Skip to main content
Download PDF

Serum 25-OH vitamin D levels and risk of developing prostate cancer in older men

Cancer Causes & Control volume 21, pages 1297–1303 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

Multiple studies have shown clear evidence of vitamin D’s anti-tumor effects on prostate cancer cells in laboratory experiments, but the evidence has not been consistent in humans. We sought to examine the association between vitamin D and prostate cancer risk in a cohort of older men.

Methods

We conducted a prospective case-cohort study nested within the multicenter Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. Baseline serum 25-OH vitamin D was measured in a randomly selected sub-cohort of 1,433 men ≥65 years old without a history of prostate cancer and from all participants with an incident diagnosis of prostate cancer (n = 297). Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the associations between quartiles of total 25-OH vitamin D and incident prostate cancer, as well as Gleason score.

Results

In comparison with the lowest quartile of 25-OH vitamin D, the hazard ratio for the highest quartile of 25-OH vitamin D was 1.22 (CI 0.50–1.72, p = 0.25), no trend across quartiles (p = 0.94) or association with Gleason score was observed. Adjustment for covariates did not alter the results.

Conclusions

In this prospective cohort of older men, we found no association between serum 25-OH vitamin D levels and subsequent risk of prostate cancer.

Introduction

Early epidemiologic studies have driven investigations of the hypothesis that vitamin D signaling plays a role in the physiology of cancers [1, 2]. Population studies have shown a fairly consistent link between low levels of vitamin D and increased risk of some malignancies, for example adenocarcinoma of the colon. While data from animal models and cell lines have shown an effect of vitamin D on prostate cancer biology [3–8], a direct association between vitamin D levels and prostate cancer risk in humans has not been consistently demonstrated [9–21], necessitating additional high-quality studies.

Our study adds analysis of older men to the growing body of reports on the relationship between serum vitamin D status and prostate cancer risk. Our study includes men 65 years old or above, who usually have a greater risk of prostate cancer compared to younger men. Also, our study includes a large number of participants from areas of the United States where vitamin D deficiency is common. With this population at high risk of both prostate cancer and vitamin D deficiency, our study aims to clarify this relationship between serum vitamin D status and prostate cancer risk. In addition, our study has a fair number of high-grade prostate cancers, allowing for analysis of the relationship between vitamin D status and prostate cancer aggressiveness.

Materials and methods

Subjects and design

We present analyses from a case-cohort study nested within a cohort of 5,995 men aged 65 and older who participated in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study [22]; a longitudinal study conducted at multiple centers in the United States (Birmingham, Alabama; Palo Alto, California; San Diego, California; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Portland, Oregon; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). The MrOS study was designed to evaluate risk factors for fractures in older men, with active follow-up for incident prostate cancer as a secondary endpoint. The participants were recruited from March 2000 through April 2002. Exclusion criteria were (1) inability to walk without assistance from another person, (2) bilateral hip replacements, (3) inability to provide self-reported data, (4) residence not near a study site, (5) judged by an investigator to have a medical condition that would result in imminent death, (6) or inability to understand and sign informed consent. Initial enrollment included completion of a self-administered questionnaire and a clinic visit with blood draw and anthropometric measurements. Physical activity was assessed using the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly (PASE) [23]. Details of the assessment have been previously described [24].

Data and laboratory measurements

Tri-annual follow-up questionnaires were sent to all participants in the study to ascertain incident prostate cancer. If a patient reported being diagnosed with prostate cancer, medical records were obtained and centrally adjudicated for stage and Gleason score of the cancer, treatment, serum PSA, pathology, and biopsy results. Men without prostate cancer were censored at death or withdrawal from the study.

Serum vitamin D was analyzed in a sample of 1,433 men with no history of prostate cancer at baseline. In this group, 82 cases of prostate cancer arose and the remaining 1,351 men were non-cases. At the end of a mean 5.3-year follow-up period, all additional 215 incident prostate cancer cases that had occurred outside of the random sample were identified and included in the serum vitamin D analyses. This case-cohort design allows for time-to-event analysis while making efficient use of resources [25].

Serum 25-OH vitamin D was measured in blood specimens that were obtained at baseline from both the cases and the non-cases. Archived serum specimens were stored at −70°C. Following incubation for 15 min with stable isotope 25-OHD3-d6 and precipitation with acetonitrile, the supernatant was injected onto Cohesive Turbo Flow Cyclone extraction columns followed by chromatography on a Supelco LC-18 column and analysis for 25-OH vitamin D by tandem mass spectrometry (Mayo Clinic Reference Laboratories, Dr. Ravinder Singh) [26]. Aliquots of a single serum pool were included in alternate assay runs. Using the pooled serum, the interassay coefficient of variation for 25-OH vitamin D was 4.4%, and the intraassay coefficient of variation was 4.9% [24].

