Next Article in Journal
Precision Medicine in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Targeting ERBB2 (HER-2) Oncogene
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Dietary Methyl-Donor Intake and Other Lifestyle Factors on Cancer Patients in Hungary
Previous Article in Journal
TP53 Abnormalities Are Underlying the Poor Outcome Associated with Chromothripsis in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients with Complex Karyotype
Previous Article in Special Issue
Chemopreventive Effects of Concomitant or Individual Use of Statins, Aspirin, Metformin, and Angiotensin Drugs: A Study Using Claims Data of 23 Million Individuals
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 15
10.3390/cancers14153717
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Association between Vitamin D Supplementation and Cancer Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Renjie Zhang
1,†,
Yu Zhang
2,†,
Zheran Liu
3,
Yiyan Pei
3,
Ping Xu
4,
Weelic Chong
5,
Yang Hai
6,
Ling He
3,
Yan He
3,
Jiayi Yu
7,
Jingjing Wang
3,
Fang Fang
8 and
Xingchen Peng
3,*
1
Department of Biotherapy, Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
2
Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University, Chengdu 610084, China
3
Department of Biotherapy and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
4
Sichuan University Library, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610047, China
5
Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19144, USA
6
Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19144, USA
7
School of Medical and Life Sciences, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 611137, China
8
Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cancers 2022, 14(15), 3717; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14153717
Submission received: 12 June 2022 / Revised: 26 July 2022 / Accepted: 27 July 2022 / Published: 30 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Actual Preventive Drugs and Food Factors on Cancer)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

It has been questioned whether vitamin D supplements can reduce the mortality and incidence of tumors. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with a total of 72,669 participants, vitamin D supplementation could not reduce the cancer mortality or cancer incidence. Our results suggest a reconsideration of the previous view that vitamin D supplementation could reduce overall cancer mortality is needed.

Abstract

Background: Vitamin D deficiency is related to increased cancer risk and deaths. However, whether vitamin D supplementation reduces cancer mortality remains unclear, and several randomized controlled trials yield inconsistent results. Methods: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception until 28 June 2022, for randomized controlled trials investigating vitamin D supplementation. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Trials with vitamin D supplementation combined with calcium supplementation versus placebo alone and recruiting participants with cancer at baseline were excluded in the present study. Results: This study included 12 trials with a total of 72,669 participants. Vitamin D supplementation did not reduce overall cancer mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80–1.16). However, vitamin D supplementation was associated with a reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45–0.90). Conclusions: Vitamin D supplementation could not reduce cancer mortality in this highly purified meta-analysis. Further RCTs that evaluate the association between vitamin D supplementation and total cancer mortality are still needed.

1. Introduction

In recent years, supplementation with vitamin D has been viewed as a potential strategy for preventing cancer [1,2,3]. Evidence from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies strongly suggests that low 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] status is associated with the risk of developing colorectal cancer [4], breast cancer [5,6], bladder cancer [7,8], lung cancer [9,10], pediatric cancer [11], pancreatic cancer [12], and prostate cancer [13]. If adequate vitamin D concentrations reduce cancer risk, vitamin D supplementation may be a readily available, safe, and economical modality to reduce cancer incidence and mortality [2]. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing Vitamin D supplementation have been inconsistent, with one study finding that the incidence of cancer is reduced, while the other concluding that cancer mortality remains unchanged [14,15].
Previous systematic reviews found that vitamin D supplementation reduced cancer mortality [16,17,18,19,20]. However, these studies lacked enough detail on the associations for site-specific cancers and have not evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and an estimation of optimum sample size using trial sequential analyses (TSA). Since this study, the results of a new large randomized trial, the D-Health trial, changed the landscape of evidence, which suggested a trend of an increase in cancer mortality (hazard ratios 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.39) in a Vitamin D-replete Australian population.
Therefore, we performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analyses to summarize the most recent evidence and assess the effect of vitamin D supplementation on cancer mortality.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Guidance

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting our systematic review [21]. This study was conducted according to the protocol registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019119639).

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Studies that met the following criteria were included: (1) Population: adults (age ≥ 18) with any health condition; (2) Intervention: vitamin D supplements at any dose and for any duration. Trials of vitamin D plus calcium vs. calcium alone were considered vitamin D interventions; (3) Comparison intervention: placebo or no treatment. If other interventions were given (e.g., calcium), they had to be the same in all groups; (4) Outcome: cancer mortality or cancer incidence, with a follow-up of more than one year. The primary outcome was overall cancer mortality. Secondary outcomes were overall cancer incidence, site-specific cancer mortality, and incidence (i.e., breast, lung, prostate, colorectal). (5) Study design: randomized controlled trials (RCT), including quasi-randomized and cluster-randomized.
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].

