Article: Jefferson oncologists show breast cancers to be more aggressive in African-American women

Article: http://www.mooshee.com/article-29961031.htm
Newsfeed: http://www.mooshee.com/newsfeed.php
--------------------------

A study of more than 2,200 women at the Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson in
Philadelphia shows that African American women have more advanced breast
cancer at the time of diagnosis than Caucasian women. In addition, African
American women tend to have breast cancer tumor types that are more
aggressive and have poorer prognoses. The findings, the researchers say, are
in line with other recent studies and provide more powerful evidence of the
continuing need for early breast cancer screening for African American women
and the development of individual treatment strategies.

The research was led by Edith P. Mitchell, M.D., clinical professor of
medicine and medical oncology at Jefferson Medical College of Thomas
Jefferson University and Gloria Morris, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of
medical oncology at Jefferson Medical College. They compared clinical,
molecular and demographic data from 2,230 African American and Caucasian
women diagnosed with breast cancer at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital
between 1995 and 2002 with similar data on slightly more than 197,000 women
in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End
Results database.

Reporting online July 9, 2007 in the journal CANCER, Drs. Mitchell and
Morris and their co-workers found that in both databases, African Americans
are more likely to have later stage and higher grade tumors at diagnosis,
meaning more aggressive and invasive disease, than their Caucasian
counterparts. In addition, the breast cancer tumors from African American
women had characteristics that predicted worse prognoses and poorer
outcomes.

When all stages of breast cancer in the Jefferson patients were analyzed,
the results showed that African American women had tumors that were more
often estrogen-receptor negative (48 percent versus 37 percent), had higher
rates of expression of the growth-promoting gene Ki-67 and higher expression
of a tumor inhibiting gene, p53. A more aggressive type of tumor, called the
"triple negative," was found in 21 percent of African American women versus
10 percent of Caucasians.

"We know that there is high cell turnover and propensity for p53, a tumor
suppressor gene, to be abnormal, in addition to these 'triple negative'
features in the African American tumors, making them more aggressive and
more likely to metastasize," Dr. Morris says. "These are preliminary data
that enable us to plan how we want to pursue further gene studies."

The triple negative status of a tumor is particularly important, affecting
the use of well known cancer drugs, notes Dr. Mitchell, who is also
associate director of diversity programs at the Kimmel Cancer Center at
Jefferson. Such tumors lack estrogen and progesterone receptors, resulting
in a lack of effectiveness of the commonly used breast cancer drug
tamoxifen. The tumors also lack the HER2-neu receptor protein, rendering the
drug Herceptin ineffective as well.

While African American women have been found to have a lower incidence of
breast cancer than Caucasian women, African American women die from the
disease at a higher rate. The gap between death rates among African American
and Caucasian women is increasing. Though access to healthcare is a strong
factor contributing to disparities in cancer rates and outcomes between
African Americans and Caucasians, says Dr. Mitchell, the Jefferson study and
others have shown that biological differences play important roles.

"Our goal is to develop individualized treatment strategies for women with
breast cancer and to also increase awareness, particularly in women in
populations with poor access to health care and who are at risk for
aggressive breast cancers," says Dr. Morris. "In the future, we'd like to be
able to intervene in a more specific way with a more targeted therapy to
reduce the risk of the cancer returning, and improve survival."

"We would like to explore future research that will enhance our knowledge
and allow better understanding of these biological differences, and devise
better treatment plans that could potentially be effective," says Dr.
Mitchell.

Because the findings are similar to those in the federal database, says Dr.
Morris, "This meant that they were representative nationally and that we
could use this registry for future questions and it would reflect national
trends."

They also provide some direction for therapy, Dr. Morris says, enabling
physicians to better plan specific treatments for particular breast tumor
types. "We want to be able to answer the question, is there something that
is going to work better in this more aggressive tumor type""

The overall goal, she notes, is to find new therapeutic targets. To that
end, Drs. Morris, Mitchell and their colleagues want to use microarray
technology to examine the more aggressive tumor types in African American
women and compare them to tumors in Caucasian women to try to sort out
differences at the molecular level.

