Calcium supplements and cancer risk

a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Sarah M Bristow, Mark J Bolland, Graeme S Maclennan, Alison Avenell, Andrew Grey, Greg D Gamble, Ian R Reid

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

49 Citations (Scopus)
23 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Some evidence suggests that Ca and vitamin D supplements affect cancer risk; however, it is uncertain whether the effects are due to Ca, vitamin D or the combination. We investigated the effect of Ca supplements without co-administered vitamin D on cancer risk. Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists of meta-analyses and two clinical trial registries were searched for randomised, placebo-controlled trials of Ca supplements ( = 500 mg/d), with = 100 participants and duration >1 year. The lead authors of eligible trials supplied data on cancer outcomes. Trial-level data were analysed using random-effects meta-analyses and patient-level data using Cox proportional hazards models. A total of sixteen trials were eligible, six had no data available, ten provided trial-level data (n 10 496, mean duration 3·9 years), and of these, four provided patient-level data (n 7221, median duration 3·5 years). In the meta-analysis of trial-level data, allocation to Ca did not alter the risk of total cancer (relative risk 0·95, 95 % CI 0·76, 1·18, P= 0·63), colorectal cancer (relative risk 1·38, 95 % CI 0·89, 2·15, P= 0·15), breast cancer (relative risk 1·01, 95 % CI 0·64, 1·59, P= 0·97) or cancer-related mortality (relative risk 0·96, 95 % CI 0·74, 1·24, P= 0·75), but reduced the risk of prostate cancer (relative risk 0·54, 95 % CI 0·30, 0·96, P= 0·03), although there were few events. The meta-analysis of patient-level data showed similar results, with no effect of Ca on the risk of total cancer (hazard ratio 1·07, 95 % CI 0·89, 1·28, P= 0·50). Ca supplements without co-administered vitamin D did not alter total cancer risk over 4 years, although the meta-analysis lacked power to detect very small effects, or those with a longer latency.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1384-1393
Number of pages10
JournalBritish Journal of Nutrition
Volume110
Issue number8
Early online date19 Apr 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2013

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Calcium
Neoplasms
Vitamin D
Proportional Hazards Models
Registries
Colorectal Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Placebos
Clinical Trials
Breast Neoplasms
Mortality

Keywords

  • calcium supplements
  • cancer
  • meta-analysis
  • randomised trials

Cite this

Calcium supplements and cancer risk : a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. / Bristow, Sarah M; Bolland, Mark J; Maclennan, Graeme S; Avenell, Alison; Grey, Andrew; Gamble, Greg D; Reid, Ian R.

In: British Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 110, No. 8, 10.2013, p. 1384-1393.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bristow, Sarah M ; Bolland, Mark J ; Maclennan, Graeme S ; Avenell, Alison ; Grey, Andrew ; Gamble, Greg D ; Reid, Ian R. / Calcium supplements and cancer risk : a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. In: British Journal of Nutrition. 2013 ; Vol. 110, No. 8. pp. 1384-1393.
@article{a0aec67ec08e44f59024fce56c226659,
title = "Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials",
abstract = "Some evidence suggests that Ca and vitamin D supplements affect cancer risk; however, it is uncertain whether the effects are due to Ca, vitamin D or the combination. We investigated the effect of Ca supplements without co-administered vitamin D on cancer risk. Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists of meta-analyses and two clinical trial registries were searched for randomised, placebo-controlled trials of Ca supplements ( = 500 mg/d), with = 100 participants and duration >1 year. The lead authors of eligible trials supplied data on cancer outcomes. Trial-level data were analysed using random-effects meta-analyses and patient-level data using Cox proportional hazards models. A total of sixteen trials were eligible, six had no data available, ten provided trial-level data (n 10 496, mean duration 3·9 years), and of these, four provided patient-level data (n 7221, median duration 3·5 years). In the meta-analysis of trial-level data, allocation to Ca did not alter the risk of total cancer (relative risk 0·95, 95 {\%} CI 0·76, 1·18, P= 0·63), colorectal cancer (relative risk 1·38, 95 {\%} CI 0·89, 2·15, P= 0·15), breast cancer (relative risk 1·01, 95 {\%} CI 0·64, 1·59, P= 0·97) or cancer-related mortality (relative risk 0·96, 95 {\%} CI 0·74, 1·24, P= 0·75), but reduced the risk of prostate cancer (relative risk 0·54, 95 {\%} CI 0·30, 0·96, P= 0·03), although there were few events. The meta-analysis of patient-level data showed similar results, with no effect of Ca on the risk of total cancer (hazard ratio 1·07, 95 {\%} CI 0·89, 1·28, P= 0·50). Ca supplements without co-administered vitamin D did not alter total cancer risk over 4 years, although the meta-analysis lacked power to detect very small effects, or those with a longer latency.",
keywords = "calcium supplements, cancer, meta-analysis, randomised trials",
author = "Bristow, {Sarah M} and Bolland, {Mark J} and Maclennan, {Graeme S} and Alison Avenell and Andrew Grey and Gamble, {Greg D} and Reid, {Ian R}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1017/S0007114513001050",
language = "English",
volume = "110",
pages = "1384--1393",
journal = "British Journal of Nutrition",
issn = "0007-1145",
publisher = "Cambridge Univ. Press.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Calcium supplements and cancer risk

