HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Vitamins found to slash risk of cancer, including PC

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1 2
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 4/24/2015 4:13 AM (GMT 0)
Allan, that is a lot to work through. I started with the 1st one, and of course have to purchase anything beyond the abstract. Do you have any details? I notice at least that there is no so called U shaped curve apparently, as "OR for extreme quartiles, 0.86". Or at least worst case scenario was still no increase and even a slight decrease, assuming Q1 = HR 1. Do you happen to have any details, like what the blood levels were? I notice this is good old Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington once again, the same ones I quoted earlier with "There were no associations of serum 25(OH)D with total prostate cancer risk. For Gleason 2-6 cancers, results were inconsistent across treatment arms with a suggestion of increased risk in the placebo arm only; however, there was no dose-response relationship. For Gleason 8-10 prostate cancers, 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with a linear decrease in risk among combined treatment arms [quartile 4 vs. 1: OR, 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.32-0.94; P(trend) = 0.04]. These findings were somewhat stronger among men ≥65 versus 55-64 years at baseline (quartile 4 vs. 1: OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.88 vs. OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.35-1.52, respectively; P(interaction) = 0.52).
CONCLUSIONS:

Higher serum 25(OH)D may modestly increase risk of Gleason 2-6 disease and more substantially reduce risk of Gleason 8-10 prostate cancer.".

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/23/2015 10:49:49 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 4/24/2015 4:37 AM (GMT 0)
we can use these studies to argue either way as demonstrated by this thread. i'll continue to take pomegranate daily and whatever you decide will have no effect on what I do.

ed
Posted 4/24/2015 4:49 AM (GMT 0)
Allan, we have been over this very strange study before:
""The findings of this large prospective study do not support the hypothesis that vitamin D is associated
with decreased risk of prostate cancer; indeed, higher circulating 25(OH)D concentrations may be associated with increased risk of aggressive disease." http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/11/796.full.pdf "

It shows that every quintile except the very lowest has higher HRs for aggressive disease. The best Vit d was the lowest, and next best was the highest, with in the middle being the worse:
"No statistically significant trend in overall prostate cancer risk was observed with increasing season-
standardized serum 25(OH)D level. However, serum 25(OH)D concentrations greater than the lowest quintile
(Q1) were associated with increased risk of aggressive (Gleason sum
≥7 or clinical stage III or IV) disease (in a model adjusting for matching factors, study center, and history of diabetes, ORs for Q2 vs Q1 = 1.20,..., for Q3 vs Q1 =1.96....., for Q4 vs Q1 = 1.61,
and for Q5 vs Q1 = 1.37..........
The rates of aggressive prostate cancer for
increasing quintiles of serum 25(OH)D were 406, 479, 780, 633, and 544 per 100 000 person-years"

Also, the mean Vit D intake was almost nothing, at about 400 IU. The mean blood level was a low 22.4 ng, while even the average of the highest quintile was only ~ 40 ng after conversion from nmol(hope I did that right) And as the blood levels got higher, the HR was dropping. So not much to see in this study IMO. As you say, not all studies are equal.

But I may have to give up, I don't think I have the energy to go through all of these one by one. Are any of these studies of actually giving several thousand IU Vitamin D and comparing to those(historical) with no added Vit D, like the last 2 I posted? I am open to all information.

And BTW, I did not see - that I remember- any of those studies reported in the network news or even Yahoo news, but I did see plenty of other of a negative type. I did not see any positive reported, even though there are plenty out there as i have linked to above.
Posted 4/24/2015 4:51 AM (GMT 0)

F8 said...
we can use these studies to argue either way as demonstrated by this thread. i'll continue to take pomegranate daily and whatever you decide will have no effect on what I do.

ed

I don't blame you at all!
Posted 4/24/2015 6:42 AM (GMT 0)
Billybob-
The purpose of my post was not to argue the issue one way or the other and I have no interest in defending any of the research that you or I linked to. My point was in keeping with the topic you raised in your original post. You complained about the lack of news reports on positive research findings. As I pointed out, there is even greater lack of coverage on null or negative research findings because a headline like "New Study: Vitamin D pills have no value in preventing prostate cancer" is not the kind of thing the news reports.

Predictably, I haven't seen any media coverage of the new RCT showing no value to pomegranate either. "The stuff is useless" is not the stuff that makes headlines.

Considering the safety concerns raised in some studies, I would never recommend to a patient he take Vitamin D, unless in consultation with his physician. I will wait for the definitive RCTs before making up my mind about whether it has any benefit at all, under what conditions, and what its risks are. I hope others don't rush into this or other supplements that are potentially harmful.

- Allen
Posted 4/24/2015 10:26 AM (GMT 0)
TA, exactly. "first do no harm" is a good basic principle. Does pom juice cause harm? No, there is no indication that it does. So drink all you want. Vitamin megadosing is a bit different, because some of them are stored in your system indefinitely, while others are excreted if things get out of whack.

