Vitamin D deficiency linked to aggressive prostrate cancer

Well, that's interesting...

It was about a year ago that I had first gone in and they noticed that I had a severe vitamin D deficiency. I think mine was near zero so the doc put me on a strong dose of it to bring it back up. They had thought I had thyroid cancer because of nodules but that biopsy came back negative. MY PSA was high, but only bouncing around 4.4 to 6ish. In the fall of 2015 I discovered that I had an aggressive form of prostate cancer. Gleason score of 7.

My prostate was removed in December, my PSA is now zero and I was told my vitamin D was back in the normal range.

Ya know... interestingly my VitD levels have historically tanked in the winter... below range and I've supplemented somewhat randomly. Take your D!

I truly hope this doesn't lead anyone to run out and mega-dose on Vitamin D...there have been posts in the past of men doing exactly that here at HW/PC. That's dangerous, and any link on a prostate cancer website about the "association" between low Vitamin D and PC should also include the strict WARNING that high-doses of Vitamin D (which are available over the counter) while not under the care of a physician can often be dangerous. Your physician can and will inexpensively measure your Vitaman D levels, if requested. This is a reckless posting without this warning...

The way that I understood things was NOT to go out and take vitamin D (without your doctor's recommendations) but that it might be a good idea to have it checked when you have your PSA blood work done. Extremely low D possibly means it may be an indication of cancer. Emphases on the word "possibly".

It would be reckless and downright dangerous to try anything without approval from your doctor, especially when cancer is involved.

best way to combat low vitamin D??? get outside and in the sun...best safest and most reliable way to "supplement" your vitamin D

Virtually all dermatologists warn against getting your vit D from the sun!

It's like anything else...it's in moderation. I"m not saying go lay out in the sun for 15 hours a day... but it is universally accepted that sun IS good for you in small amount, proper sun screen, etc... No dermatologist says to avoid any exposure to sun.

The sun is the best and natural way to stimulate vitamin D, to say otherwise is silly :)

I recently started taking D and have noticed a marked improvement in my zip. Much more zip in my step.

Somebody said...
On univariate analysis, men with adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy demonstrated lower median serum 25-OH D (22.7 v 27.0 ng/mL, P = .007) compared with their counterparts. On multivariate analysis, controlling for age, serum prostate specific antigen, and abnormal digital rectal examination, serum 25-OH D less than 30 ng/mL was associated with increased odds of adverse pathology

That seems like an surprisingly(well, surprising to me anyway) small decrease (4.3 ng/ml?) in the median difference before you go from non adverse to adverse, if I'm reading that right. Am I? Also, surprising that less tan 30 was associated with adverse pathology. 30 is really not very low compared to the readings of most folks who do not supplement a good bit(or get regular sunshine over a fair amount of skin), is it?

I wish I had the full study, but not enough for $30. But I'd like to see if they controlled for guys that had maybe been supplementing for a couple of years, or who got a lot of sunshine, more so in recent years in response to health worries, maybe even PC worries. This would give you a higher number than you might have had from age 5 to 60 on average. Hence you might have a 27 now with aggressive pathology, but your lifetime average was more like 15 or 20. I'm sure they did control for such as that, but I'd like to know. If you don't mind, one of you guys go ahead and buy the study and let me know.

But anecdotally, this would fit me as apparently a number of other folks here. Probably WELL below 30 for most of my life and aggressive pathology. I started a poll for the folks here a while back, asking how many were low before diagnosis (of those who knew what their numbers were which probably would not be many) and what categories they fell into. I need to go back and see what the latest results are.

Oh well, one more study to consider, The RCTs on this are far and few between so far.