T2 - a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AU - Bristow, Sarah M

AU - Bolland, Mark J

AU - Maclennan, Graeme S

AU - Avenell, Alison

AU - Grey, Andrew

AU - Gamble, Greg D

AU - Reid, Ian R

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - Some evidence suggests that Ca and vitamin D supplements affect cancer risk; however, it is uncertain whether the effects are due to Ca, vitamin D or the combination. We investigated the effect of Ca supplements without co-administered vitamin D on cancer risk. Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists of meta-analyses and two clinical trial registries were searched for randomised, placebo-controlled trials of Ca supplements ( = 500 mg/d), with = 100 participants and duration >1 year. The lead authors of eligible trials supplied data on cancer outcomes. Trial-level data were analysed using random-effects meta-analyses and patient-level data using Cox proportional hazards models. A total of sixteen trials were eligible, six had no data available, ten provided trial-level data (n 10 496, mean duration 3·9 years), and of these, four provided patient-level data (n 7221, median duration 3·5 years). In the meta-analysis of trial-level data, allocation to Ca did not alter the risk of total cancer (relative risk 0·95, 95 % CI 0·76, 1·18, P= 0·63), colorectal cancer (relative risk 1·38, 95 % CI 0·89, 2·15, P= 0·15), breast cancer (relative risk 1·01, 95 % CI 0·64, 1·59, P= 0·97) or cancer-related mortality (relative risk 0·96, 95 % CI 0·74, 1·24, P= 0·75), but reduced the risk of prostate cancer (relative risk 0·54, 95 % CI 0·30, 0·96, P= 0·03), although there were few events. The meta-analysis of patient-level data showed similar results, with no effect of Ca on the risk of total cancer (hazard ratio 1·07, 95 % CI 0·89, 1·28, P= 0·50). Ca supplements without co-administered vitamin D did not alter total cancer risk over 4 years, although the meta-analysis lacked power to detect very small effects, or those with a longer latency.

AB - Some evidence suggests that Ca and vitamin D supplements affect cancer risk; however, it is uncertain whether the effects are due to Ca, vitamin D or the combination. We investigated the effect of Ca supplements without co-administered vitamin D on cancer risk. Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists of meta-analyses and two clinical trial registries were searched for randomised, placebo-controlled trials of Ca supplements ( = 500 mg/d), with = 100 participants and duration >1 year. The lead authors of eligible trials supplied data on cancer outcomes. Trial-level data were analysed using random-effects meta-analyses and patient-level data using Cox proportional hazards models. A total of sixteen trials were eligible, six had no data available, ten provided trial-level data (n 10 496, mean duration 3·9 years), and of these, four provided patient-level data (n 7221, median duration 3·5 years). In the meta-analysis of trial-level data, allocation to Ca did not alter the risk of total cancer (relative risk 0·95, 95 % CI 0·76, 1·18, P= 0·63), colorectal cancer (relative risk 1·38, 95 % CI 0·89, 2·15, P= 0·15), breast cancer (relative risk 1·01, 95 % CI 0·64, 1·59, P= 0·97) or cancer-related mortality (relative risk 0·96, 95 % CI 0·74, 1·24, P= 0·75), but reduced the risk of prostate cancer (relative risk 0·54, 95 % CI 0·30, 0·96, P= 0·03), although there were few events. The meta-analysis of patient-level data showed similar results, with no effect of Ca on the risk of total cancer (hazard ratio 1·07, 95 % CI 0·89, 1·28, P= 0·50). Ca supplements without co-administered vitamin D did not alter total cancer risk over 4 years, although the meta-analysis lacked power to detect very small effects, or those with a longer latency.

KW - calcium supplements

KW - cancer

KW - meta-analysis

KW - randomised trials

U2 - 10.1017/S0007114513001050

DO - 10.1017/S0007114513001050

M3 - Article

VL - 110

SP - 1384

EP - 1393

JO - British Journal of Nutrition

JF - British Journal of Nutrition

SN - 0007-1145

IS - 8

ER -