Article: http://www.mooshee.com/article-29961031.htm
Newsfeed: http://www.mooshee.com/newsfeed.php

The women need more vitamin D3. A darker skinned person may
need 2 hours in the noon day sun to achieve optimal 25 OH vitamin D3
serum levels. It is the same reason blacks are prone to prostate
cancer
than white. And both "whites" and "blacks" are generally at lower
than optimal levels. People were too many clothes and are inside
far too much. Further public health types messages that suggest on how
much sun light to get are poorly done. Not all sun light is equal in
it
amount of UV, late afternoon sun may contain very little. Sun light of
late fall and winter will likely contain useless small amounts of UV.
Indeed even people who think they get amples of sun don't seem to.
Apparently people over estimate how much sun they get.

Even doses of 1000 IU are really too little for many in the
population.
Likely people many need 3000 to 6000 IUs especially in the fall and
winter.

In short, the bulk of this cancer is caused by public health policy.
Meaninglessly, small vitamin D3 dose in multivitamins are part of the
problem
The use of vitamin D2 as vitamin is also a problem given that its
activity is not near the same unit for unit. Decades of falsehood
committed in nutrition education classes are part of the problem
and a huge cause of this cancer epidemic of which the black
population has an extra share.

betaine_hcl@yahoo.com wrote:
> The women need more vitamin D3.

In exhorting us to increase the vitamin D3 intake, you sound like a
salesman for a drug company.

You have made much play of the fact that many people have levels of the
resultant chemicals below what your school of thought considers optimum,
and that there tends to be a link between this and breast (and other)
cancers.

At that point 90% of readers will switch off because it looks like a
scam. This is evangelism, not science.

I dare say it is true that increasing the intake of this vitamin will
reduce cancer incidence, but the $64,000 question is "by how much".
What little evidence I have seen suggests the reduction is rather small.

Showing evidence of a link is one thing. Showing evidence of causality
is another. The key figure from the consumer point of view is the
incidence of breast cancer among people who have *adequate* D3 levels.
Is it a bit lower, a lot lower, half as much, one tenth, or none at all?
If Ms Average has a 1:8 risk of contracting bc sometime in her life,
what is the risk for Ms Adequate?

The way you present it makes it sound like *most* cancers could be
prevented by improving D3 levels. I don't think that is true.


Tim Jackson

On Jul 10, 1:26 am, Tim Jackson <t...@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:
> betaine_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The women need more vitamin D3.
>
> In exhorting us to increase the vitamin D3 intake, you sound like a
> salesman for a drug company.
>
> You have made much play of the fact that many people have levels of the
> resultant chemicals below what your school of thought considers optimum,
> and that there tends to be a link between this and breast (and other)
> cancers.
>
> At that point 90% of readers will switch off because it looks like a
> scam. This is evangelism, not science.
>
> I dare say it is true that increasing the intake of this vitamin will
> reduce cancer incidence, but the $64,000 question is "by how much".
> What little evidence I have seen suggests the reduction is rather small.
>
> Showing evidence of a link is one thing. Showing evidence of causality
> is another. The key figure from the consumer point of view is the
> incidence of breast cancer among people who have *adequate* D3 levels.
> Is it a bit lower, a lot lower, half as much, one tenth, or none at all?
> If Ms Average has a 1:8 risk of contracting bc sometime in her life,
> what is the risk for Ms Adequate?
>
> The way you present it makes it sound like *most* cancers could be
> prevented by improving D3 levels. I don't think that is true.
>
> Tim Jackson

Fair enough. I should have said the bulk of the excess cancers
seen in one group compared to the other. I'll blame the rest
on some altogether too successful wine from several years ago.

Anyway it is the risk of Miss Deficient compared to Miss Insufficient
compared to Miss Possibly-Adequate compared to Miss Optimum.
Miss Insufficient is the twin of Miss Average, BTW.

And with cancers prevention, it may mean more a delay in onset
such that other things get one first.

I'll post a follow up response on the topic. This is just
a quick response.

<betaine_hcl@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184062068.705941.284660@r34g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
....

>
> Anyway it is the risk of Miss Deficient compared to Miss Insufficient
> compared to Miss Possibly-Adequate compared to Miss Optimum.
> Miss Insufficient is the twin of Miss Average, BTW.


???????????????????

Mary

betaine_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message




>> Anyway it is the risk of Miss Deficient compared to Miss Insufficient
>> compared to Miss Possibly-Adequate compared to Miss Optimum.
>> Miss Insufficient is the twin of Miss Average, BTW.

> ?????????????????????