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics for men with incident prostate cancer were compared to those with no prostate cancer diagnosis. Total 25-OH vitamin D was categorized into quartiles based on the distribution of 25-OH vitamin D in the randomly sampled sub-cohort. The decision to categorize into quartiles was made prior to the analyses, and quartile cut points coincided with clinical categories of deficiency (<20 ng/ml in the lowest quartile) and sufficiency (>30 ng/ml in the highest quartile). We also examined 15 ng/ml as an additional cut point for deficiency, as a dichotomous variable. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between total 25-OH vitamin D and incident prostate cancer, with men in the lowest quartile of serum vitamin D considered as the reference group. To account for potential differences by disease severity, we also present analyses stratified by Gleason score. Consistent with clinical practice, a Gleason score of less than seven was considered less aggressive while a Gleason score of greater than or equal to seven was considered representative of more aggressive disease. In Cox proportional hazards models, Prentice weights were used to account for the case-cohort design [27]. Factors that differed between men with incident prostate cancer and those without, with a p-value < 0.10, were considered as potential confounders (including those in Table 1). Variables were maintained in the final hazard ratio models if they altered the hazard ratio for any of the 25-OH vitamin D quartiles by >5% in the unstratified models or in the models stratified by Gleason score. These included age, site, reported physical activity, first degree relative with a history of prostate cancer, statin use, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Season of blood draw has been a significant confounder in prior studies, given the potential variation in vitamin D status, but adjusting for differences in season of blood draw did not significantly alter the hazard ratios in our analysis. In addition, very few cases occurred in racial or ethnic minority participants. Adjusting for race either as a dichotomous white/non-white variable or as a five-category variable did not alter the hazard ratios.

Table 1 Comparison of baseline characteristics (n (%), mean ± SD, or median (IQR)) by incident prostate cancer, the MrOS studya
Full size table

Results

In comparison with the subjects without prostate cancer (non-cases in Table 1), cases had a similar smoking history and race distribution, but were slightly younger and had a significantly higher percent reporting a first degree relative with prostate cancer (20% compared to 12.8%). The mean serum 25-OH vitamin D levels were similar in the cases and the non-cases (25.5 ± 7.5 and 25.1 ± 8.1 ng/mL, respectively, p = 0.42). The proportions of men with vitamin D deficiency (defined as <20 ng/mL) were similar (24% of cases, 25% of non-cases).

For each increasing quartile of 25-OH vitamin D, there was no significant association with risk of prostate cancer. In comparison with the lowest quartile of 25-OH vitamin D (<20 ng/mL), the hazard ratio for the highest quartile of 25-OH vitamin D (>30 ng/mL) was 1.22 (CI 0.50–1.72, p = 0.25), and no linear trend across quartiles was observed (p for trend = 0.94). No increased risk of prostate cancer was observed, even with very severe deficiency defined as 25-OH vitamin D level less than 15 ng/mL (HR 0.61, CI 0.36–1.02) (Table 2).

Table 2 Results of Cox regression models for adjudicated incident prostate cancer: adjusted relative risks (95% CI) related to serum vitamin D, adjusted for confounders as appropriate
Full size table

There was no difference in these findings between less aggressive (Gleason <7) and more aggressive (Gleason ≥7) prostate cancers. The hazard ratios did not change after adjustment for age, area of residence, physical activity level, family history of prostate cancer, and other covariates.

In this prospective case-cohort study of older men, we found no association between serum 25-OH vitamin D levels and prostate cancer risk, with or without stratification by Gleason score. Further, even men with the very lowest levels of 25-OH vitamin D (<15 ng/mL) did not appear to be at elevated risk of prostate cancer.

Discussion

In the early 1990s, studies reported an association between cancer-mortality and geographic region, with the greatest mortality in northern regions where there is less UV light exposure [28]. This observation led to the hypothesis that vitamin D may play a role in cancer development and progression. The geographic distribution of mortality was consistent with an inverse relationship between prostate cancer risk and UV exposure, and presumably, serum vitamin D levels [29]. This relationship between low UV exposure and increased risk of prostate cancer has been confirmed by several other investigators [30–33].

