JBMR Plus (Jan 2021)

Vitamin D and Clinical Cancer Outcomes: A Review of Meta‐Analyses

  • John D Sluyter,
  • JoAnn E Manson,
  • Robert Scragg

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm4.10420
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 5, no. 1
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

ABSTRACT The relationship between vitamin D status or supplementation and cancer outcomes has been examined in several meta‐analyses. To address remaining knowledge gaps, we conducted a systematic overview and critical appraisal of pertinent meta‐analyses. For meta‐analyses of trials, we assessed their quality using AMSTAR‐2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews), strength of associations using umbrella review methodology and credibility of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria. Meta‐analyses of observational studies reported inverse associations of 25OHD with risk of cancer incidence and cancer mortality and, particularly for colorectal cancer, fulfilled some of Bradford‐Hill's causation criteria. In meta‐analyses of trials, vitamin D supplementation did not affect cancer incidence. However, we found credible evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduced total cancer mortality risk, with five out of six meta‐analyses reporting a relative risk (RR) reduction of up to 16%: RR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74–0.95). The strength of the association, however, was classified as weak. This was true among meta‐analyses of high, moderate, and lower quality (AMSTAR‐2–rated). Trials did not include large numbers of vitamin D‐deficient participants; many tested relatively low doses and lacked sufficiently powered data on site‐specific cancers. In conclusion, meta‐analyses show that, although observational evidence indicates that low vitamin D status is associated with a higher risk of cancer outcomes, randomized trials show that vitamin D supplementation reduces total cancer mortality, but not cancer incidence. However, trials with larger proportions of vitamin D‐insufficient participants and longer durations of follow‐up, plus adequately powered data on site‐specific common cancers, would provide further insight into the evidence base. © 2020 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Keywords