The impact of vitamin D pathway genetic variation and circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D on cancer outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis
Vaughan-Shaw PG, O'Sullivan F, Farrington SM, Theodoratou E, Campbell H, Dunlop MG, Zgaga L
British journal of cancer · 124 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Nonprofit
- Cancer Research UK
- Government
- Medical Research Council
- Grants
- Medical Research Council (MR/M004007/1); Cancer Research UK (18927); Cancer Research UK (12076); Medical Research Council (MR/K018647/1)
Based on 2 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2017-03-16 · Br J Cancer · vol. 116 · issue 8 · pp. 1092–1110
- Publisher
- Springer Nature
- Cited
- 165 citations · more than 96% of similar papers · 4.1× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 140 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Vitamin D Research Studies · Vitamin C and Antioxidants Research · Biotin and Related Studies
- Keywords
- FokI, Calcitriol receptor, Vitamin D and neurology, Meta-analysis, Internal medicine, Medicine, Hazard ratio, Context (archaeology), Oncology, Cancer, vitamin D deficiency, Bioinformatics, Genotype, Gastroenterology, Biology, Genetics, Confidence interval, Polymorphism (computer science), Gene
- MeSH
- humans, neoplasms, genetic predisposition to disease, vitamin d, receptors, calcitriol, prognosis, genetic variation
7 authors
From GB, IE
- Peter G Vaughan-ShawInstitute of Genetics and Cancer; University of Edinburgh
- Fiona O’SullivanTrinity College Dublin
- Susan Mary FarringtonInstitute of Genetics and Cancer; University of Edinburgh
- Evropi ΤheodoratouGlasgow Centre for Population Health; Institute of Genetics and Cancer; University of Edinburgh
- Harry CampbellGlasgow Centre for Population Health; Institute of Genetics and Cancer; University of Edinburgh
- Malcolm G. DunlopInstitute of Genetics and Cancer; University of Edinburgh
Abstract
Background
Vitamin D has been linked with improved cancer outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the relationship between cancer outcomes and both vitamin D-related genetic variation and circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) concentration.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis of papers until November 2016 on PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science pertaining to association between circulating vitamin D level, functionally relevant vitamin D receptor genetic variants and variants within vitamin D pathway genes and cancer survival or disease progression was performed.
Results
A total of 44 165 cases from 64 studies were included in meta-analyses. Higher 25OHD was associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio (HR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.66-0.82) and progression-free survival (HR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.77-0.91). The rs1544410 (BsmI) variant was associated with overall survival (HR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.05-1.75) and rs7975232 (ApaI) with progression-free survival (HR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.02-1.56). The rs2228570 (FokI) variant was associated with overall survival in lung cancer patients (HR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.0-1.57), with a suggestive association across all cancers (HR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.96-1.56).
Conclusions
Higher 25OHD concentration is associated with better cancer outcome, and the observed association of functional variants in vitamin D pathway genes with outcome supports a causal link. This analysis provides powerful background rationale to instigate clinical trials to investigate the potential beneficial effect of vitamin D in the context of stratification by genotype.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.