Systematic review2023Open access

Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review of Mendelian Randomization Studies

Lawler T, Warren Andersen S

Nutrients · 48 citations

How it was studied

Design
Systematic review (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Clinical events such as disease or death

Who paid for it

Funding
Independent funding
Government
National Institutes of Health
Government
Medical Research Council
Government
National Cancer Institute
Government
National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [NIH/NCI]
Government
NCI NIH HHS
Grants
National Cancer Institute (R00CA207848); Medical Research Council (MC_PC_17228); National Institutes of Health (R00 CA207848)

Based on 5 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2023-01-13 · Nutrients · vol. 15 · issue 2 · p. 422
Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Cited
59 citations · more than 97% of similar papers · 4.1× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
93 works
Access
Open access (journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Vitamin D Research Studies · Bone health and osteoporosis research · Folate and B Vitamins Research
Keywords
Mendelian randomization, Medicine, Internal medicine, Oncology, Cancer, Prostate cancer, Odds ratio, Breast cancer, Colorectal cancer, Gynecology, Biology
MeSH
humans, colorectal neoplasms, ovarian neoplasms, lung neoplasms, calcifediol, vitamin d, risk factors, polymorphism, single nucleotide, female, male, mendelian randomization analysis

2 authors

From US

  • Thomas P. LawlerUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison; University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center
  • Shaneda Warren Andersen · correspondingUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison; University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center

Abstract

Epidemiological studies suggest that higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D is associated with lower risk for several cancers, including breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers. To mitigate confounding, genetic instrumental variables (IVs) have been used to estimate causal associations between 25-hydroxivtamin D and cancer risk via Mendelian randomization (MR). We provide a systematic review of 31 MR studies concerning 25-hydroxyvitamin D and cancer incidence and mortality identified from biomedical databases. MR analyses were conducted almost exclusively in European-ancestry populations and identified no statistically significant associations between higher genetically predicted 25-hydroxyvitamin D and lower risk for total cancer or colorectal, breast, prostate, lung, or pancreatic cancers. In recent studies including ≥80 genetic IVs for 25-hydroxyvitamin D, null associations were reported for total cancer (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] per 1-standard deviation increase: 0.98 [0.93-1.04]), breast (1.00 [0.98-1.02]), colorectal (0.97 [0.88-1.07]), prostate (0.99 [0.98-1.01]), and lung cancer (1.00 [0.93-1.03]). A protective association was observed for ovarian cancer in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (0.78 [0.63-0.96] per 20 nmol/L increase, p-trend = 0.03), but not in the UK Biobank (1.10 [0.80-1.51]). Null associations were reported for other tumor sites (bladder, endometrium, uterus, esophagus, oral cavity and pharynx, kidney, liver, thyroid, or neural cells). An inconsistent protective association for cancer-specific mortality was also observed. Results from MR analyses do not support causal associations between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk for cancer incidence or mortality. Studies including non-White populations may be valuable to understand low 25-hydroxyvitamin D as a modifiable risk factor in populations with a higher risk of common cancers, including African ancestry individuals.

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?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something 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 in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.