This association of low UV exposure and increased cancer risk has also been demonstrated in seasonal studies, where patients who were diagnosed with cancer in the summer and fall had increased survival compared to patients diagnosed in the winter [34–36]. For example, Robsahm et al. found that being diagnosed with prostate cancer in the summer conferred a 20–30% reduction in the risk of death. This was supported by Lagunova et al. who showed that patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in the summer and autumn had a better prognosis than those patients diagnosed in winter or spring with a relative risk of death of 0.80.

Prior to this study, there have been 12 studies that have examined the association between vitamin D levels and prostate cancer risk (Table 3). Four of these studies have suggested an association between increased prostate cancer risk and low serum levels of vitamin D [9–12]. Two demonstrated an inverse association between 1,25-OH2 vitamin D levels and prostate cancer risk [10, 11]. The two other studies demonstrated a link between low 25-OH vitamin D levels and increased risk of prostate cancer [9, 12]. Tuohimaa et al. showed an increased risk of prostate cancer with extreme 25-OH vitamin D deficiency (<7.6 ng/mL), and they also showed an increased risk of prostate cancer in those with the highest 25-OH vitamin D levels suggesting a U-shaped relationship between vitamin D status and prostate cancer risk [12]. In a 2007 study by Li et al., there was an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer when both 1,25-OH2 vitamin D and 25-OH vitamin D levels were low, but no increased risk was found in patients with low 25-OH vitamin D levels, but normal 1,25-OH2 vitamin D levels. This additive risk of low levels of both forms of vitamin D was also shown by Corder et al. suggesting that perhaps low 25-OH vitamin D levels may only be associated with increased prostate cancer risk when they are low enough to effect 1,25-OH2 vitamin D levels. However, eight other epidemiologic studies have shown no significant relationship between measured serum vitamin D levels and prostate cancer risk [13–19, 21].

Table 3 Studies correlating serum vitamin D and prostate cancer risk
Full size table

Additionally, a recent study examined the role of vitamin D on mortality in patients with known prostate cancer [20]. Tretli et al. found that higher levels of 25-OH vitamin D were associated with a better prognosis with a relative risk of mortality of 0.33 compared with patients who had lower levels of 25-OH vitamin D.

In the laboratory, prostate carcinoma cell lines and human specimens have been shown to express vitamin D receptors [3, 37–39]. Normal prostate cells express alpha-1-hydroxylase [40, 41] and this activity can be lost when cancer develops [40, 42], although the incidence of this loss in patients has not been fully characterized. Extrarenal alpha-1-hydroxylase, that is responsible for autocrine and paracrine, but not endocrine vitamin D activation, is thought to be constitutively active [43, 44] and not down-regulated by its downstream product, 1,25-OH2 vitamin D [45]. If this model for the role of vitamin D in prostate carcinogenesis is correct, one would expect little effect of 25-OH deficiency unless it is severe enough to reduce autocrine 1,25-OH2 vitamin D production. We did not detect a relationship between severe vitamin D deficiency and prostate cancer risk, but our ability to do so was limited by the modest number of subjects (both cases and non-cases) with severe deficiency (n = 148). Unfortunately, we were unable to measure prostatic tissue vitamin D status, which would clearly be of interest.

While this study had many strengths including relatively large numbers of cases, a representation of multiple populations across the US where vitamin D deficiency is common (Portland, OR, and Minneapolis, MN, for example), a population of older men who are usually at the greatest risk of prostate cancer, and a relatively large number of high-grade prostate cancers, the results were not consistent with the hypothesis that low serum levels of 25-OH vitamin D increase the risk for prostate cancer. 1,25-OH2 vitamin D, while of interest, was outside the scope of this study and only 25-OH vitamin D was measured. When compared to other similar studies (Table 3), our study had a large, geographically diverse population, common to less than half the prior studies [11, 13, 16, 18]. Also, our study had an acceptable number of highly aggressive prostate cancers (Gleason ≥7) compared to other studies.

In general, the studies that were done in locations with a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency have more frequently shown a relationship between low vitamin D levels and prostate cancer risk. Even though our population came from at least two sites with a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (Portland, OR, and Minneapolis, MN), there was still no association with 25-OH vitamin D levels and prostate cancer risk. Despite this, only 24% of participants in this analysis had vitamin D deficiency (<20 ng/mL), and only 9% had 25-OH vitamin D levels <15 ng/mL. Similarly, as illustrated by only the top quartile having normal vitamin D levels (>30 ng/mL), our subjects were largely clustered in around and just below the normal range of vitamin D. Thus, it is possible that our cohort did not include enough patients with severe vitamin D deficiency to demonstrate an effect. It is also possible that the study did not have a sufficient number of high-grade cancers. Some recent data and hypotheses suggest a link between vitamin D status and prostate cancer aggressiveness rather than incidence [13, 46]. It is also possible that measurement of vitamin D status in men age 65 or older, as reported here, occurs too late in life to detect an effect on an oncogenic process that is thought to be initiated earlier in life [47].