What gets lost...and can only partially get eliminated in properly designed studies, is the psychological aspect. There are well documented studies that show that the patients state of mind is a HUGE player in cancer treatment. Not quite mind over matter, but if you believe that something you're doing helps you, then it's helping you.

BB, I think TA and I are making the same point: the popular press will only report "science news" when they can make a headline out of it. Most of these studies aren't headline news.
Posted 4/24/2015 1:58 PM (GMT 0)

Tall Allen said...
Billybob-
The purpose of my post was not to argue the issue one way or the other and I have no interest in defending any of the research that you or I linked to. My point was in keeping with the topic you raised in your original post. You complained about the lack of news reports on positive research findings. As I pointed out, there is even greater lack of coverage on null or negative research findings because a headline like "New Study: Vitamin D pills have no value in preventing prostate cancer" is not the kind of thing the news reports.

Predictably, I haven't seen any media coverage of the new RCT showing no value to pomegranate either. "The stuff is useless" is not the stuff that makes headlines.

Considering the safety concerns raised in some studies, I would never recommend to a patient he take Vitamin D, unless in consultation with his physician. I will wait for the definitive RCTs before making up my mind about whether it has any benefit at all, under what conditions, and what its risks are. I hope others don't rush into this or other supplements that are potentially harmful.

- Allen

OK Allen, I can see that you don't have time or desire to defend any of those studies as that was not even the point of this thread. The only reason I have linked to quite a few studies and copied some detail on them is to make my point that so many positive studies do not get reported.

As for your opinion that "The stuff is useless" is not the stuff that makes headlines", were just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. You may be right, but that is not my impression. I can not possibly prove you wrong on that. I can only say that what I not infrequently see on such as the Today show or network nightly news or on the news scroll of my ATT home page which is Yahoo news(I mean the news segments, not the entertainment or celebrity segments), are the negative headlines. My clearest memory is hearing Nancy Snyderman the medical gal on the Today Show, covering one of the studies about vitamins(in a news segment) and editorializing about how worthless and even harmful they were. Like the headline from CBS news that is the subject of the other most recent thread here at HW about vitamins being useless against cancer and even causing it. Or this one from MSN which was also the subject of a thread here at HW. So it seems to me I see way more of those than reports that indicate good news, even though there are plenty of those. But I can't prove it and I could be wrong, maybe I am biased in what I am remembering about what comes over the big news sources. I don't think so, but maybe.
www.nbcnews.com/id/40557895/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/time-kick-multivitamin-habit-studies-suggest/?lite&lite=obnetwork#.VTpAq5MoVFs
And so many, many others make headlines. Even just an editorial can make the news. Only a very few examples, although what I am really thinking of is what I have seen on TV news. Tell you what, as soon as I see a TV news report all excited over some positive studies like the ones I have posted above, or even see a headline on Yahoo news, I will dutifully report it here:
www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/health/multivitamins-studies/
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-126453/Vitamin-pills-useless.html
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWX8OiT0bII (typical of what I have so often seen on TV news)
nypost.com/2013/12/17/wait-multivitamins-dont-work/
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/16/vitamin-supplements-research/4042037/

Oh, just for fun, Nancy Snyderman official MD on the Today Show or NBC news trashing vitamins. Don't take anything unless your doctor gives you a prescription, in essence. Ever seen anything on news programs strongly urging you to take whatever non-prescription substance due to the positive new studies? :
www.today.com/video/today/53852603
www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp/38536159#38536159

But, maybe there are just as many of her touting vitamins that I just did not see.
Posted 4/24/2015 3:26 PM (GMT 0)
I've been reading this thread and it's original/companion/antithesis thread without jumping in - but I will simply add this: "The Supplement Causing Cancer Story is BS…" - in terms of another position / take on this whole and never-ending discussion. See link at the bottom of this post.

(And once again, my caveat to keep things straight [I really detest having to do this all the time....] is that I am simply providing information I found - this from "Dr. Geo" and from what I garner there are two camps out there, one that hates him and one that loves him; for me, it depends)

So here goes:

drgeo.com/the-supplement-causing-cancer-story-is-bs
Posted 4/24/2015 3:46 PM (GMT 0)
At some point when the same type of news making articles are touted to defend known positions, you would like to channel Dr. Phil and ask, "How's that working for yuh?"
As someone who spent many years with various health concerns due to undiagnosed gluten intolerance, I can attest to the many problems associated with vitamin deficiencies. It wasn't until my daughter's peripheral neuropathy caused severe issues that we connected her B-12 deficiency to celiac disease. So I know some vitamins help some problems some of the time.
Posted 4/24/2015 8:15 PM (GMT 0)

halbert said...
Does pom juice cause harm? No, there is no indication that it does. So drink all you want.