> Mary


I was referring to the 25-hydroxy-cholecalciferol (calcifediol) serum
levels
which is best measure of vitamin D status for most persons.
High percentages of many population are either frankly
deficient or have little higher level such they are
in the insufficient range. To be frankly deficient one has less than
20 nmol/L of calcifeiol and if one is insufficient
one is in the range from 20 to 50 or even up to ~ 75 nmols/L.
Here in the States the labs use a different set of
factor labels ng/dL. The conversion factor for the
values I used to the ng/dL is 0.4. The optimal value
may even be higher 100 to 125 nmol/L.

Anyway, the average person is often averaging somewhere in
the insufficient range or perhaps the hypovitamosis
range. Depending on whose ranges you use.

Hence Miss Average is a twin to Miss Insufficient.

Now for a few references to show I am not full too much good wine.

================================================== =====
Here is a nice abstract from Spain that helps gives
a sense of things.
There are other articles of a similar nature that
are fully available. This is just what I had
well labeled so that I could easily find it.
I am sure it isn't the best but it is the
one in a file form suitable for sharing.
Note also that their ranges are bit different from
those I mentioned.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


1: Nefrologia. 2003;23 Suppl 2:73-7.

[Review of the concept of vitamin D
"sufficiency and insufficiency"]

[Article in Spanish]

Gomez Alonso C, Naves Diaz M, Rodriguez Garcia M,
Fernandez Martin JL, Cannata
Andia JB.

Servicio de Metabolismo Oseo y Mineral,
Instituto Reina Sofia de Investigacion,
Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias,
Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo.
cgomez@hca.es

There has been a poor consensus in defining normal levels of
25(OH) D. It has been traditionally recognized that
25(OH)D serum levels below 5-7 ng/ml induce
osteomalacia, serum levels below 10-12 ng/ml induce
secondary hyperparathyroidism and osteoporosis, and
serum levels above 18-20 ng/ml are
usually considered normal or adequate.
Due to the results obtained in several studies,
a more functional classification has recently been
proposed defining serum 25(OH)D levels
> 40 ng/ml or > 100 nmol/l as "desirable", serum levels between
20 and 40 ng/ml or 50 and 100 nmol/l as hypovitaminosis D, levels
between 10 and 20 ng/ml or 25 and 50 mmol/l
as vitamin D insufficiency and
25(OH)D levels below 10 ng/ml or 25 nmol/l as deficient.
These new cut-off levels, suggest that, in the past,
we had been using a wrong statistical
approach for defining "normal serum 25(OH)D levels".
In agreement with this new classification, in a
recent study conducted in a random sample of our
population, a high prevalence of low levels of 25(OH)D
and secondary hyperparathyroidism was found.
In our study, only in those people having
"excellent" renal function, representing only 15%
of the sample (serum creatinine < 1 mg/dl in men
and < 0.8 in women, mean age of 68 years)
hyperparathyroidism was not diagnosed despite
observing 25(OH)D serum levels around 18-30 ng/ml
or 45-75 nmol/l). In the remaining people (85% of the
sample), who showed the expected serum creatinine
increments according to their age, secondary
hyperparathyroidism was avoided only if the
serum 25(OH)D levels were higher than 30 ng/ml or
75 nmol/l. These remarkable findings demonstrate
the importance of maintaining higher 25(OH)D levels
--in addition to normal calcitriol levels--
in order to avoid stimulation of the parathyroid gland.
In 87 patients with a functioning renal transplantation
only a 11.5% of they had levels of 25(OH)D higher
than 30 ng/ml and it was correlated with PTH. These
remarkable findings demonstrate the importance of
maintaining higher 25(OH)D levels--in addition to
normal calcitriol levels--in order to avoid stimulation
of the parathyroid gland in aged people.
Thus, the deficiency or even "subtle deficiency" of
25(OH)D, currently neglected in the daily management
of patients with chronic renal failure,
may play an important role in the maintenance of
hormonal and mineral homeostasis.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 12778859 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
===============================================
Here why I say the fear of vitamin D has played
a big role in cancer rates.
+++++++++++++++++++++++


: J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):708-11.

Vitamin D and prevention of breast cancer: pooled analysis.

Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Grant WB,
Giovannucci EL, Lipkin M, Newmark H,
Holick MF, Garland FC.

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine,
University of California-San
Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
cgarland@ucsd.edu

BACKGROUND:
Inadequate photosynthesis or oral intake of Vitamin D
are associated with high incidence and mortality
rates of breast cancer in ecological and observational
studies, but the dose-response relationship in individuals
has not been adequately studied.