The compelling biologic links between vitamin D and prostate cancer cell growth has motivated the search for such a link in patients. For this reason, it is worthwhile to contemplate possible explanation of how our analysis may have missed an effect. Nevertheless, the most obvious explanation for our findings is that an association between prostate cancer risk and vitamin D status does not exist. While we cannot rule out the existence of such an association in this study, our findings indicate that the vitamin D status, measured by 25-OH vitamin D, in men age 65 or older, does not predict for the subsequent development of prostate cancer.

References

  1. Garland CF, Garland FC (1980) Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol 9(3):227–231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schwartz GG, Hulka BS (1990) Is vitamin D deficiency a risk factor for prostate cancer? (Hypothesis). Anticancer Res 10(5A):1307–1311

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Skowronski RJ, Peehl DM, Feldman D (1993) Vitamin D and prostate cancer: 1, 25 dihydroxyvitamin D3 receptors and actions in human prostate cancer cell lines. Endocrinology 132(5):1952–1960

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peehl DM et al (1994) Antiproliferative effects of 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 on primary cultures of human prostatic cells. Cancer Res 54(3):805–810

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Oades GM et al (2002) Vitamin D receptor-dependent antitumour effects of 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 and two synthetic analogues in three in vivo models of prostate cancer. BJU Int 90(6):607–616

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Getzenberg RH et al (1997) Vitamin D inhibition of prostate adenocarcinoma growth and metastasis in the Dunning rat prostate model system. Urology 50(6):999–1006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schwartz GG et al (1995) 1, 25-Dihydroxy-16-ene-23-yne-vitamin D3 and prostate cancer cell proliferation in vivo. Urology 46(3):365–369

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schwartz GG et al (1994) Human prostate cancer cells: inhibition of proliferation by vitamin D analogs. Anticancer Res 14(3A):1077–1081

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahonen MH et al (2000) Prostate cancer risk and prediagnostic serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (Finland). Cancer Causes Control 11(9):847–852

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Corder EH et al (1993) Vitamin D and prostate cancer: a prediagnostic study with stored sera. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2(5):467–472

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Li H et al (2007) A prospective study of plasma vitamin D metabolites, vitamin D receptor polymorphisms, and prostate cancer. PLoS Med 4(3):e103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tuohimaa P et al (2004) Both high and low levels of blood vitamin D are associated with a higher prostate cancer risk: a longitudinal, nested case-control study in the Nordic countries. Int J Cancer 108(1):104–108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ahn J et al (2008) Serum vitamin D concentration and prostate cancer risk: a nested case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(11):796–804

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Braun MM et al (1995) Prostate cancer and prediagnostic levels of serum vitamin D metabolites (Maryland, United States). Cancer Causes Control 6(3):235–239

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Faupel-Badger JM et al (2007) Lack of association between serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and the subsequent risk of prostate cancer in Finnish men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16(12):2784–2786

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gann PH et al (1996) Circulating vitamin D metabolites in relation to subsequent development of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 5(2):121–126

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jacobs ET et al (2004) Plasma levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D and the risk of prostate cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 89–90(1–5):533–537

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Platz EA et al (2004) Plasma 1, 25-dihydroxy- and 25-hydroxyvitamin D and subsequent risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control 15(3):255–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nomura AM et al (1998) Serum vitamin D metabolite levels and the subsequent development of prostate cancer (Hawaii, United States). Cancer Causes Control 9(4):425–432

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tretli S et al (2009) Association between serum 25(OH)D and death from prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 100(3):450–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Travis RC et al (2009) Serum vitamin D and risk of prostate cancer in a case-control analysis nested within the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC). Am J Epidemiol 169(10):1223–1232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Orwoll E et al (2005) Design and baseline characteristics of the osteoporotic fractures in men (MrOS) study–a large observational study of the determinants of fracture in older men. Contemp Clin Trials 26(5):569–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Washburn RA et al (1993) The physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE): development and evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol 46(2):153–162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Orwoll E et al (2009) Vitamin D deficiency in older men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94(4):1214–1222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barlow WE et al (1999) Analysis of case-cohort designs. J Clin Epidemiol 52(12):1165–1172