Halbert, you are probably right. However, I personally continue to be troubled by the conflicting studies and changing conclusions on the many studies about supplements, drinks, vitamins, etc. I can certainly recall when Vitamin E and Selenium were touted for PCa patients -- until one of the large studies showed they did more harm that good. Re POM, it's likely ok but I won't be surprised if and when a study shows how it harms us.

My diet is far from perfect. However, for now I'm steering clear of any of the extras and trying to eat in a balanced fashion. But, I certainly have no argument with those who want to follow a different path.

@Yoop, I'll certainly not shoot you for bringing up Dr. Geo. But I guess I'm with the ones that suggest he take his "Mr. Happy" pills and -- well, you know.

Jim
Posted 4/24/2015 9:37 PM (GMT 0)
Someday we'll look back at all the billions of dollars that have been pissed away literally with nothing to show for. That's not even considering the question if the supplements that people purchase are actually in the containers. Through the years I've seen many claims rise and fall for vitamins and supplements. They are with possibly few exceptions this generations snake oil and quackery.
Posted 4/25/2015 1:23 AM (GMT 0)

A Yooper said...
I've been reading this thread and it's original/companion/antithesis thread without jumping in - but I will simply add this: "The Supplement Causing Cancer Story is BS…" - in terms of another position / take on this whole and never-ending discussion. See link at the bottom of this post.

(And once again, my caveat to keep things straight [I really detest having to do this all the time....] is that I am simply providing information I found - this from "Dr. Geo" and from what I garner there are two camps out there, one that hates him and one that loves him; for me, it depends)

So here goes:

drgeo.com/the-supplement-causing-cancer-story-is-bs

Interesting article. He talks about the "old news" and that is just what I thought when I read the article linked to in the "antithesis thread". I thought I had heard everything in that article quite a long time ago. As well as the reasons some claim these were not good studies, synthetic Alpha E for one example. But regardless, nothing new seemed to me.

However, he put me on to a couple of links. And I have a question. Allen or whoever, I know these are small, but are these RCTs? :

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16263208/

Somebody said...
Abstract

Send to:
Eur Urol. 2005 Dec;48(6):922-30; discussion 930-1. Epub 2005 Oct 17.
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study in men with prostate cancer and rising PSA: effectiveness of a dietary supplement.
Schröder FH1, Roobol MJ, Boevé ER, de Mutsert R, Zuijdgeest-van Leeuwen SD, Kersten I, Wildhagen MF, van Helvoort A.
Author information

1Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected]

Abstract
OBJECTIVES:

Epidemiological studies have shown significant relationships between the use of dietary components and prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Large studies of primary prevention, which confirm these findings, are desirable but costly and difficult to design. The present tertiary prevention study reports on the effect of a dietary supplement in comparison with placebo on the rate of increase of prostate-specific antigen (PSA).
METHODS:

49 patients with a history of prostate cancer and rising PSA levels after radical prostatectomy (n = 34) or radiotherapy (n = 15) participated in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of a dietary supplement. Ethical approval of the protocol was obtained. Treatment periods of 10 weeks were separated by a 4-week washout period. The supplement consisted of soy, isoflavones, lycopene, silymarin and antioxidants as main ingredients. Changes in the rate of increase of PSA (PSA slope and doubling time) were the primary parameters of efficacy. Analyses according to intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) were carried out.
RESULTS:

Baseline parameters did not differ between randomised groups. Five participants were lost to follow-up, however 46 could be evaluated in an ITT analysis. PP analysis could be performed in 42 men with at least 5 PSA measurements. Per protocol analysis showed a significant decrease in PSA slope (p = 0.030) and (2)log PSA slope (p = 0.041). This translates into a 2.6 fold increase in the PSA doubling time from 445 to 1150 days for the supplement and placebo periods. No treatment-based changes in safety parameters were observed during the study.
CONCLUSIONS:The soy-based dietary supplement utilised in this study was shown to delay PSA progression after potentially curative treatment in a significant fashion. More extensive studies of the supplement may be indicated.



Also:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4020278/

Somebody said...
Methods:

In total, 199 men, average age 74 years, with localised prostate cancer, 60% managed with primary active surveillance (AS) or 40% with watchful waiting (WW) following previous interventions, were randomised (2:1) to receive an oral capsule containing a blend of pomegranate, green tea, broccoli and turmeric, or an identical placebo for 6 months..........................
Results:
The median rise in PSA in the food supplement group (FSG) was 14.7% (95% confidence intervals (CIs) 3.4–36.7%), as opposed to 78.5% in the placebo group (PG) (95% CI 48.1–115.5%)..........
Conclusions:
This study found a significant short-term, favourable effect on the percentage rise in PSA in men managed with AS and WW following ingestion of this well-tolerated, specific blend of concentrated foods......................Primary end point

In the FSG, the mean PSA rose from 6.50 to 6.81 ug l−6 from baseline to the end of the intervention, a median PSA percentage rise of 14.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) −3.4% to 36.7%). In the PG, the mean PSA increased from 6.50 to 10.98 ug l−1, a median percentage rise of 78.5% (95% CI 48.1–115.5%). The median percentage PSA increased at a significantly slower rate in the FSG group compared with the PG (difference 63.8% ANCOVA, P=0.0008).
Secondary end point

The number of men with a PSA lower or the same value at trial completion was 61 (46%) in the FSG as opposed to 9 (14%) in the PG. This difference was statistically significant (χ2 value with 1 degree of freedom=19.58, P=0.000010).



