Vitamin E CAUSES Prostate Cancer in Men.
I want to bring this to your attention if you haven't heard about this already. This isn't about radical amounts of Vitamin E; just 400 IU per day. Quote: Hello. I am Dr. Gerald Chodak from Medscape. Vitamins and over-the-counter supplements are back in the news with an updated report from the SELECT trial.[1] This was a study that began in 2001 that enrolled patients over the next 3 years and assigned them to 1 of 4 groups: those who received placebo alone, vitamin E plus placebo, selenium plus placebo, or vitamin E plus selenium. The results that were originally reported in 2008 found that there was no significant reduction in the development of prostate cancer in any of the 3 treatment groups. However, there was a trend toward a higher incidence of prostate cancer. The authors decided to continue following patients even after the study was discontinued. After an additional 3 years of follow-up, the authors found a 17% higher incidence of prostate cancer in men taking vitamin E. It was muted or lessened in the men taking the combination of vitamin E and selenium, suggesting that selenium had some protective effect. This increase began as early as 3 years after the initiation of the trial and continued to increase. The message is this: Not only did vitamin E not help to reduce the risk for prostate cancer, it actually increased the risk. This message is an important one to convey to our patients. With no prospective, randomized studies evaluating higher doses of supplements, there is really no way to tell whether there is any impact on disease prevention or treatment. Even more important, patients should realize that unless studied properly, we really do not even know the overall impact in terms of side effects. Here we have yet another example of something that is over-the-counter that can actually cause harm. Patients should be alerted to that. Studies had previously suggested that vitamin E might be a heart-protective agent or may prevent other cancers. However, well-done studies have failed to demonstrate that. I think it is important to find out from our patients whether they are taking vitamin E supplements and caution them about the increased risk for developing prostate cancer. We should discourage our patients from taking supplements that have not been studied properly. Most people do it thinking, "Even if it doesn't work, there's no harm." Here is yet another example that harm can occur when tested properly. The study mentioned, the SELECT trial was not insignificant. It involved 35,000 men spread across 427 sites. It ran for a total of a decade. Quote: DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 35,533 men from 427 study sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico were randomized between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Eligibility criteria included a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 4.0 ng/mL or less, a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer, and age 50 years or older for black men and 55 years or older for all others. The primary analysis included 34,887 men who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: 8752 to receive selenium; 8737, vitamin E; 8702, both agents, and 8696, placebo. Analysis reflect the final data collected by the study sites on their participants through July 5, 2011. And the conclusions are pretty straightforward: Quote: CONCLUSION: Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men. and a few details: Quote: RESULTS: This report includes 54,464 additional person-years of follow-up and 521 additional cases of prostate cancer since the primary report. Compared with the placebo (referent group) in which 529 men developed prostate cancer, 620 men in the vitamin E group developed prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 99% CI, 1.004-1.36, P = .008); as did 575 in the selenium group (HR, 1.09; 99% CI, 0.93-1.27; P = .18), and 555 in the selenium plus vitamin E group (HR, 1.05; 99% CI, 0.89-1.22, P = .46). Compared with placebo, the absolute increase in risk of prostate cancer per 1000 person-years was 1.6 for vitamin E, 0.8 for selenium, and 0.4 for the combination. I am going to check that my dog's food does not contain high amounts of Vitamin E... |
|
|
| Ron, I cannot tell if you are being completely serious in this thread, but I would like to point out that the study does NOT say that Vitamin E causes cancer. It suggests that supplements of vitamin E and/or selenium do not help prevent prostate cancer and that there may be an increase incidence of cancer in men who take either supplement or both. That's not the same thing as vitamin E causing cancer. For one thing, vitamin E is necessary for proper function of the body. This study is about vitamin e and selenium SUPPLEMENTS. And this is ONE study. Not everyone agrees with the study's conclusions. Even the main author of the study points out that other studies have suggested that vitamin E can be beneficial for preventing prostate cancer. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... VE20111011 |
| I am completely serious. Yes, it's about supplements. It didn't say "may." The study concluded "Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy men. " Just 400 IU daily over 3 years increases the incidence of cancer by 17% in a study of 35000 men over the course of 10 years. Thank God they didn't continue taking the vitamin E after the first 3 years. If the study had concluded it caused an increase in breast cancer of 17% I think it would have received much more publicity. Prostate cancer is not uncommon. Extrapolating from this data, if every man in the country took just 400 IU vitamin E for just 3 years, at the end of 10 years there would be an additional 400,000 cases of prostate cancer. This is critical information that needs to be spread loudly and rapidly, not discounted. People, especially men, who are taking vitamin E supplements without direction from their physicians should stop taking it immediately, and those who are taking it under the direction of their physicians should talk to them about this information. |