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Singh RJ et al (2006) C-3 epimers can account for a significant proportion of total circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D in infants, complicating accurate measurement and interpretation of vitamin D status. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91(8):3055–3061

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Prentice RL (1986) A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials. Biometrika 73(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hanchette CL, Schwartz GG (1992) Geographic patterns of prostate cancer mortality. Evidence for a protective effect of ultraviolet radiation. Cancer 70(12):2861–2869

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schwartz GG, Hanchette CL (2006) UV, latitude, and spatial trends in prostate cancer mortality: all sunlight is not the same (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17(8):1091–1101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Grant WB (2002) An estimate of premature cancer mortality in the US due to inadequate doses of solar ultraviolet-B radiation. Cancer 94(6):1867–1875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Luscombe CJ et al (2001) Exposure to ultraviolet radiation: association with susceptibility and age at presentation with prostate cancer. Lancet 358(9282):641–642

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. John EM et al (2005) Sun exposure, vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms, and risk of advanced prostate cancer. Cancer Res 65(12):5470–5479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bodiwala D et al (2003) Susceptibility to prostate cancer: studies on interactions between UVR exposure and skin type. Carcinogenesis 24(4):711–717

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lagunova Z et al (2007) Prostate cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis. Prostate 67(12):1362–1370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Robsahm TE et al (2004) Vitamin D3 from sunlight may improve the prognosis of breast-, colon- and prostate cancer (Norway). Cancer Causes Control 15(2):149–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhou W et al (2005) Vitamin D is associated with improved survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(10):2303–2309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hedlund TE, Moffatt KA, Miller GJ (1996) Vitamin D receptor expression is required for growth modulation by 1 alpha, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 in the human prostatic carcinoma cell line ALVA-31. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 58(3):277–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Miller GJ et al (1992) The human prostatic carcinoma cell line LNCaP expresses biologically active, specific receptors for 1 alpha, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. Cancer Res 52(3):515–520

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Beer TM et al (2004) Randomized study of high-dose pulse calcitriol or placebo prior to radical prostatectomy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(12):2225–2232

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen TC et al (2003) Prostatic 25-hydroxyvitamin D-1alpha-hydroxylase and its implication in prostate cancer. J Cell Biochem 88(2):315–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schwartz GG et al (1998) Human prostate cells synthesize 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 from 25-hydroxyvitamin D3. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 7(5):391–395

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hsu JY et al (2001) Reduced 1alpha-hydroxylase activity in human prostate cancer cells correlates with decreased susceptibility to 25-hydroxyvitamin D3-induced growth inhibition. Cancer Res 61(7):2852–2856

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Deeb KK, Trump DL, Johnson CS (2007) Vitamin D signalling pathways in cancer: potential for anticancer therapeutics. Nat Rev Cancer 7(9):684–700

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zehnder D et al (2001) Extrarenal expression of 25-hydroxyvitamin d(3)-1 alpha-hydroxylase. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86(2):888–894

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hewison M et al (2000) 1 alpha-Hydroxylase and the action of vitamin D. J Mol Endocrinol 25(2):141–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Giovannucci E et al (2006) Prospective study of predictors of vitamin D status and cancer incidence and mortality in men. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(7):451–459

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sakr WA, Partin AW (2001) Histological markers of risk and the role of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Urology 57(4 Suppl 1):115–120

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology and the Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, CH-14R, 3303 SW Bond Ave, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Christine M. Barnett & Tomasz M. Beer

  2. Department of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Carrie M. Nielson & Jackie Shannon

  3. Portland VA Medical Center and CROET, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Jackie Shannon

  4. Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    June M. Chan

  5. Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    James M. Shikany

  6. University of California, Oakland, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Douglas C. Bauer

  7. Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Andrew R. Hoffman

  8. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA

    Elizabeth Barrett-Connor

  9. Bone and Mineral Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Eric Orwoll

Authors
  1. Christine M. Barnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carrie M. Nielson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jackie Shannon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. June M. Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James M. Shikany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Douglas C. Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrew R. Hoffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Elizabeth Barrett-Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Eric Orwoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tomasz M. Beer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomasz M. Beer.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barnett, C.M., Nielson, C.M., Shannon, J. et al. Serum 25-OH vitamin D levels and risk of developing prostate cancer in older men. Cancer Causes Control 21, 1297–1303 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-010-9557-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-010-9557-y

Keywords

  • Vitamin D
  • Prostate cancer