A new study has shown once again that patients who have lymphoma are more likely to die if they have low vitamin D levels.
At the recent American Society of Hematology meetings, a new study was presented showing this relationship.
From 2002 to 2008 the scientists evaluated vitamin D blood levels from 374 newly diagnosed patients with diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma. This type of lymphoma accounts for about 40% of all lymphomas.
The study showed that at diagnosis, half that patients were deficient in vitamin D. In this case the definition of deficiency was less than 25 ng /ml.
The patients were followed for an average of three years. During this follow-up time. those patients who were deficient in vitamin D were twice as likely to die compared with patients who had adequate vitamin D blood levels at the beginning of the study. In addition patients with low vitamin D levels were also about 50% more likely to have their cancers worsen.
Dr. Matthew Drake of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota presented this data.
He was quick to note that in his opinion more studies are needed before supplementation of vitamin D should be given to lymphoma patients.
My recommendations for all Americans is to take a higher dose of vitamin D. I would have no reservations in my practice of giving a lymphoma patient vitamin D. At worst it will do no good. Certainly it will do no harm.
I’ll start by saying that I take vitamin D in the winter and give my children D supplements as well.
But.. we have to make sure that we don’t confuse correlation with causation on some of these studies. Perhaps something is going on in which vitamin D is a marker, but not anything more. If lymphoma in one person was more aggressive, and made the person feel worse and progressed more quickly perhaps that person wouldn’t go outside to walk, excersize, do errands, etc. and would have lower vitamin D levels from less exposure to sunlight.
There is certainly an association between low vitamin D and several diseases, but more needs to be done to prove that the low D itself is the cause, and not merely a marker of a more aggressive disease with worse prognosis or a proxy marker for another cause.
Lauren
very thoughtful comments.
1) the data is much stronger than you indicated. The juvenile Diabetes data from Hyponnen involved thousands of kids.
Breast cancer data is so very strong as well. Look at the Lappe study
2) I advocate for everybody taking Vitamin D every day. In the doses I give in my book the worst it will do is nothing. But in 5 years if we learn that lives could have been saved then it would all be worthwhile. And it is pennies per day
DR Soram
If the Lappe study had been done on a drug the results wound have been widely published . Imagine 1000 iu of d and 1100 of calcium resulted in a 60% reduction in cancer that was in a placebo controlled study the “gold standard” of medicine . Canadian health officials revised their recommendations accordingly . The ACS has been slow to follow.
I could not agree with you more Vince!
If a drug could do that it would be advertised everywhere!
That is why I wrote my book, talk on radio and write articles …to try and get the word out!
Dr Soram
Because vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin , taking vitamin D supplements pose a risk of accumulating too much and posing a health risk as opposed to a health benefit. Therefore I recommend you obtain vitamin D from sun exposure and natural foods to avoid such a risk.
Hello: Recently I asked a question pertaining to Vitamin D and Vitamin A. I had read that Vitamin A will negate entirely the effects of Vitamin D. I have not seen my question published, so I am wondering if it was received. Thanks.
Good thoughts Avnish, but with the new information on proper blood levels we can exactly treat people with the right dose of oral vitamin D.
Proper sun exposure, as I discussed in my book
Is a way to get vitamin D. But as you will know from reading my book there are 11 factors that mitigate the amount of sun we need to get a proper dose of vitamin D. Also remember if you live north of the 35th parallel of latitude, you will be getting a vitamin D winter from approximately November to March every year. Please see my book for more information on this.
Dr. Soram
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Danielle MilanoD: Although you mentioned in the radio interview(which was quite enlightening and educational) that...
Dr. Soram: Jenn some of your pain may be due to the very low vitamin D level. I would listen to your doctor and take...
Dr. Soram: Deb for children over 1 year old without a blood test and no other medical conditions we know that 1000 IU...
Deb: I am a 38 year old female who was diagnosed with melanoma 8 years ago. Luckily, I’ve had no metastasis....
Dr. Soram: Good thoughts Avnish, but with the new information on proper blood levels we can exactly treat people with...
I’ll start by saying that I take vitamin D in the winter and give my children D supplements as well.
But.. we have to make sure that we don’t confuse correlation with causation on some of these studies. Perhaps something is going on in which vitamin D is a marker, but not anything more. If lymphoma in one person was more aggressive, and made the person feel worse and progressed more quickly perhaps that person wouldn’t go outside to walk, excersize, do errands, etc. and would have lower vitamin D levels from less exposure to sunlight.
There is certainly an association between low vitamin D and several diseases, but more needs to be done to prove that the low D itself is the cause, and not merely a marker of a more aggressive disease with worse prognosis or a proxy marker for another cause.
Lauren
very thoughtful comments.
1) the data is much stronger than you indicated. The juvenile Diabetes data from Hyponnen involved thousands of kids.
Breast cancer data is so very strong as well. Look at the Lappe study
2) I advocate for everybody taking Vitamin D every day. In the doses I give in my book the worst it will do is nothing. But in 5 years if we learn that lives could have been saved then it would all be worthwhile. And it is pennies per day
DR Soram
If the Lappe study had been done on a drug the results wound have been widely published . Imagine 1000 iu of d and 1100 of calcium resulted in a 60% reduction in cancer that was in a placebo controlled study the “gold standard” of medicine . Canadian health officials revised their recommendations accordingly . The ACS has been slow to follow.
I could not agree with you more Vince!
If a drug could do that it would be advertised everywhere!
That is why I wrote my book, talk on radio and write articles …to try and get the word out!
Dr Soram
Because vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin , taking vitamin D supplements pose a risk of accumulating too much and posing a health risk as opposed to a health benefit. Therefore I recommend you obtain vitamin D from sun exposure and natural foods to avoid such a risk.
I just read where vitamin a (retinol) negates almost entirely the effects of Vitamin D. Is this true?
Hello: Recently I asked a question pertaining to Vitamin D and Vitamin A. I had read that Vitamin A will negate entirely the effects of Vitamin D. I have not seen my question published, so I am wondering if it was received. Thanks.
Thank you Barbara
Please resend your question to the new BLOG and I will answer it there.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Dr Soram
Good thoughts Avnish, but with the new information on proper blood levels we can exactly treat people with the right dose of oral vitamin D.
Proper sun exposure, as I discussed in my book
Is a way to get vitamin D. But as you will know from reading my book there are 11 factors that mitigate the amount of sun we need to get a proper dose of vitamin D. Also remember if you live north of the 35th parallel of latitude, you will be getting a vitamin D winter from approximately November to March every year. Please see my book for more information on this.
Dr. Soram