2.3. Data Sources and Search Strategy

An experienced research librarian (PX) developed and executed the search strategy. The electronic databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (Table S1). We also checked the reference lists of eligible studies as well as screened scientific abstracts and relevant clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). The last electronic search was performed on 28 June 2022. There were no restrictions on language.

2.4. Study Selection and Collection

Eight investigators were divided into two groups independently, and in duplicate screened the titles and abstracts of all identified studies using a priori selection criteria. They screened the full text of potentially relevant studies. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or, if needed, by consensus. Then, data were extracted from the included RCTs using a purpose-built spreadsheet containing the following information: Author names, publication years, the interventions in each arm, the number of total participants and events in each arm, baseline circulating 25(OH)D levels, primary outcome, and the follow-up time.

2.5. Assessment of Risk of Bias and Quality of Evidence

Two investigators independently performed quality assessments. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias among the eligible trials. The quality assessment took random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, staff, and outcome assessors; incomplete outcome data; selective outcome reporting; and other potential biases into account. The risk of bias for each domain was graded as high, low, or unknown. The overall risk of bias for the study was reflected by the highest risk of bias for any criteria.
We used the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (GRADE Pro-version 3.6 software) to generate the absolute and relative risk of the outcomes [27]. The GRADE guidance rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations depending on study design limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias, and imprecision in each result.

2.6. Data Synthesis and Analysis

The meta-analysis for the included studies were conducted using Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4.1, the Nordic Cochrane Center, the Cochrane Collaboration) and the metafor package in R (version 4.0.1; R Project for Statistical Computing). All analyses were based on the intention-to-treat approach. The meta-analysis was conducted using random-effect models regardless of the level of heterogeneity. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous data. All tests of statistical inference reflect a 2-sided of p < 0.05. Statistical heterogeneity of the data was assessed by using the I2 test [28]. We directly applied the random-effect models to our meta-analysis, considering the potential inconsistency in the included studies. If there are more than ten RCTs in a meta-analysis, publication bias was assessed by funnel plot techniques and the Egger and Begg tests.
Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to evaluate the statistical reliability of the pooled results and adjust for the random error risk using TSA software (version 0.9.5.10, beta) [29]. When the cumulative Z-curve entered the futility area or crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundaries, it suggested the anticipated intervention effect was sufficient and conclusive; thus, no further trials were needed. We applied TSA to keep an overall 5% risk of type I error and 80% power, assuming the intervention effect could reduce 20% relative risk.
Subgroup analyses were performed according to baseline vitamin D status (insufficiency and adequacy), type of vitamin D (vitamin D2 and vitamin D3), dose (≥2000 IU/d and <2000 IU/d), the dosing frequency of treatment (daily and intermittently), length of follow-up (≥3 years and <3 years), treatment duration (≥3 years and <3 years), and co-therapy status (without calcium and with calcium). We conducted post-hoc subgroup analyses based on the number of patients (≥2000 and <2000), number of events (≥200 and <200), mean age (≥70 years and <70 years), sex (female and both), and published year (before 2014 and in or after 2014).
Sensitivity analyses were conducted by (1) excluding trials with high or unknown risk of bias, (2) excluding trials with a high risk of bias of each domain, (3) excluding quasi-randomized or cluster-randomized trials, (4) excluding the largest trial, and (5) using fixed-effect models.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Included Studies

After identifying 29,776 articles, a total of 12 RCTs met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1) [14,15,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Characteristics of included studies are present in Table 1. Among these RCTs, 5 RCTs were conducted in Europe, 4 RCTs were in the United States, and 2 RCTs were in Australia, and 1 in New Zealand. Two RCTs only included female participants, while others included male and female participants. Mean circulating levels of 25(OH)D for the vitamin D supplementation group and placebo group ranged from 38 to 77 nmol/L.
Included RCTs were generally at low or unclear risk of bias. Risk-of-bias assessments are reported in Figures S1 and S2. Of the 12 included trials, 5 were low risk of bias, 6 were unclear risk, and 1 was high risk.

3.2. Cancer Mortality

Of these, 6 RCTs with a total of 61,882 participants were included in the meta-analysis for cancer mortality [15,37,38,40,41,45]. Pooled RR showed that vitamin D supplementation did not reduce cancer mortality risk (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.80–1.16, I2 = 58%; Figure 2A). TSA analyses of cancer mortality showed that future trials are unlikely to change the pooled estimate (Figure 2B) [15]. The funnel plot revealed no evidence of publication bias for the overall cancer mortality (Figure S3).
Subgroup analyses demonstrated that only participants with daily dosing vitamin D have lower cancer mortality compared with those dosing vitamin D intermittently (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72–0.97, Table S2). All sensitivity analyses on cancer mortality were consistent with the main analyses, demonstrating vitamin D supplementation did not reduce cancer mortality (Table S3). For the site-specific cancer mortality, vitamin D supplementation significantly reduced lung cancer mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45–0.90, I2 = 0%) while the results of other outcomes were consistent with the overall cancer mortality (Figure 3).

