Dietary and circulating vitamin D and risk of renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Objective: This meta-analysis is the first to evaluate the associations of circulating and dietary intake of vitamin D with risk of risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Our findings showed that higher circulating vitamin D level and dietary vitamin D intake were associated with a reduced risk of RCC. The possible explanation might be attributed to the anti-inflammatory effect, inhibiting cell proliferation, inducing cell differentiation and apoptosis. Materials and methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases from their inception points through December 2018 for observational studies. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: A total of 9 publications were included in this meta-analysis. An overall analysis of the highest versus lowest intake levels revealed that circulating vitamin D level was protectively associated with risk of RCC 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.89, P=0.001), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2=38.8%, P=0.162). In addition, dietary vitamin D intake was associated with a reduced risk of RCC (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 75-0.99, P=0.030). Statistical heterogeneity was not identified (I2=28.8%, P=0.199). Subgroup analyses results showed the gender differences, and the associations were significant in results with women participants (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88) and case-control studies (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.95). Conclusion: Higher circulating vitamin D level and higher dietary vitamin D intake both might be associated with a reduced risk of RCC. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required in the future to confirm our results.

Automated summary

This meta-analysis found that higher circulating and dietary intake of vitamin D were associated with a reduced risk of renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, subgroup analyses revealed significant gender differences in the results, with associations being stronger in studies involving women participants and case-control studies. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings in the future.