4.7 Article

25-Hydroxyvitamin D in Cancer Patients Admitted to Palliative Care: A Post-Hoc Analysis of the Swedish Trial 'Palliative-D'

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14030602

关键词

vitamin D; cholecalciferol; 25-OHD; vitamin D deficiency; palliative; cancer; latitude; tumor type; season; sex differences

资金

  1. Region Stockholm (clinical research appointment)
  2. Swedish Cancer Society
  3. CIMED and Stockholms Sjukhem Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to explore the levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) in patients with palliative cancer care. The results showed that supplementation with vitamin D led to a significant increase in 25-OHD levels, regardless of season, age, tumor type, or colectomy.
The purpose of this study is to explore 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) levels in patients with cancer in the palliative phase in relation to season, sex, age, tumor type, colectomy, and survival. To this end, we performed a post-hoc analysis of 'Palliative-D', a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind trial investigating the effect of daily supplementation with 4000 IU of vitamin D for 12 weeks on pain in patients in palliative cancer care. In the screening cohort (n = 530), 10% of patients had 25-OHD levels < 25 nmol/L, 50% < 50, and 84% < 75 nmol/L. Baseline 25-OHD did not differ between seasons or tumor type and was not correlated with survival time. In vitamin D deficient patients supplemented with vitamin D (n = 67), 86% reached sufficient levels, i.e., >50 nmol/L, after 12 weeks. An increase in 25-OHD was larger in supplemented women than in men (53 vs. 37 nmol/L, p = 0.02) and was not affected by season. In the placebo-group (n = 83), decreased levels of 25-OHD levels were noted during the study period for patients recruited during the last quarter of the year. In conclusion, cancer patients in palliative phase have adequate increase in 25-OHD after vitamin D supplementation regardless of season, age, tumor type, or colectomy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据