3.3. Cancer Incidence

A total of 11 RCTs with a total of 51,369 participants were included in the meta-analysis for cancer incidence [14,30,32,34,35,37,38,41,42,43,45,46]. No significant association of vitamin D supplementation with overall cancer incidence was found (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93–1.06, I2 = 0%; Figure 4A). Similar results were also found in the analyses of site-specific cancer incidence, including lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer (Figure 4B). TSA analysis showed that the pooled sample size was sufficient and further trials are unlikely to change the result for cancer incidence (Figure S4). The funnel plot, Egger and Begg’s tests showed no evidence of publication bias for the overall cancer incidence (Egger’s test: p = 0.78, Begg’s tests: p = 0.78, Figure S5).

3.4. Grading of Evidence

The GRADE summary findings for overall and site-specific cancer outcomes are shown in Table 2. The outcome of overall cancer mortality was found to be of moderate quality of evidence because of the inconsistency between studies, while the outcome of overall cancer incidence was deemed to be of high quality.

4. Discussion

The findings of our meta-analysis indicate that vitamin D supplementation does not reduce cancer mortality or incidence overall. For site-specific cancer outcomes, we found that vitamin D supplementation could reduce lung cancer mortality. Furthermore, only participants with daily dosing vitamin D have lower cancer mortality compared with those dosing vitamin D intermittently (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72–0.97).
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].
Our findings on cancer morality were inconsistent with the recent meta-analyses conducted [20,48]. The most recent meta-analysis conducted by Guo et al. found vitamin D supplementation to reduce cancer mortality (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.96) while our results found a null association (RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; p = 0.68). The main inconsistency mainly came from the results of the D-Health Trial, which was published recently [15]. In the D-Health Trial, Neale et al. found that the vitamin D supplementation arm has, although statistically insignificant, higher cancer mortality than the control group with a median 5.7 years follow-up (hazard ratios 1.15, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.39; p = 0.13) [15]. Our subgroup analyses found that participants with daily dosing vitamin D have lower cancer mortality compared with those dosing vitamin D intermittently (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72–0.97), which might partly explain the difference between the results of the D-Health Trial (which used monthly dosing) and other large RCTs including VITAL and RECORD trial (which used daily dosing) [37,38]. The results were consistent with Keum et al., which also found daily dosing instead of intermittent dosing of vitamin D, could reduce total cancer mortality [20]. Daily vitamin D might be a more effective way to increase 25(OH)D than intermittent dosing [49]. In addition, according to our TSA analyses, under the assumption of 20% relative risk reduction to maintain an overall 5% risk of type I error and 80% power, the D-Health Trial was an essential update to previous results of meta-analyses which had been underpowered for cancer mortality. By adding the results of the D-Health trial, our present meta-analysis results have reached the required information size.
In the site-specific cancer analysis, we observed that vitamin D supplementation was associated with lower lung cancer mortality. These results were partly consistent with previous in vitro and in vivo studies, which have shown vitamin D could inhibit tumor growth, and diet-derived vitamin D might be a direct therapeutic agent in the EGFR-mutant lung cancer [50,51]. It has also been found that calcitriol, the active form of vitamin D, could inhibit lung cancer growth, metastases, and recurrence in mouse models [52,53]. Some epidemiological evidence, including a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies, also supported our results that higher plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations are associated with lower lung cancer mortality [54]. However, several studies have reported the opposite results, showing higher lung cancer mortality in participants with higher circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D [55,56] or a lack of difference [57,58]. Thus, our findings regarding lung cancer should be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of studies and sample size. Thus, further RCTs or large observational studies may be warranted.
We conducted the present review based on a protocol published in the PROSPERO database, which used a rigorous methodological approach based on the Cochrane Handbook. The strengths of this study included a rigorous assessment of the quality of evidence of included studies and the minimum information size was satisfied according to TSA.
Limitations should also be noted. First, our meta-analysis was based on published trials that reported cancer mortality. However, most trials of vitamin D supplementation did not include cancer mortality as an outcome, which might lead to bias of selective reporting. Second, the pooled sample size was large enough to evaluate the associations of vitamin D supplementation with total cancer mortality; however, the sample size is insufficient for specific subtypes of cancer. Additionally, studies included in our meta-analysis were highly purified compared with other meta-analyses, which may introduce additional bias.