Are these RCTs and are the 2 Vit D studies quoted above out of SC RCTs?

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 4/25/2015 7:08:56 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 4/27/2015 6:39 PM (GMT 0)
Bump: no opinions for me on whether or not the above two studies on "blend of pomegranate, green tea, broccoli and turmeric, or an identical placebo for 6 months" (N199) or "soy, isoflavones, lycopene, silymarin and antioxidants" (N49) or the possibly those last two Vitamin D studies out of SC: are any or all of these RCTs? I need ti know that because we have the thread on the negative small Italian study that is an RCT. If these are RCTs, then the Italian study needs to be considered in the light of that.

Plus, another reason for the bump and asking again: am I the only one that found this about the Vitamin D in one of those South Carolina studies a hoot? Apparently so, but I am surprised:
"Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug no. 77,839 was granted"!

WHAT? Vitamin D 4000 IU being studied is granted Investigational New Drug no. 77,839 by the FDA?
Posted 4/29/2015 9:16 PM (GMT 0)
Allen, thanks for posting RCT results.

Reading about supplement recommendations by Dr. Snuffy Myers and Dr. Mark Schultz the last few years I have been taking aspirin (for colon) D3, pomegranate, curcumin, and low dose resveratrol. But, I have not seen results from RCTs until now. I do recall that when I was diagnosed in early 2013, my vitamin D was 25.0 and my diet for many years included cheese, ice cream, milk, sweets, dark beer:), etc. I don't know if these factors caused my PCa, but I believe they contributed to it. My prostate oncologist still periodically checks my vitamin D. Now, I eat a lot of Alaskan wild caught salmon, vegetables, fruits....red wine - the healthier stuff. However, after reading all the posts, I have to re-think the above supplements other than aspirin my GI says helps prevent colon polyps and D3. I may just send the cost of the other supplements to Allen:).

A lot of the positive "news" stories out there about supplements and even new drug test results are from testing mice not men.

I like the way the American Cancer Society site puts it in their research: "What's the evidence"?

Robert
Posted 4/29/2015 9:49 PM (GMT 0)

Time101 said...
Allen, thanks for posting RCT results.

Reading about supplement recommendations by Dr. Snuffy Myers and Dr. Mark Schultz the last few years I have been taking aspirin (for colon) D3, pomegranate, curcumin, and low dose resveratrol. But, I have not seen results from RCTs until now. I do recall that when I was diagnosed in early 2013, my vitamin D was 25.0 and my diet for many years included cheese, ice cream, milk, sweets, dark beer:), etc. I don't know if these factors caused my PCa, but I believe they contributed to it. My prostate oncologist still periodically checks my vitamin D. Now, I eat a lot of Alaskan wild caught salmon, vegetables, fruits....red wine - the healthier stuff. However, after reading all the posts, I have to re-think the above supplements other than aspirin my GI says helps prevent colon polyps and D3. I may just send the cost of the other supplements to Allen:).

A lot of the positive "news" stories out there about supplements and even new drug test results are from testing mice not men.

I like the way the American Cancer Society site puts it in their research: "What's the evidence"?

Robert

Robert, did you happen to read any of the above posts I linked to here, and in another thread here: www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=3393269&g=3394546#m3394546 , which as far as I can tell are RCTs showing positive results for things like Pom blends or vitamin D?

If they are not RCTs, then it can't be helped as I have been begging for opinions as to whether or not they are or not but can get no answers. Looks to me like they are.

If you want to see something really interesting watch the 14 minute video in the other thread. It is discussing Vitamin D studies out of the Medical University of South Carolina. The guy discusses how difficult it was for them to convince the FDA that they were not going to kill anyone with 4000 IU/D Vit D and how they had to get it approved as an investigational drug, just that application took them a year! Then he talked about how the trouble with vitamin D was there was no money in it. Same would apply to all of these other potential non-drug approaches. No money to be made even if you prove something works.
Posted 4/29/2015 11:38 PM (GMT 0)
Billy Bob,

Yes, I read those and have seen them before. As I said, I am going to continue my daily aspirin and D3 to keep it in the 30-100 range. The others are the ones I may drop.

Robert
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12