METHODS:
A literature search for all studies that reported
risk by of breast cancer by quantiles of 25(OH)D
identified two studies with 1760 individuals.
Data were pooled to assess the dose-response association
between serum 25(OH)D and risk of breast cancer.

RESULTS:
The medians of the pooled quintiles of serum 25(OH)D
were 6, 18, 29, 37 and 48 ng/ml. Pooled odds ratios
for breast cancer from lowest to highest quintile,
were 1.00, 0.90, 0.70, 0.70 and 0.50 (p trend<0.001).
According to the pooled analysis, individuals with serum
25(OH)D of approximately 52 ng/ml had 50% lower risk of
breast cancer than those with serum <13 ng/ml.
This serum level corresponds to intake of 4000
IU/day. This exceeds the National Academy of Sciences
upper limit of 2000 IU/day. A 25(OH)D level of
52 ng/ml could be maintained by intake of 2000 IU/day
and, when appropriate, about 12 min/day in the sun,
equivalent to oral intake of 3000 IU of Vitamin D(3).

CONCLUSIONS:
Intake of 2000 IU/day of Vitamin D(3),
and, when possible, very moderate exposure to sunlight,
could raise serum 25(OH)D to 52 ng/ml, a level
associated with reduction by 50% in incidence of
breast cancer, according to observational studies.

PMID: 17368188 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


===================================
Understand the values the following paper sets
threshold for insufficiency rather low.
And yet even with that lower threshold, 34 percent were in
the group that this paper called insufficient.
It is a rather small study.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Erratum in:
CMAJ 2002 Oct 15;167(8):850.

Comment in:
CMAJ. 2002 Jun 11;166(12):1541-2.
CMAJ. 2002 Oct 15;167(8):849; author
reply 849-50.

Vitamin D insufficiency in a population of healthy
western Canadians.


Rucker D, Allan JA, Fick GH, Hanley DA.

Department of Medical Science,
University of Calgary, Alta.

BACKGROUND:
People with low levels of vitamin D and its metabolites
are at increased risk for osteoporotic fractures. We wished
to ascertain levels of vitamin D in a representative sample
of adult western Canadians, to help assess the level of risk.
We evaluated the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency,
defined as 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] less than 40 nmol/L,
and seasonal variations in 25(OH)D, parathyroid hormone
and related biochemical indices in a community-dwelling
population of healthy Canadians living in Calgary (latitude
51 degrees 07'N).

METHODS:
During calendar year 1999, we collected fasting
overnight blood samples every 3 months from 60 men and
128 women (age range 27 to 89 years) who had volunteered
to participate in another study. We used commercial
radioimmunoassay kits to measure calciotrophic hormones
and other biochemical indices. Regression models for
longitudinal data were used to assess the effect of
season and other potential predictors on individual parameters.

RESULTS:
For a total of 64 participants (34%),
vitamin D insufficiency, defined as 25(OH)D less
than 40 nmol/L, was recorded at least once out of the
4 sampling times. After adjustment for age,
body mass index and holiday travel, we observed
the anticipated rise in serum 25(OH)D from a mean
of 57.3 (standard deviation [SD] 21.3) nmol/L in
the winter to 62.9 (SD 28.8) nmol/L in spring (p = 0.001)
and 71.6 (SD 23.6) nmol/L in summer (p < 0.001),
with a subsequent decline to 52.9 (SD 17.2) nmol/L
in the fall (p = 0.008). The anticipated inverse relation
between 25(OH)D and parathyroid hormone was not consistently
observed: after adjustment for age, sex, body mass index
and serum calcium, serum levels of parathyroid hormone
did decrease significantly, from 39.5 (SD 18.8) ng/L in
winter to 36.3 (SD 17.8) ng/L in summer (p = 0.001),
but they continued to decline to 34.5 (SD 17.3) ng/L
in the fall (p < 0.001). There was no association
between 25(OH)D and parathyroid hormone (p = 0.21).

INTERPRETATION:
We documented a high prevalence of vitamin D
insufficiency, which warrants consideration of
dietary vitamin D supplementation.

PMID: 12074117 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


========================================
76 nmol/L is the end of insufficiency
in the following bit of research.
--------------------------------------


1: Osteoporos Int. 1997;7(5):439-43.

Prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency in an
adult normal population.