5. Conclusions

The results of the current meta-analysis may have significant implications for clinicians and researchers. We suggest a reconsideration of the previous view that vitamin D supplementation could reduce overall cancer mortality. Different dosing frequencies might be necessary for future studies investigating the relationships between vitamin D supplementation and cancer mortality.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers14153717/s1, Table S1: Search strategy; Table S2 Subgroup analysis of the effect of vitamin D on cancer mortality; Table S3: Sensitivity analyses of cancer mortality; Figure S1: Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study. Figure S2: Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies; Figure S3. Funnel plot of cancer mortality; Figure S4. TSA analyses for cancer incidence; Figure S5. Funnel plot of cancer incidence.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.P. and F.F.; methodology, Y.Z., P.X. and R.Z.; software, Z.L. and Y.P.; validation, R.Z.; formal analysis, Z.L. and R.Z.; investigation, R.Z., Y.Z. and Z.L.; data curation, Y.P., L.H., J.Y., R.Z., J.W. and Y.H. (Yan He); writing—original draft preparation, R.Z. and Y.Z.; writing—review and editing, Y.Z., W.C. and Y.H. (Yang Hai); supervision, F.F. and X.P.; project administration, Y.Z., F.F. and X.P.; funding acquisition, Y.Z., F.F. and X.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 82172842, and 81803104 and 81672386), the Sichuan Province Science and Technology Support Program (Grant Nos. 2021YFSY008, 2020YFS0276), West China Nursing Discipline Development Special Fund Project (Grant No. HXHL21008), the Technology Innovation Project of Chengdu Science and Technology Bureau (Grant No. 2019-YF05-00459-SN), Postdoctoral research and Development Fund and Translational medicine fund of West China Hospital (Grant Nos. 2020HXBH119 and CGZH19002, National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFA0108604), the 1·3·5 project for disciplines of excellence-Clinical Research Incubation Project, West China Hospital, Sichuan University (21HXFH046), the innovation team project of Affiliated Hospital of Clinical Medicine College of Chengdu University (CDFYCX202203), the project of Sichuan Science and Technology Bureau (22ZDYF0798), and Clinical Incubation Program of West China Hospital, SCU (2018HXFU008). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jeon, S.-M.; Shin, E.-A. Exploring Vitamin D Metabolism and Function in Cancer. Exp. Mol. Med. 2018, 50, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Feldman, D.; Krishnan, A.V.; Swami, S.; Giovannucci, E.; Feldman, B.J. The Role of Vitamin D in Reducing Cancer Risk and Progression. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2014, 14, 342–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mondul, A.M.; Weinstein, S.J.; Layne, T.M.; Albanes, D. Vitamin D and Cancer Risk and Mortality: State of the Science, Gaps, and Challenges. Epidemiol. Rev. 2017, 39, 28–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. McCullough, M.L.; Zoltick, E.S.; Weinstein, S.J.; Fedirko, V.; Wang, M.; Cook, N.R.; Eliassen, A.H.; Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, A.; Agnoli, C.; Albanes, D.; et al. Circulating Vitamin D and Colorectal Cancer Risk: An International Pooling Project of 17 Cohorts. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2019, 111, 158–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rose, A.A.N.; Elser, C.; Ennis, M.; Goodwin, P.J. Blood Levels of Vitamin D and Early Stage Breast Cancer Prognosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2013, 141, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kim, Y.; Je, Y. Vitamin D Intake, Blood 25(OH)D Levels, and Breast Cancer Risk or Mortality: A Meta-Analysis. Br. J. Cancer 2014, 110, 2772–2784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Chen, F.; Li, Q.; Yu, Y.; Yang, W.; Shi, F.; Qu, Y. Association of Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Vitamin E and Risk of Bladder Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Liao, Y.; Huang, J.-L.; Qiu, M.-X.; Ma, Z.-W. Impact of Serum Vitamin D Level on Risk of Bladder Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. Tumor Biol. 2015, 36, 1567–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, L.; Wang, S.; Che, X.; Li, X. Vitamin D and Lung Cancer Risk: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 36, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, J.; Dong, Y.; Lu, C.; Wang, Y.; Peng, L.; Jiang, M.; Tang, Y.; Zhao, Q. Meta-Analysis of the Correlation between Vitamin D and Lung Cancer Risk and Outcomes. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 81040–81051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Iniesta, R.R.; Rush, R.; Paciarotti, I.; Rhatigan, E.B.; Brougham, F.H.M.; McKenzie, J.M.; Wilson, D.C. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Prevalence and Possible Causes of Vitamin D Deficiency and Insufficiency in Pediatric Cancer Patients. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 35, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, X.; Huang, X.-Z.; Chen, W.-J.; Wu, J.; Chen, Y.; Wu, C.-C.; Wang, Z.-N. Plasma 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels, Vitamin D Intake, and Pancreatic Cancer Risk or Mortality: A Meta-Analysis. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 64395–64406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Gao, J.; Wei, W.; Wang, G.; Zhou, H.; Fu, Y.; Liu, N. Circulating Vitamin D Concentration and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2018, 14, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Chatterjee, R.; Fuss, P.; Vickery, E.M.; Leblanc, E.S.; Sheehan, P.R.; Lewis, M.R.; Dolor, R.J.; Johnson, K.C.; Kashyap, S.R.; Nelson, J.; et al. Vitamin D Supplementation for Prevention of Cancer: The D2d Cancer Outcomes (D2dCA) Ancillary Study. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2021, 106, 2767–2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Neale, R.E.; Baxter, C.; Romero, B.D.; McLeod, D.S.A.; English, D.R.; Armstrong, B.K.; Ebeling, P.R.; Hartel, G.; Kimlin, M.G.; O’Connell, R.; et al. The D-Health Trial: A Randomised Controlled Trial of the Effect of Vitamin D on Mortality. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022, 10, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Keum, N.; Lee, D.H.; Greenwood, D.C.; Manson, J.E.; Giovannucci, E. Vitamin D Supplementation and Total Cancer Incidence and Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, 733–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Goulão, B.; Stewart, F.; Ford, J.A.; MacLennan, G.; Avenell, A. Cancer and Vitamin D Supplementation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 107, 652–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, Y.; Fang, F.; Tang, J.; Jia, L.; Feng, Y.; Xu, P.; Faramand, A. Association between Vitamin D Supplementation and Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Br. Med. J. 2019, 366, l4673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Bjelakovic, G.; Gluud, L.L.; Nikolova, D.; Whitfield, K.; Krstic, G.; Wetterslev, J.; Gluud, C. Vitamin D Supplementation for Prevention of Cancer in Adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 6, CD007469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Guo, Z.; Huang, M.; Fan, D.; Hong, Y.; Zhao, M.; Ding, R.; Cheng, Y.; Duan, S. Association between Vitamin D Supplementation and Cancer Incidence and Mortality: A Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Br. Med. J. 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Yang, B.; Campbell, P.T.; Gapstur, S.M.; Jacobs, E.J.; Bostick, R.M.; Fedirko, V.; Flanders, W.D.; McCullough, M.L. Calcium Intake and Mortality from All Causes, Cancer, and Cardiovascular Disease: The Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 103, 886–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Bolland, M.J.; Avenell, A.; Baron, J.A.; Grey, A.; MacLennan, G.S.; Gamble, G.D.; Reid, I.R. Effect of Calcium Supplements on Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Cardiovascular Events: Meta-Analysis. Br. Med. J. 2010, 341, c3691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Lewis, J.R.; Zhu, K.; Prince, R.L. Adverse Events from Calcium Supplementation: Relationship to Errors in Myocardial Infarction Self-Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Calcium Supplementation. J. Bone Miner. Res. Off. J. Am. Soc. Bone Miner. Res. 2012, 27, 719–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bolland, M.J.; Grey, A.; Avenell, A.; Gamble, G.D.; Reid, I.R. Calcium Supplements with or without Vitamin D and Risk of Cardiovascular Events: Reanalysis of the Women’s Health Initiative Limited Access Dataset and Meta-Analysis. Br. Med. J. 2011, 342, d2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Fernandez-Lazaro, C.I.; Romanos-Nanclares, A.; Sánchez-Bayona, R.; Gea, A.; Sayon-Orea, C.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Toledo, E. Dietary Calcium, Vitamin D, and Breast Cancer Risk in Women: Findings from the SUN Cohort. Eur. J. Nutr. 2021, 60, 3783–3797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Guyatt, G.H.; Oxman, A.D.; Vist, G.E.; Kunz, R.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Alonso-Coello, P.; Schünemann, H.J. GRADE: An Emerging Consensus on Rating Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. Br. Med. J. 2008, 336, 924–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G. Quantifying Heterogeneity in a Meta-Analysis. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1539–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brok, J.; Thorlund, K.; Gluud, C.; Wetterslev, J. Trial Sequential Analysis Reveals Insufficient Information Size and Potentially False Positive Results in Many Meta-Analyses. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 763–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lappe, J.M.; Travers-Gustafson, D.; Davies, K.M.; Recker, R.R.; Heaney, R.P. Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation Reduces Cancer Risk: Results of a Randomized Trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 85, 1586–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Prince, R.L.; Austin, N.; Devine, A.; Dick, I.M.; Bruce, D.; Zhu, K. Effects of Ergocalciferol Added to Calcium on the Risk of Falls in Elderly High-Risk Women. Arch. Intern. Med. 2008, 168, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Scragg, R.; Khaw, K.T.; Toop, L.; Sluyter, J.; Lawes, C.M.M.; Waayer, D.; Giovannucci, E.; Camargo, C.A. Monthly High-Dose Vitamin D Supplementation and Cancer Risk: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Vitamin D Assessment Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, e182178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Hansen, K.E.; Johnson, R.E.; Chambers, K.R.; Johnson, M.G.; Lemon, C.C.; Vo, T.N.T.; Marvdashti, S. Treatment of Vitamin D Insufficiency in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 2015, 175, 1612–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sanders, K.M.; Stuart, A.L.; Williamson, E.J.; Simpson, J.A.; Kotowicz, M.A.; Young, D.; Nicholson, G.C. Annual High-Dose Oral Vitamin D and Falls and Fractures in Older Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2010, 303, 1815–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Jorde, R.; Sollid, S.T.; Svartberg, J.; Schirmer, H.; Joakimsen, R.M.; Njølstad, I.; Fuskevåg, O.M.; Figenschau, Y.; Hutchinson, M.Y.S. Vitamin D 20,000 IU per Week for Five Years Does Not Prevent Progression from Prediabetes to Diabetes. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2016, 101, 1647–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Jin, X.; Jones, G.; Cicuttini, F.; Wluka, A.; Zhu, Z.; Han, W.; Antony, B.; Wang, X.; Winzenberg, T.; Blizzard, L.; et al. Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Tibial Cartilage Volume and Knee Pain among Patients with Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2016, 315, 1005–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Manson, J.E.; Cook, N.R.; Lee, I.-M.; Christen, W.; Bassuk, S.S.; Mora, S.; Gibson, H.; Gordon, D.; Copeland, T.; D’Agostino, D.; et al. Vitamin D Supplements and Prevention of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Avenell, A.; MacLennan, G.S.; Jenkinson, D.J.; McPherson, G.C.; McDonald, A.M.; Pant, P.R.; Grant, A.M.; Campbell, M.K.; Anderson, F.H.; Cooper, C.; et al. Long-Term Follow-up for Mortality and Cancer in a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Vitamin D3 and/or Calcium (RECORD Trial). J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012, 97, 614–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Martineau, A.R.; James, W.Y.; Hooper, R.L.; Barnes, N.C.; Jolliffe, D.A.; Greiller, C.L.; Islam, K.; McLaughlin, D.; Bhowmik, A.; Timms, P.M.; et al. Vitamin D3 Supplementation in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (ViDiCO): A Multicentre, Double-Blind, Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet Respir. Med. 2015, 3, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Scragg, R.; Stewart, A.W.; Waayer, D.; Lawes, C.M.M.; Toop, L.; Sluyter, J.; Murphy, J.; Khaw, K.T.; Camargo, C.A. Effect of Monthly High-Dose Vitamin D Supplementation on Cardiovascular Disease in the Vitamin D Assessment Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2017, 2, 608–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Trivedi, D.P.; Doll, R.; Khaw, K.T. Effect of Four Monthly Oral Vitamin D3 (Cholecalciferol) Supplementation on Fractures and Mortality in Men and Women Living in the Community: Randomised Double Blind Controlled Trial. Br. Med. J. 2003, 326, 469–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Chandler, P.D.; Chen, W.Y.; Ajala, O.N.; Hazra, A.; Cook, N.; Bubes, V.; Lee, I.M.; Giovannucci, E.L.; Willett, W.; Buring, J.E.; et al. Effect of Vitamin D3Supplements on Development of Advanced Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the VITAL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e2025850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Baron, J.A.; Barry, E.L.; Mott, L.A.; Rees, J.R.; Sandler, R.S.; Snover, D.C.; Bostick, R.M.; Ivanova, A.; Cole, B.F.; Ahnen, D.J.; et al. A Trial of Calcium and Vitamin D for the Prevention of Colorectal Adenomas. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 1519–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lappe, J.; Watson, P.; Travers-Gustafson, D.; Recker, R.; Garland, C.; Gorham, E.; Baggerly, K.; McDonnell, S.L. Effect of Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation on Cancer Incidence in Older Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2017, 317, 1234–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Rake, C.; Gilham, C.; Bukasa, L.; Ostler, R.; Newton, M.; Wild, J.P.; Aigret, B.; Hill, M.; Gillie, O.; Nazareth, I.; et al. High-Dose Oral Vitamin d Supplementation and Mortality in People Aged 65–84 Years: The Vidal Cluster Feasibility Rct of Open versus Double-Blind Individual Randomisation. Health Technol. Assess. 