4.7 Review

Vitamin D and calcium intake in relation to risk of endometrial cancer: A systematic review of the literature

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 298-302

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.11.010

关键词

endometrial neoplasms; calcium; dietary; vitamin D; diet; dietary supplements

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [K07 CA095666, K07 CA095666-05] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [K07CA095666] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. In response to a recent ecologic study of UV exposure and endometrial cancer incidence, we present the epidemiologic evidence on the relation between intake of vitamin D and its metabolically related nutrient, calcium, and the occurrence of endometrial cancer. Methods. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of vitamin D and calcium in relation to endometrial cancer, including peer-reviewed manuscripts published up to May 2007. Random and fixed effects summary estimates were computed. Results. Pooled analyses of the three case-control studies of dietary vitamin D and endometrial cancer uncovered heterogeneous results that were not significant in random or fixed effects analyses. Cut-points for the highest vitamin D intakes ranged from >244 to >476 IU/day. Qualitatively similar findings were observed for dietary calcium. Only two studies provided estimates for calcium supplements (random effects OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99; fixed effects OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.93, for top vs. bottom category, p for heterogeneity = 0.25). Conclusions. The limited epidemiological evidence suggests no relation between endometrial cancer in the ranges of dietary vitamin D examined, and suggests a possible inverse association for calcium from supplements. Prospective studies, ideally including plasma 25(OH) D to estimate vitamin D input from diet and sun exposure, are needed to further explore these hypotheses. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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