| "Increases the likelihood" is not the same thing as "causes." And one study does not constitute proof. It's one study, albeit by the Cleveland Clinic. Quote: Klein and his colleagues say it's not clear how vitamin E would increase the risk of prostate cancer, and that not all past studies have shown it does any harm to the prostate. Some have even found a lower prostate-cancer risk with vitamin E. He said the new findings aren't definite proof that vitamin E causes extra prostate cancers, but that there wasn't anything else that could explain why men taking the vitamin were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer -- for example, they weren't screened more frequently. My husband is a 2 1/2 year prostate cancer survivor. His father was diagnosed about 10 years ago. We have 3 sons. I know the stats. These days, I see a great deal more in the media about prostate cancer than I do about breast cancer. |
| Really? C'mon.... The first one says he doesn't understand the cancers, and that NOT ALL the past studies have found they do harm The second one just says it's not conclusive proof but there was no other explanation. Causes/increase in likelihood; Tomato, tomahto. If we don't want to say it causes the cancer, fine. Can we agree on "it causes more people to suffer with prostate cancer?" I'd be interested to know if they broke down the types of cancers from the groups. The bottom line is guys (and probably all people) should stop taking supplemental Vitamin E unless directed otherwise by their doctor. It's not harmless, and it is apparently harmful in the dosages commonly consumed. |
| Actually, Ron (though if I was male and took this supplement I wouldn't wait around for additional proof, take that as you will) even with a large study like this, scientifically speaking, the proof would be in the replication. If there is indeed a link between Vit E supplementation and an increased risk of prostate cancer you should expect that if this study was repeated on a different but similarly large and random sample, the outcome should be very close to the same. If not, there was something else going on. Even, or perhaps especially, on studies like these, they've been wrong before. Doesn't mean this study won't turn out to be validated, but as it stands it's not conclusive, merely suggestive. You could, for instance, randomly end up with one group that had a disproportionate number of men with an above average risk for developing this particular cancer. Without testing that the hypothesis would stand up to duplication you can't be sure you're seeing what you're seeing. But would it make me uneasy? You bet. Still, how many times have we heard "don't eat this, it will kill you. Oh, sorry, no, that's fine, but don't eat THAT. On the other hand, take more of this to protect against that, oops, wrong again, it actually has no value..."? That said, I'd probably take note on this one and decide to go along with the recommendation until further notice under the better safe than sorry umbrella. As for dogs, though it's true that researchers have realized the value of canine health research in advancing human health research, and some times vice versa, you can't extrapolate from this study that, even if true, vitamin E in dog food would carry the same risk to our (male) dogs. Kristine |
| I agree, and I wouldn't usually want to fan the flames of panic. But this was a 35,000 participant PROSPECTIVE trial and the outcome they were looking for was not uncommon so the numbers are quite large so I'd guess that the confidence interval would have to be extraordinarily high for a study like this. If I recall correctly, there were other studies over the years (maybe even the prelim results from this one) that attempted to show benefits to Vitamin E, I don't think many of them showed significant bennies and some of them hinted at problems. So yeah, we can wait another ten years for another study, or take a more cautious approach. |
| Ron, in the link I provided--heck, the quote I lifted: the primary scientist in charge of the study suggesting that supplements of vitamin E might be related to increased incidence of prostate cancer stated that previous studies showed "Some (studies) have even found a lower prostate-cancer risk with vitamin E." This is one study. Granted, the Cleveland Clinic is a world class institution. But as Mad Dog said, it needs more substantiation, another study which finds the same or similar results. For the record, I'm not a big fan of supplements, unless recommended for a specific reason. Example: if you are lactose intolerant, you might need a calcium supplement if you aren't getting enough calcium in your diet otherwise. And I am really not in favor of jumping on or off bandwagons because of a single study. In particular, recent recommendations for screening for prostate cancer and for breast cancer have been very controversial, for good reason. |
| Ron if its going to happen it will. Its all down to your genes. It may affect more people than others so I would take this with a pinch of salt like most of these studies. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|