song Y,
    2. Wang L,
    3. Pittas AG,
    4. Del Gobbo LC,
    5. Zhang C,
    6. Manson JE,
    7. Hu FB
    : Blood 25-hydroxy vitamin d levels and incident type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Diabetes Care 36(5): 1422-1428, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  111. ↵
    1. Garland CF,
    2. Kim JJ,
    3. Mohr SB,
    4. Gorham ED,
    5. Grant WB,
    6. Giovannucci EL,
    7. Baggerly L,
    8. Hofflich H,
    9. Ramsdell JW,
    10. Zeng K,
    11. Heaney RP
    : Meta-analysis of all-cause mortality according to serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d. Am J Public Health 104(8): e43-50, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  112. ↵
    1. Grober U,
    2. Spitz J,
    3. Reichrath J,
    4. Kisters K,
    5. Holick MF
    : Vitamin d: Update 2013: From rickets prophylaxis to general preventive healthcare. Dermatoendocrinol 5(3): 331-347, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hossein-nezhad A,
    2. Holick MF
    : Vitamin d for health: A global perspective. Mayo Clin Proc 88(7): 720-755, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Pludowski P,
    2. Holick MF,
    3. Pilz S,
    4. Wagner CL,
    5. Hollis BW,
    6. Grant WB,
    7. Shoenfeld Y,
    8. Lerchbaum E,
    9. Llewellyn DJ,
    10. Kienreich K,
    11. Soni M
    : Vitamin d effects on musculoskeletal health, immunity, autoimmunity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, fertility, pregnancy, dementia and mortality-a review of recent evidence. Autoimmun Rev 12(10): 976-989, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. ↵
    1. Lewis C,
    2. Xun P,
    3. He K
    : Vitamin d supplementation and quality of life following diagnosis in stage ii colorectal cancer patients: A 24-month prospective study. Support Care Cancer, 2015.
  115. ↵
    1. Soki FN,
    2. Park SI,
    3. McCauley LK
    : The multifaceted actions of pthrp in skeletal metastasis. Future Oncol 8(7): 803-817, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  116. ↵
    1. Erdogan B,
    2. Cicin I
    : Medical treatment of breast cancer bone metastasis: From bisphosphonates to targeted drugs. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15(4): 1503-1510, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Amir E,
    2. Simmons CE,
    3. Freedman OC,
    4. Dranitsaris G,
    5. Cole DE,
    6. Vieth R,
    7. Ooi WS,
    8. Clemons M
    : A phase 2 trial exploring the effects of high-dose (10,000 iu/day) vitamin d(3) in breast cancer patients with bone metastases. Cancer 116(2): 284-291, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. ↵
    1. Hewison M,
    2. Kantorovich V,
    3. Liker HR,
    4. Van Herle AJ,
    5. Cohan P,
    6. Zehnder D,
    7. Adams JS
    : Vitamin d-mediated hypercalcemia in lymphoma: Evidence for hormone production by tumor-adjacent macrophages. J Bone Miner Res 18(3): 579-582, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. ↵
    1. Hill AB
    : The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58: 295-300, 1965.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  120. ↵
    1. Potischman N,
    2. Weed DL
    : Causal criteria in nutritional epidemiology. Am J Clin Nutr 69(6): 1309S-1314S, 1999.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  121. ↵
    1. Grant WB
    : How strong is the evidence that solar ultraviolet b and vitamin d reduce the risk of cancer?: An examination using hill's criteria for causality. Dermatoendocrinol 1(1): 17-24, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. ↵
    1. Mohr SB,
    2. Gorham ED,
    3. Alcaraz JE,
    4. Kane CI,
    5. Macera CA,
    6. Parsons JK,
    7. Wingard DL,
    8. Garland CF
    : Does the evidence for an inverse relationship between serum vitamin d status and breast cancer risk satisfy the hill criteria? Dermatoendocrinol 4(2): 152-157, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 36 (3)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 36, Issue 3
March 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Roles of Solar UVB and Vitamin D in Reducing Cancer Risk and Increasing Survival
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Roles of Solar UVB and Vitamin D in Reducing Cancer Risk and Increasing Survival
WILLIAM B. GRANT
Anticancer Research Mar 2016, 36 (3) 1357-1370;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Roles of Solar UVB and Vitamin D in Reducing Cancer Risk and Increasing Survival
WILLIAM B. GRANT
Anticancer Research Mar 2016, 36 (3) 1357-1370;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Types of Studies
    • Cancer Survival
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Relevance of Vitamin D in Melanoma Development, Progression and Therapy
  • A Review of the Evidence Supporting the Vitamin D-Cancer Prevention Hypothesis in 2017
  • Biologic Effects of Light: An Enlighting Prospective
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM “BIOLOGIC EFFECTS OF LIGHT” (Homburg/Saar, Germany)

  • Biologic Effects of Light: An Enlighting Prospective
  • Human Pigmentation, Cutaneous Vitamin D Synthesis and Evolution: Variants of Genes (SNPs) Involved in Skin Pigmentation Are Associated with 25(OH)D Serum Concentration
  • Extracorporeal Photopheresis for Non-skin GvHD
Show more PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM “BIOLOGIC EFFECTS OF LIGHT” (Homburg/Saar, Germany)

Review

  • Intramedullary Spinal Cord Metastases from Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
  • The Latest Treatments for Cancer Cachexia: An Overview
  • Transglutaminase-4 (Prostate Transglutaminase), a Potential Biological Factor and Clinical Indicator for the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer
Show more Review

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Ultraviolet-B
  • UVB
  • vitamin D
  • 25-hydroxyvitamin D
  • survival
  • review
Anticancer Research

© 2023 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire