4.7 Review

Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation During Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Critical Review

Journal

ONCOLOGIST
Volume 17, Issue 9, Pages 1171-1179

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0051

Keywords

Calcium; Vitamin D; Bone mineral density; Prostate cancer; Androgen deprivation therapy; Clinical trials

Categories

Funding

  1. Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest University Cancer Control Traineeship, NCI/NIH [R25CA122061]
  2. Novartis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Loss of bone mineral density is an unintended consequence of androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Supplementation with calcium and/or vitamin D in these men seems logical and is advocated by many lay and professional groups. Methods. We reviewed guidelines for calcium and vitamin D supplementation and the results of clinical trials of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on bone mineral density in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. Results. Whether supplementation of men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy with calcium and/or vitamin D results in higher bone mineral density than no supplementation has not been tested. The results of 12 clinical trials show that, at the doses commonly recommended, 500-1,000 mg calcium and 200-500 IU vitamin D per day, men undergoing androgen deprivation lose bone mineral density. Conclusion. The doses of calcium and vitamin D that have been tested are inadequate to prevent loss of bone mineral density in men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. In light of evidence that high levels of dietary calcium and calcium supplement use are associated with higher risks for cardiovascular disease and advanced prostate cancer, intervention studies should evaluate the safety as well as the efficacy of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in these men. The Oncologist 2012;17:1171-1179

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