Vitamins, selenium do not reduce risk of prostate cancer, studies show
Hopes that taking vitamins and other supplements might cut the risk of cancer took another blow in two new studies published today in the early online version of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
One large, randomized clinical trial led by Dr. J. Michael Graziano of Brigham and Women's Hospital found that middle-aged men who took vitamin E or vitamin C for about eight years did not have a lower risk of developing prostate cancer or other kinds of cancer compared to similar men who took placebos.
Another large trial from the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center studying the effect of selenium and vitamin E on cancer risk was halted early when neither supplement showed any benefits to the men taking it. Final results told the same story: Selenium or vitamin E, taken alone or together, did not reduce the risk of prostate or other cancers in men at least 50 years old.
"It may be time to give up the idea that the protective influence of diet on prostate cancer risk — which is clearly observed in migrant studies and in populations transitioning to a Western diet — can be emulated by isolated dietary molecules given alone or in combination to middle-aged and older men," Dr. Peter H. Gann of the University of Illinois at Chicago writes in an editorial published with the two studies.
The two studies enrolled thousands of men -- more than 14,500 physicians over 50 in the vitamin E and C study and more than 35,000 men over 50 in the selenium and vitamin E trial -- to follow up on previous research that linked higher levels of vitamins in the blood with lower risk of certain cancers. Other studies launched to answer other questions yielded secondary data hinting at a role for vitamins and selenium in preventing cancers. The studies reported today more closely examined the relationship between supplements and cancer.
Another recent study also failed to find a benefit for supplements in preventing cancer. Women who took calcium and vitamin D supplements developed breast cancer at the same rate as women who didn't take them, research from the massive Women's Health Initiative found, contradicting conclusions from previous studies considered less rigorous.
Comment
Permalink
E-mail
leave it to a woman to find a way to distract from the topic of major concern here, prostate cancer in MEN, by randomly noting a completely unrelated study about breast cancer. can feminists EVER say, write or do ANYTHING that does not somehow have to include WOMEN or GIRLS? not a day goes by that someone, somewhere covers the issue of breast cancer, whether it be on TV or otherwise in the media, yet i do not ever recall seeing any of that coverage altered to include prostate cancer. so typical and distracting and unhelpful regarding how little media coverage prostate cancer in MEN gets compared to the constant coverage that breast cancer gets! shameful and sexist against men!
point well taken.
"fc" -- your petulance IS the distraction here! You appear to have your knickers all knotted over just one paragraph (a small fraction of the column inches) which was used to underscore this article's focus - which was clearly stated at the outset of the article: - "Hopes that taking vitamins and other supplements might cut the risk of cancer took another blow..."
I don't know what your personal issues are, which appear to have burdened you with such a BIG AXE to grind; however, I DO know that most people are unlikely likely to be constructively influenced by in-your-face rants that interfere with reasonable, informed discussions! Perhaps, if you're willing to re-read this article, you'll realize that there's actually useful information being offered -- rather than yet another outcropping of the "Universal Feminist Conspiracy" which is apparently your sacred & sworn duty to stamp-out wherever it rears its ugly head!
(Btw, I'm an overweight, outta-shape, 68 year-old male - as such, a member of the referenced at-risk population.) I found absolutely nothing offensive or biased in this story. Quite to the contrary, I'm grateful to see another bit of health fiction being de-bunked! Our American culture relies too heavily on the simplistic belief that there's a pill to fix 'most any medical malady, and I hope that other men in this at-risk population will stop popping pills & turn to annual physicals as a more effective means of detecting & treating prostate cancer!
Thank you, Elizabeth, for promoting a wider readership for this important information...
Hey fc.
Shut up.
While discounting the rage in fc's post there is a valid point made. Cancers need to be attacked as a whole not necessarily as boutique cancers. The key problem here is that all cancers kill without any regard for part of the body, gender, or marketing budget. Breast cancer just seems to have a bigger marketing budget than prostrate cancer. The good thing about adding the words breast cancer to the article will mean that folks looking for breast cancer will get some info on prostrate. I really wish the drug companies could profit from making cures instead of maintenence drugs. There is no profit in making a drug that somebody gets cured and stops taking it....
The single reference to D3 may not take into consideration recent, strong evidence that Vitamin A is antagonistic to D3's assimilation. D3 is under serious study and ought not be discounted nor diminished in a single blow. The story's author did not present a balanced viewpoint.
I think the report, or maybe just this article, cast too broad a net when it says, "It may be time to give up the idea that the protective influence of diet on prostate cancer risk..." Maybe these vitamins are not the silver bullets, but eating meat - especially red meat - is the main nurture culprit in both prostate and breast cancer. These organs are sumps for all the feedstock of our feedstock's fatty tissue. Cards on the table, I am not without guilt, though I am as afraid of my food as the next man for all the above reasons.
Wow, I'm fascinated to see the many different ways in which folks chose to "resonate" with this article! Unfortunately, that appears to have been at the expense of objectivity, as several commenters hunkered-down on incomplete fragments of sentences, to support viewpoints which are clearly NOT substantiated by a full & impartial reading of this report. I believe that this story & the gamut of responses serves to illustrate in microcosm, just how easily opportunities for constructive dialog get sabotaged by participants keen on pushing their own agendas or by others determined to intuit an insult or offense when none was intended...
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Contributors
blogger
Boston Globe Health and Science staff:
browse this blog
by categoryrelated links
INside Boston.com