2020, 24, 1–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Virtanen, J.K.; Nurmi, T.; Aro, A.; Bertone-Johnson, E.R.; Hyppönen, E.; Kröger, H.; Lamberg-Allardt, C.; Manson, J.E.; Mursu, J.; Mäntyselkä, P.; et al. Vitamin D Supplementation and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer in the Finnish Vitamin D Trial: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2022, 115, 1300–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bolland, M.J.; Grey, A.; Gamble, G.D.; Reid, I.R. The Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Skeletal, Vascular, or Cancer Outcomes: A Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014, 2, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, X.; Niu, W. Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Vitamin D Supplement and Cancer Incidence and Mortality. Biosci. Rep. 2019, 39, BSR20190369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Ketha, H.; Thacher, T.D.; Oberhelman, S.S.; Fischer, P.R.; Singh, R.J.; Kumar, R. Comparison of the Effect of Daily versus Bolus Dose Maternal Vitamin D(3) Supplementation on the 24,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D(3) to 25-Hydroxyvitamin D(3) Ratio. Bone 2018, 110, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Verone-Boyle, A.R.; Shoemaker, S.; Attwood, K.; Morrison, C.D.; Makowski, A.J.; Battaglia, S.; Hershberger, P.A. Diet-Derived 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 Activates Vitamin D Receptor Target Gene Expression and Suppresses EGFR Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Growth in Vitro and in Vivo. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 995–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Wang, W.; Hu, W.; Xue, S.; Chen, Q.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zuo, W. Vitamin D and Lung Cancer; Association, Prevention, and Treatment. Nutr. Cancer 2021, 73, 2188–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Young, M.R.; Ihm, J.; Lozano, Y.; Wright, M.A.; Prechel, M.M. Treating Tumor-Bearing Mice with Vitamin D3 Diminishes Tumor-Induced Myelopoiesis and Associated Immunosuppression, and Reduces Tumor Metastasis and Recurrence. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 1995, 41, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Nakagawa, K.; Kawaura, A.; Kato, S.; Takeda, E.; Okano, T. 1 Alpha,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D(3) Is a Preventive Factor in the Metastasis of Lung Cancer. Carcinogenesis 2005, 26, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Feng, Q.; Zhang, H.; Dong, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Ma, J. Circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Lung Cancer Risk and Survival: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. Medicine 2017, 96, e8613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Freedman, D.M.; Looker, A.C.; Abnet, C.C.; Linet, M.S.; Graubard, B.I. Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Cancer Mortality in the NHANES III Study (1988–2006). Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 8587–8597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Weinstein, S.J.; Mondul, A.M.; Yu, K.; Layne, T.M.; Abnet, C.C.; Freedman, N.D.; Stolzenberg-Solomon, R.Z.; Lim, U.; Gail, M.H.; Albanes, D. Circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D up to 3 Decades Prior to Diagnosis in Relation to Overall and Organ-Specific Cancer Survival. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2018, 33, 1087–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Heist, R.S.; Zhou, W.; Wang, Z.; Liu, G.; Neuberg, D.; Su, L.; Asomaning, K.; Hollis, B.W.; Lynch, T.J.; Wain, J.C.; et al. Circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D, VDR Polymorphisms, and Survival in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 5596–5602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Vashi, P.G.; Edwin, P.; Popiel, B.; Gupta, D. The Relationship between Circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Survival in Newly Diagnosed Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Cancers 14 03717 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart for study selection.
Figure 1. Flowchart for study selection.
Cancers 14 03717 g001
Cancers 14 03717 g002 550
Figure 2. Exploring the relationship between vitamin D supplementation and cancer mortality. (A) the forest plot. (B) The plot of trial sequential analysis. Trial sequential monitoring boundaries were not crossed by the cumulative Z-score curve and with the addition of the latest trial, the pooled sample size exceeded the required information size.