Chapuy MC, Preziosi P, Maamer M, Arnaud S, Galan P,
Hercberg S, Meunier PJ.

INSERM U. 403, Hopital Edouard Herriot,
Lyon, France.

The vitamin D status of a general adult urban population
was estimated between November and April in 1569 subjects
selected from 20 French cities grouped in nine geographical
regions (between latitude 43 degrees and 51 degrees N).
Major differences in 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D)
concentration were found between regions, the lowest
values being seen in the North and the greatest in the
South, with a significant 'sun' effect (r = 0.72; p = 0.03)
and latitude effect (r = -0.79; p = 0.01). In this
healthy adult population, 14% of subjects
exhibited 25(OH)D values < or = 30 nmol/l (12 ng/ml),
which represents the lower limit (< 2 SD) for a normal
adult population measured in winter with the same
method (RIA Incstar). A significant negative correlation
was found between serum intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH)
and serum 25(OH)D values (p < 0.01). Serum
iPTH held a stable plateau level at 36 pg/ml as
long as serum 25(OH)D values
were higher than 78 nmol/l (31 ng/ml), but increased
when the serum 25(OH)D value fell below this.
When the 25(OH)D concentration became equal to or lower
than 11.3 nmol/l (4.6 ng/ml), the PTH values reached
the upper limit of normal values (55 pg/ml) found
in vitamin D replete subjects. These results showed that
in French normal adults living in an urban
environment with a lack of direct exposure to sunshine,
diet failed to provide an adequate amount of vitamin D.
It is important to pay attention to this rather
high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency in
the general adult population and to discuss the clinical
utility of winter supplementation with low doses of vitamin D.

PMID: 9425501 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

========================================
In the following note how much the top
highest quintile has of 25-hydroxyvitamin
D, it was higher than 99.1 nmol/L amd
MS rate that was 38 percent of the bottom
quintile with a 95% confidence interval such
that the true group value is between
19% to 75%.
This was only true of whites.
It seems blacks on average handle vitamin
D a bit better than whites. And they had
better as they get a lot less.
This was a somewhat younger military
age population, also.
Again the numbers in the study are
rather fewer than I'd like.

=========================================

1: JAMA. 2006 Dec 20;296(23):2832-8.

Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and
risk of multiple sclerosis.

Munger KL, Levin LI, Hollis BW, Howard NS, Ascherio A.

Department of Nutrition,
Harvard School of Public Health, and Channing Laboratory,
Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School,
Boston,Mass 02115, USA.

CONTEXT:
Epidemiological and experimental evidence
suggests that high levels of vitamin D, a potent immunomodulator,
may decrease the risk of multiple sclerosis.
There are no prospective studies addressing this hypothesis.

OBJECTIVE:
To examine whether levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D are
associated with risk of multiple sclerosis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
Prospective, nested case-control study among more than
7 million US military personnel who have serum
samples stored in the Department of Defense Serum Repository.
Multiple sclerosis cases were identified through
Army and Navy physical disability databases for 1992
through 2004, and diagnoses were confirmed by
medical record review. Each case (n = 257) was
matched to 2 controls by age, sex, race/ethnicity,
and dates of blood collection. Vitamin D status was
estimated by averaging 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels of
2 or more serum samples collected before the date of
initial multiple sclerosis symptoms.

MAIN OUTCOME
MEASURES:
Odds ratios of multiple sclerosis associated with continuous
or categorical levels (quantiles or a priori-defined
categories) of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D within each
racial/ethnic group.

RESULTS:
Among whites (148 cases, 296 controls), the risk of
multiple sclerosis significantly decreased
with increasing levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (odds ratio [OR]
for a 50-nmol/L increase in 25-hydroxyvitamin D,
0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.97). In
categorical analyses using the lowest quintile
(<63.3 nmol/L) as the reference, the ORs for each
subsequent quintile were 0.57, 0.57, 0.74, and 0.38 (P = .02
for trend across quintiles). Only the OR for
the highest quintile, corresponding to 25-hydroxyvitamin
D levels higher than 99.1 nmol/L, was significantly
different from 1.00 (OR, 0.38; 95% confidence interval,
0.19-0.75; P = .006). The inverse relation with multiple
sclerosis risk was particularly strong for
25-hydroxyvitamin D levels measured before age 20 years.
Among blacks and Hispanics (109 cases, 218 controls),
who had lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels
than whites, no significant associations between vitamin D and
multiple
sclerosis risk were found.

CONCLUSION:
The results of our study suggest that
high circulating levels of vitamin D are associated with a lower risk
of
multiple sclerosis.

PMID: 17179460
================================
According to WHO, just taking the small 400 IU dose
of the vitamin is associated with a lower
34 percent lower rate of rheumatoid arthritis.

The lower levels D seen in black males increase
their rate of prostate cancer by nearly 50 percent above that of
white. Or at least that is one interpetation.

There do seem to be real racial differences
on how low vitamin status damages health
but it that it does.

betaine_hcl@yahoo.com wrote:
> betaine_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> ===============================================
> Here why I say the fear of vitamin D has played
> a big role in cancer rates.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
....
>
> : J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):708-11.
>
> Vitamin D and prevention of breast cancer: pooled analysis.
>
> Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Grant WB,
> Giovannucci EL, Lipkin M, Newmark H,
> Holick MF, Garland FC.
>
> Department of Family and Preventive Medicine,
> University of California-San
> Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
> cgarland@ucsd.edu
>
....
> RESULTS:
> The medians of the pooled quintiles of serum 25(OH)D
> were 6, 18, 29, 37 and 48 ng/ml. Pooled odds ratios
> for breast cancer from lowest to highest quintile,
> were 1.00, 0.90, 0.70, 0.70 and 0.50 (p trend<0.001).
> According to the pooled analysis, individuals with serum
> 25(OH)D of approximately 52 ng/ml had 50% lower risk of
> breast cancer than those with serum <13 ng/ml.
....

> CONCLUSIONS:
> Intake of 2000 IU/day of Vitamin D(3),
> and, when possible, very moderate exposure to sunlight,
> could raise serum 25(OH)D to 52 ng/ml, a level
> associated with reduction by 50% in incidence of
> breast cancer, according to observational studies.
>
> PMID: 17368188 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
>

This is not a statistically valid conclusion.

The 50% reduction is relative to the bottom quintile, not to the
population as a whole, and even then only by going to or exceeding the
advised maximum safe intake of vitamin D3. It does NOT correspond to a
50% reduction of *incidence* as stated.

If the sample was random, then the median risk reduction by going to the
ceiling would be around 30% not 50%. But the sampling criteria used in
the studies are not reported, so we don't know. What it does clearly
show is that a chronic low level of 25(OH)D relates to an increased risk
of breast cancer of about 30%.

It does appear to show a significant benefit in higher intakes, but it
is a very small study, so it does not fill me with confidence. The fact
that it shows no benefit in increasing 25(OH)D from 29 to 37 ng/ml is
also worrying. Either it is an artefact, in which case the whole curve
is dubious, or it is real, in which case there are two different
mechanisms at work. The latter would imply that the increases that most
people (represented by Ms. Median of this study) would be able to safely
and reliably make (represented by the 29 and 37 ng/ml levels) would have
no benefit at all as far as breast cancer risk is concerned.

I haven't read all the rest yet. Maybe later.


Tim

On Jul 11, 7:08 pm, Tim Jackson <t...@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:
> betaine_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>, and even then only by going to or exceeding the
> advised maximum safe intake ofvitaminD3.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6
Risk assessment for vitamin D
http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204...20343&e=6950&&
Session 4: Vitamin D and Population Health
Reinhold Vieth, Ph.D.
Select the audio/slides presentation and use the arrows by the slide
preview to fast forward to slide 75 to understand the safety of
vitamin D3 a little better.
I think anyone who take the current tolerable upper limit seriously
needs medical attention by a mental health specialist.

>The fact
> that it shows no benefit in increasing 25(OH)Dfrom 29 to 37 ng/ml is
> also worrying. Either it is an artefact, in which case the whole curve
> is dubious, or it is real, in which case there are two different
> mechanisms at work. The latter would imply that the increases that most
> people (represented by Ms. Median of this study) would be able to safely
> and reliably make (represented by the 29 and 37 ng/ml levels) would have
> no benefit at all as far as breast cancer risk is concerned.
>
> I haven't read all the rest yet. Maybe later.

It may also be worth reading. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=17218096
Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans: An Important
Tool to Define Adequate Nutritional Vitamin D Status
Bruce W. Hollis, Carol L. Wagner, Mark K. Drezner and Neil C. Binkley
where the case for 40ng = 100nmol/L is made.

You can also see Hollis putting his ideas forward at the above
conference. http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204...20343&e=6950&&
I think it's worth listening to his whole presentation. but by the
time you get to slide 126 you should be aware of the importance of
what he has found and the reasons why we must be aiming to re-
establish those levels of Vitamin d status, bodies exposed to natural
sunlight would have naturally acquired.

tedhutchinson wrote:
>
> It may also be worth reading. ...
> Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans: An Important
> Tool to Define Adequate Nutritional Vitamin D Status ...
> where the case for 40ng = 100nmol/L is made.
>
That's as may be. We are discussing breast cancer here. A discussion
of the general value of vitamin supplements does not belong on this group.

You are ducking the issue that the research you cited was seriously
flawed, by going off topic.


Tim Jackson

On Jul 11, 11:08 am, Tim Jackson <t...@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:
> betaine_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > betaine_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > ===============================================
> > Here why I say the fear of vitamin D has played
> > a big role in cancer rates.
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> ...
>
> > : J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):708-11.
>
> > Vitamin D and prevention of breast cancer: pooled analysis.
>
> > Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Grant WB,
> > Giovannucci EL, Lipkin M, Newmark H,
> > Holick MF, Garland FC.
>
> > Department of Family and Preventive Medicine,
> > University of California-San
> > Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
> > cgarl...@ucsd.edu
>
> ...
> > RESULTS:
> > The medians of the pooled quintiles of serum 25(OH)D
> > were 6, 18, 29, 37 and 48 ng/ml. Pooled odds ratios
> > for breast cancer from lowest to highest quintile,
> > were 1.00, 0.90, 0.70, 0.70 and 0.50 (p trend<0.001).
> > According to the pooled analysis, individuals with serum
> > 25(OH)D of approximately 52 ng/ml had 50% lower risk of
> > breast cancer than those with serum <13 ng/ml.
>
> ...
>
> > CONCLUSIONS:
> > Intake of 2000 IU/day of Vitamin D(3),
> > and, when possible, very moderate exposure to sunlight,
> > could raise serum 25(OH)D to 52 ng/ml, a level
> > associated with reduction by 50% in incidence of
> > breast cancer, according to observational studies.
>
> > PMID: 17368188 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
> This is not a statistically valid conclusion.
>
> The 50% reduction is relative to the bottom quintile, not to the
> population as a whole, and even then only by going to or exceeding the
> advised maximum safe intake of vitamin D3. It does NOT correspond to a
> 50% reduction of *incidence* as stated.
>
> If the sample was random, then the median risk reduction by going to the
> ceiling would be around 30% not 50%. But the sampling criteria used in
> the studies are not reported, so we don't know. What it does clearly
> show is that a chronic low level of 25(OH)D relates to an increased risk
> of breast cancer of about 30%.
>
> It does appear to show a significant benefit in higher intakes, but it
> is a very small study, so it does not fill me with confidence. The fact
> that it shows no benefit in increasing 25(OH)D from 29 to 37 ng/ml is
> also worrying. Either it is an artefact, in which case the whole curve
> is dubious, or it is real, in which case there are two different
> mechanisms at work. The latter would imply that the increases that most
> people (represented by Ms. Median of this study) would be able to safely
> and reliably make (represented by the 29 and 37 ng/ml levels) would have
> no benefit at all as far as breast cancer risk is concerned.
>
> I haven't read all the rest yet. Maybe later.
>
> Tim

I think you makes some valid points.The numbers in this
bit of research aren't as good as they need to be.
Of course we are looking at an abstract, the full
paper may have tighter language.
I still don't think being a Ms Median or Mrs Medain is wise.
As Ted points out there are other reasons for having
higher values is good for bone strength and prostate health.

The failing in this thread is my half baked comment and
the apparent weakness of the mentioned research article not Ted's
side comment.. I'll see to what extent I can bake a comment
on this topic.

Ted isn't discussing 'the general value of supplements' but
rather the general value of having a higher serum level
of this SPECIFIC chemical/prohormone/vitamin. Supplements
takes everything from vitamins, to herbals, amino acids, nutrients,
minerals, etc. He isn't ducking the issue, it is just a side
comment. Just take it on board and say it doesn't help
quanitify the value of higher 25 OH vitamin D serum levels
for the purpose of reducing breast cancer rates or
slowing it progression.
Even if the benefit is only 5 percent in this specific disease that is
still a large
impact especially given that there are other benefits to add on
even if beyond the scope of this discussion.