Study: Heavy Vitamin Use May Be Linked to Advanced Prostate Cancer
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1320 PDT
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- There's more worrisome news about vitamins: Taking too
many may increase men's risk of dying from prostate cancer.
The study, being published Wednesday, doesn't settle the issue. But it is
the biggest yet to suggest high-dose multivitamins may harm the prostate,
and the latest chapter in the confusing quest to tell whether taking various
vitamins really helps a variety of conditions _ or is a waste of money, or
worse.
Government scientists turned to a study tracking the diet and health of
almost 300,000 men. About a third reported taking a daily multivitamin, and
5 percent were heavy users, swallowing the pills more than seven times a
week.
Within five years of the study's start, 10,241 men had been diagnosed with
prostate cancer. Some 1,476 had advanced cancer; 179 died.
Heavy multivitamin users were almost twice as likely to get fatal prostate
cancer as men who never took the pills, concludes the study in Wednesday's
Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Here's the twist: Overall, the researchers found no link between
multivitamin use and early-stage prostate cancer.
The researchers speculate that perhaps high-dose vitamins had little effect
until a tumor appeared, and then could spur its growth.
While similar but smaller studies have suggested a link, too, more rigorous
research is needed, caution the National Cancer Institute scientists. This
newest study involves men who voluntarily took vitamins, and those most at
risk _ perhaps because they had a family history of the disease _ may have
been more likely to take the pills in hopes of avoiding their fate.
Still, "the findings lend further credence to the possibility of harm
associated with increased use of supplements," Dr. Christian Gluud of
Copenhagen University Hospital and Dr. Goran Bjelakovic of Serbia's
University of Nis wrote in an accompanying editorial.
chasjac - 16 May 2007 14:59 GMT
There's another thread discussing this, too, so I won't repeat
everything I said there. But I do want to point out a few more things
about this:
1. Reporters and editors don't get statistics, as a rule. "Taking
too many [multivitamins] may increase men's risk of dying from
prostate cancer." This is only one of many implications of a study
like this, but reporters never lead with the other possibilities.
I like to think that it's just ignorance, but if they always lead with
the scarier implications, will it sell more copies of their rag? And
isn't that a motivation to be less than honest with their readers?
2. By themselves, big numbers ("300,000") do not mean better
results. If the sampling method was flawed, the study will be
untrustworthy. But the reporters are impressed, so that's what they
write.
3. "The researchers _speculate_ [emphasis mine] that perhaps high-
dose vitamins had little effect until a tumor appeared, and then could
spur its growth." They are only speculating. This suggests
additional research is warranted, but if they cannot do better than a
vague speculation, then what are we to make of this. A multivitamin
contains many different supplements. I'd like to know which ones are
causing the increase in tumor growth. And if they had an idea which
one was doing it, they'd say so in their speculation.
4. Of course, the part buried at the bottom of the article: "This
newest study involves men who voluntarily took vitamins, and those
most at risk _ perhaps because they had a family history of the
disease _ may have been more likely to take the pills in hopes of
avoiding their fate." A study that does not control for this cannot
be the basis of decisions you or I make about our nutrition. But
reporters never say that.
--charlie
Alan Meyer - 16 May 2007 16:22 GMT
... <many good points elided> ...
> 4. Of course, the part buried at the bottom of the article: "This
> newest study involves men who voluntarily took vitamins, and those
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> be the basis of decisions you or I make about our nutrition. But
> reporters never say that.
I certainly increased my intake of vitamins and supplements
after being diagnosed. So did many others in this newsgroup.
The news article, of course, doesn't tell us if the researchers
attempted to control for this, and if so, how.
Alan
chasjac - 16 May 2007 16:30 GMT
Sorry to be harping on this -- I just get irritated at reporters and
editors who mangle thoughtful work and needlessly scare people.
You can see the abstract of the actual article at:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/10/754
I quote from it:
"Results: No association was observed between multivitamin use and
risk of localized prostate cancer."
_No association_. So, it's not doing you any good in prevention, but
it's doing no harm, either.
"However, we found an increased risk of advanced and fatal prostate
cancers ... among men reporting excessive use of multivitamins (more
than seven times per week) when compared with never users."
More than seven times a week means more than once a day. So, don't
overdo it.
"The positive associations with excessive multivitamin use were
strongest in men with a family history of prostate cancer or who took
individual micronutrient supplements, including selenium, beta-
carotene, or zinc."
At least one of my question is answered: the researchers seem to have
identified three nutritional supplements they deem suspicious. All
three of these are frequently mentioned as supplements to take if
you're trying to prevent/control PCa. This could be explained by the
categories those men find themselves in rather than the effects of a
supplement. It could also be explained by specific effects these
supplements have on prostate tumors, but that requires biochemical
research. And as the authors say:
"The possibility that men taking high levels of multivitamins along
with other supplements have increased risk of advanced and fatal
prostate cancers is of concern and merits further evaluation."
But don't conclude too much from this study.
--charlie