Figure 2. Exploring the relationship between vitamin D supplementation and cancer mortality. (A) the forest plot. (B) The plot of trial sequential analysis. Trial sequential monitoring boundaries were not crossed by the cumulative Z-score curve and with the addition of the latest trial, the pooled sample size exceeded the required information size.
Cancers 14 03717 g002
Cancers 14 03717 g003 550
Figure 3. The forest plot of vitamin D supplementation and site-specific cancer mortality.
Figure 3. The forest plot of vitamin D supplementation and site-specific cancer mortality.
Cancers 14 03717 g003
Cancers 14 03717 g004 550
Figure 4. The forest plot of vitamin D supplementation and cancer incidence. (A) overall cancer incidence, (B) site-specific cancer incidence.
Figure 4. The forest plot of vitamin D supplementation and cancer incidence. (A) overall cancer incidence, (B) site-specific cancer incidence.
Cancers 14 03717 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the 10 Randomized Clinical Trials.
Table 1. Characteristics of the 10 Randomized Clinical Trials.
TrialAge
(Years)		FemaleParticipants
(Vitamin D/No Vitamin D)		Baseline 25OHD (nmol/L)
(Vitamin D/No Vitamin D)		InterventionControlPrimary OutcomeFollow-Up Period
Baron 2015 [43]5837%1130/112958/58vitamin D3 (1000 IU) daily plus calcium (1200 mg) dailycalcium (1200 mg) dailyadenomas incidence3.7 years
Chatterjee 2021 [14]6044.5%1194/119170/70vitamin D3 4000 IU dailyplacebocancer and major cardiovascular events2.9 years
Jorde 2016 [35]6249%256/25560/61vitamin D3 (20,000 IU) weeklyplaceboprogression to type 2 diabetes5 years
Lappe 2007 [30]67100%446/44572/72vitamin D3 (1000 IU) plus calcium (1400 to 1500 mg) dailycalcium (1400 to 1500 mg) dailyfracture4 years
Neale 2022 [15]6945.9%10661/10649NRvitamin D3 60,000 IU monthlyplacebomortality5 years
Avenell 2012 [38]7785%2649/264338/38vitamin D3 (800 IU) or calcium (1000 mg) or both dailycalcium (1000 mg) or placebo dailymortality2–5.2 years with 3 follow-up years after intervention
Sanders 2010 [34]76100%1131/112553/45vitamin D3 (500,000 IU) yearlyplacebofalls and fractures3–5 years with 1 follow-up years after intervention
Trivedi 2003 [41]7524%1345/1341NRvitamin D3 (100,000 IU) four-monthlyplaceboFracture5 years
Scragg 2018 [32]65.942%2558/255064/63vitamin D3 initial (200,000 IU) then vitamin D3 (100,000 IU) monthlyplaceboCVD and death3.3 years
VITAL 2018 [37,42]6751%12917/1294477/77vitamin D3 (2000 IU) dailyplacebocancer and major cardiovascular events5.3 years
Rake
2020 [45]		65–84 years0.469802/81351.5/51.5vitamin D3 (100,000 IU) monthlyplacebo or no treatmentmortality5 years
Virtanen 2022 [46]680.428830/166573/75vitamin D3 (1600 IU or 3200 IU) dailyplacebocardiovascular disease and cancer5 years
Table
Table 2. Summary of Findings and Strength of Evidence.
Table 2. Summary of Findings and Strength of Evidence.
OutcomeNo. of Patients (Trials)RR (95%CI)Absolute Effect Estimates (per 1000)Quality of the Evidence
ControlInterventionDifference
Cancer mortality61882 (6)0.96 (0.80 to 1.16)2221−1 (−4 to 4)Moderate
Colorectal cancer mortality33849 (3)0.91 (0.49 to 1.67)220 (−1 to 2)Moderate
Lung cancer mortality29288 (3)0.63 (0.45 to 0.90)64−2 (−1 to −3)High
Breast cancer mortality40132 (3)1.04 (0.58 to 1.87)110 (0 to 1)Moderate
Prostate cancer mortality26682 (2)0.6 (0.21 to 1.74)110 (−1 to 1)Low
Cancer incidence51369 (11)0.99 (0.93 to 1.06)6867−1 (−5 to 4)High
Colorectal cancer incidence39494 (6)1.15 (0.89 to 1.49)671 (−1 to 3)High
Lung cancer incidence34740 (4)0.94 (0.73 to 1.21)770 (−2 to 1)High
Breast cancer incidence20175 (5)1.03 (0.84 to 1.27)18181 (−3 to 5)High
Prostate cancer incidence15023 (3)0.91 (0.76 to 1.09)3433−1 (−11 to 12)High
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, R.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Pei, Y.; Xu, P.; Chong, W.; Hai, Y.; He, L.; He, Y.; Yu, J.; et al. Association between Vitamin D Supplementation and Cancer Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2022, 14, 3717. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14153717

AMA Style

Zhang R, Zhang Y, Liu Z, Pei Y, Xu P, Chong W, Hai Y, He L, He Y, Yu J, et al. Association between Vitamin D Supplementation and Cancer Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers. 2022; 14(15):3717. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14153717

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Renjie, Yu Zhang, Zheran Liu, Yiyan Pei, Ping Xu, Weelic Chong, Yang Hai, Ling He, Yan He, Jiayi Yu, and et al. 2022. "Association between Vitamin D Supplementation and Cancer Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Cancers 14, no. 15: 3717. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14153717

APA Style

Zhang, R., Zhang, Y., Liu, Z., Pei, Y., Xu, P., Chong, W., Hai, Y., He, L., He, Y., Yu, J., Wang, J., Fang, F., & Peng, X. (2022). Association between Vitamin D Supplementation and Cancer Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers, 14(15), 3717. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14153717

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop