4.7 Article

Predicted vitamin D status and pancreatic cancer risk in two prospective cohort studies

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 102, Issue 9, Pages 1422-1427

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605658

Keywords

vitamin D; pancreatic cancer; epidemiology

Categories

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD [CA124908]
  2. Conquer Cancer Coalition of Massachusetts

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating vitamin D status in relation to pancreatic cancer risk have yielded inconsistent results. METHODS: We prospectively followed 118 597 participants in the Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study from 1986 to 2006. We calculated a 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH) D) score from known predictors of vitamin D status for each individual and then examined the predicted 25(OH) D levels in relation to pancreatic cancer risk. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, race, height, smoking, and diabetes. We then further adjusted for body mass index (BMI) and physical activity in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: During 20 years of follow-up, we identified 575 incident pancreatic cancer cases. Higher 25(OH) D score was associated with a significant reduction in pancreatic cancer risk; compared with the lowest quintile, participants in the highest quintile of 25(OH) D score had an adjusted RR of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.50-0.86; P(trend) = 0.001). Results were similar when we further adjusted for BMI and physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Higher 25(OH) D score was associated with a lower risk of pancreatic cancer in these two prospective cohort studies. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 1422-1427. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605658 www.bjcancer.com Published online 13 April 2010 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available