For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
26
views
192
references
 Top references
cited by
6
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      1,409
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Vitamin D, Sunlight and Prostate Cancer Risk

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Prostate cancer is the second common cancer in men worldwide. The prevention of prostate cancer remains a challenge to researchers and clinicians. Here, we review the relationship of vitamin D and sunlight to prostate cancer risk. Ultraviolet radiation of the sunlight is the main stimulator for vitamin D production in humans. Vitamin D's antiprostate cancer activities may be involved in the actions through the pathways mediated by vitamin D metabolites, vitamin D metabolizing enzymes, vitamin D receptor (VDR), and VDR-regulated genes. Although laboratory studies including the use of animal models have shown that vitamin D has antiprostate cancer properties, whether it can effectively prevent the development and/or progression of prostate cancer in humans remains to be inconclusive and an intensively studied subject. This review will provide up-to-date information regarding the recent outcomes of laboratory and epidemiology studies on the effects of vitamin D on prostate cancer prevention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references192

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Genetics and biology of vitamin D receptor polymorphisms.

          André G. Uitterlinden, Yue Fang, Joyce B J van Meurs … (2004)
          The vitamin D endocrine system is involved in a wide variety of biological processes including bone metabolism, modulation of the immune response, and regulation of cell proliferation and differentiation. Variations in this endocrine system have, thus, been linked to several common diseases, including osteoarthritis (OA), diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and tuberculosis. Evidence to support this pleiotropic character of vitamin D has included epidemiological studies on circulating vitamin D hormone levels, but also genetic epidemiological studies. Genetic studies provide excellent opportunities to link molecular insights with epidemiological data and have therefore gained much interest. DNA sequence variations, which occur frequently in the population, are referred to as "polymorphisms" and can have modest and subtle but true biological effects. Their abundance in the human genome as well as their high frequencies in the human population have made them targets to explain variation in risk of common diseases. Recent studies have indicated many polymorphisms to exist in the vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene, but the influence of VDR gene polymorphisms on VDR protein function and signaling is largely unknown. So far, three adjacent restriction fragment length polymorphisms for BsmI, ApaI, and TaqI, respectively, at the 3' end of the VDR gene have been the most frequently studied. Because these polymorphisms are probably nonfunctional, linkage disequilibrium with one or more truly functional polymorphisms elsewhere in the VDR gene is assumed to explain the associations observed. Research is therefore focussed on documenting additional polymorphisms across the VDR gene to verify this hypothesis and on trying to understand the functional consequences of the variations. Substantial progress has been made that will deepen our understanding of variability in the vitamin D endocrine system and might find applications in risk assessment of disease and in predicting response-to-treatment.
          Article 0 comments Cited 372 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of observational studies of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and colorectal, breast and prostate cancer and colorectal adenoma.

            Sara Gandini, Mary Jane Sneyd, Philippe Autier … (2011)
            Epidemiological studies have suggested a reduced risk of several cancers associated with high vitamin D status. We performed a systematic review with meta-analyses of observational studies of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and colorectal, breast and prostate cancer and colonic adenoma. The literature of December 2009 was searched without language restriction. The meta-regression analysis was done to compute dose-response effects. Because in case-control studies, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level is measured after the diagnosis of cancer, separate analyses for case-control and prospective studies were done. We identified 35 independent studies. The seven studies on colorectal adenomas were heterogeneous in terms of endpoint and control for major confounding factors, and we did not perform a meta-analysis of these data. The summary relative risk (SRR) and (95% confidence interval) for a 10 ng/ml increase in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 0.85 (0.79; 0.91) for colorectal cancer (2,630 cases in 9 studies); 0.89 (0.81;0.98) for breast cancer (6,175 cases in 10 studies); and 0.99 (0.95;1.03) for prostate cancer (3,956 cases in 11 studies). For breast cancer, case-control studies (3,030 cases) had major limitations and obtained SRR of 0.83 (0.79; 0.87) whereas SRR of prospective studies (3,145 cases) was 0.97 (0.92; 1.03). For colorectal and breast cancer, differences between cases and controls in the season of blood draw or in overweight/obesity or physical inactivity could not explain the results. In conclusion, a consistent inverse relationship between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and colorectal cancer was found. No association was found for breast and prostate cancer. Copyright © 2010 UICC.
            Article 0 comments Cited 135 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evidence that vitamin D3 increases serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D more efficiently than does vitamin D2.

              H M Trang, D Cole, L Rubin … (1998)
              In all species tested, except humans, biological differences between vitamins D2 and D3 are accepted as fact. To test the presumption of equivalence in humans, we compared the ability of equal molar quantities of vitamin D2 or D3 to increase serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], the measure of vitamin D nutrition. Subjects took 260 nmol (approximately 4000 IU) vitamin D2 (n=17) or vitamin D3 (n=55) daily for 14 d. 25(OH)D was assayed with a method that detects both the vitamin D2 and D3 forms. With vitamin D3, mean (+/-SD) serum 25(OH)D increased from 41.3+/-17.7 nmol/L before to 64.6+/-17.2 nmol/L after treatment. With vitamin D2, the 25(OH)D concentration went from 43.7+/-17.7 nmol/L before to 57.4+/-13.0 nmol/L after. The increase in 25(OH)D with vitamin D3 was 23.3+/-15.7 nmol/L, or 1.7 times the increase obtained with vitamin D2 (13.7+/-11.4 nmol/L; P=0.03). There was an inverse relation between the increase in 25(OH)D and the initial 25(OH)D concentration. The lowest 2 tertiles for basal 25(OH)D showed larger increases in 25(OH)D: 30.6 and 25.5 nmol/L, respectively, for the first and second tertiles. In the highest tertile [25(OH)D >49 nmol/L] the mean increase in 25(OH)D was 13.3 nmol/L (P < 0.03 for comparison with each lower tertile). Although the 1.7-times greater efficacy for vitamin D3 shown here may seem small, it is more than what others have shown for 25(OH)D increases when comparing 2-fold differences in vitamin D3 dose. The assumption that vitamins D2 and D3 have equal nutritional value is probably wrong and should be reconsidered.
              Article 0 comments Cited 115 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Adv Prev Med
                Journal ID (publisher-id): APM
                Title: Advances in Preventive Medicine
                Publisher: SAGE-Hindawi Access to Research
                ISSN (Print): 2090-3480
                ISSN (Electronic): 2090-3499
                Publication date (Print): 2011
                Publication date (Electronic): 8 June 2011
                Volume: 2011
                Electronic Location Identifier: 281863
                Affiliations
                1Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
                2Departments of Urology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
                Author notes
                *Charles Y. F. Young: youngc@ 123456mayo.edu

                Academic Editor: Joel R. Haynes

                Article
                DOI: 10.4061/2011/281863
                PMC ID: 3170721
                PubMed ID: 21991434
                SO-VID: 22b30071-4e89-4438-9eb9-c4d6d7ded53f
                Copyright © Copyright © 2011 K. V. Donkena and C. Y. F. Young.
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 4 February 2011
                Date accepted : 8 April 2011
                Categories
                Subject: Review Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content1,409

                See all similar

                Cited by6

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,368

                See all reference authors