2021
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-021-02549-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dietary calcium, vitamin D, and breast cancer risk in women: findings from the SUN cohort

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They concluded that, ultimately, no association was established between CaD intake and the risk of ER-BC and TNBC subtypes, although they did find an association with vitamin D intake individually. Conversely, Fernández-Lázaro et al [ 115 ] observed that calcium intake might be related to a lower risk of BC, except in premenopausal women, while for vitamin D intake, no association with a reduced risk of BC was found. Breast density is considered one of the most important risk factors for BC [ 16 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…They concluded that, ultimately, no association was established between CaD intake and the risk of ER-BC and TNBC subtypes, although they did find an association with vitamin D intake individually. Conversely, Fernández-Lázaro et al [ 115 ] observed that calcium intake might be related to a lower risk of BC, except in premenopausal women, while for vitamin D intake, no association with a reduced risk of BC was found. Breast density is considered one of the most important risk factors for BC [ 16 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Compared with early meta-analyses that included trials with mixed interventions of vitamin D supplementation combined with calcium supplementation [ 16 , 19 , 47 ], we did not include these trials in the present study because evidence showed calcium supplementation was associated with other unfavorable effects, including mortality [ 22 ], cardiovascular (e.g., myocardial infarction) [ 23 , 24 , 25 ], and breast cancer risk [ 26 ]. In addition, we did not include RCTs with a follow-up time of less than one year as 25(OH)D levels need 3 to 6 months to attain homeostasis after vitamin D supplementation and cancer mortality of less than one year is mostly due to undiagnosed metastasis of cancer at the start of study [ 16 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies were excluded if they were (1) case reports, case series, and observational studies, (2) trials of hydroxylated vitamin D or vitamin D analogs, (3) trials where all participants received vitamin D, (4) trials where all participants have cancer, (5) trials of pregnant or lactating women, (6) trials of critically ill patients, (7) trials with the total number of an outcome less than ten because of the small effect size and/or short follow-up time [ 16 ], (8) trials with vitamin D supplementation combined with calcium supplementation versus placebo alone because evidence showed calcium supplementation was associated with other unfavorable effects, including mortality [ 22 ], cardiovascular (e.g., myocardial infarction) [ 23 , 24 , 25 ], and breast cancer risk [ 26 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As for breast cancer risk, while some observational studies have reported an inverse association between vitamin D intake and breast cancer, others have reported null associations, leading to inconclusive evidence concerning vitamin D intake [42,43]. Previously in our cohort, we specifically analyzed the association between dietary calcium, vitamin D, and breast cancer risk [44]. We found a non-linear association between total calcium intake and breast cancer, with risk reductions associated with higher intake up to approximately 1400 mg/day.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%