Vitamin D is a hormone created by the body when skin is exposed to ultraviolet rays in sunlight. It is found naturally in a small number of foods and can also be taken as a fat-soluble dietary supplement.

How can Vitamin D help me? What the research says

We summarize the clinical evidence for each medical benefit here. We begin with our assessment of the strength of evidence within each category, followed by a brief summary of individual studies or reviews of several studies. In assessing the strength of evidence, we consider the study design, number of participants, and the size of the treatment effect (how much outcomes changed with treatment).

Learn more about how we research and rate therapies and practices.

Vitamin D levels in blood or plasma are typically reported as 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, or 25(OH)D for short. Sometimes researchers don’t report the specific measure used, and so we’ll say only “vitamin D levels” in our statement.

Blood levels

Some research has found that vitamin D in the body reaches an optimum level somewhere between 30 and below 40 ng/mL (75 and 100 nmol/L), as reported on this page. Higher levels than that are not always better and may even carry risks. See Safety and precautions › 

Many people are deficient in vitamin D, with blood levels below about 8 ng/mL (20 nmol/L). An optimal blood level is a better indicator of health benefits than your daily or weekly intake of supplements. In fact, if you have blood levels at or above the optimum range, supplements may bring little benefit. Your vitamin D blood level is a key piece of information for deciding whether and how much supplementation you may need.

Genetic variants

Several variants in our genetics influence the response  of our vitamin D receptors and bodies to treatment with vitamin D. Research regarding the impacts of genetic variants on vitamin D treatment among people with or at risk of cancer is summarized in Are you a health professional? ›

Treating cancer

Is vitamin D linked to improved survival? Is it linked to less cancer growth or metastasis? Does it enhance the anticancer action of other treatments or therapies? We present the evidence.

Cancer as a whole

Good evidencesignificant effects in one large or several mid-sized and well-designed clinical studies (randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate placebo or other strong comparison control or observational studies that control for confounds) (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of moderately better cancer-specific survival among people with cancer with high vitamin D levels

Modest evidencesignificant effects in at least three small but well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or one or more well-designed, mid-sized clinical studies of reasonably good quality (RCTs or observational studies), or several small studies aggregated into a meta-analysis (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of lower overall mortality among people with cancer taking vitamin D supplements

Advanced cancer

Modest evidence of better progression-free survival and moderately lower overall mortality among people with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer with the highest 25(OH)D levels

No evidence of an effectoverall, one or more studies did not demonstrate that a treatment or intervention led to an expected outcome; this does not always mean that there is no effect in clinical practice, but that the studies may have been underpowered (too few participants) or poorly designed. Larger, well-designed studies provide more confidence in making assessments. on progression-free survivalthe time during and after treatment of a disease that a patient lives without disease progression (worsening) or overall mortality among people with advanced pancreatic cancer with high 25(OH)D levels

Weak evidenceone or more case studies, supported by animal evidence OR small treatment effects of limited clinical significance OR studies with no controls OR weak trends of effects (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of better progression-free survival but no evidence of an effect on tumor objective response ratepercentage of patients whose disease decreased after treatment or overall survival among people with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer treated with high-dose vitamin D3 during treatment with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab chemotherapy

Weak evidence of tumor response among people with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer treated with vitamin D during treatment with docetaxel

Breast cancer

Good evidence of lower mortality, less cancer progression, and better rates of pathologic complete response among people with breast cancer with higher 25(OH)D levels

Preliminary evidencesignificant effects in small or poorly designed clinical studies OR conflicting results in adequate studies but a preponderance of evidence of an effect (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of better survival among people with breast cancer taking vitamin D supplements

Preliminary evidence of less tumor blood vessel formation (angiogenesis) during tamoxifen treatment among premenopausal women, but varied results for postmenopausal women treated with vitamin D

No evidence of an effect on markers of tumor proliferation or cell death in primary breast cancer cells from newly diagnosed people treated with 40,000 IU vitamin D

Colorectal cancer

Good evidence of lower mortality among people with colorectal cancer with the highest 25(OH)D levels

Insufficient (conflicting) evidencepreclinical evidence only OR clinical studies with such poor or unclear methodology that no conclusion can be drawn OR conflicting findings across clinical studies with no preponderance of evidence in one direction; conflicting evidence occurs when studies find conflicting effects (positive effect vs no effect or negative effect) with the same treatment and the same general study population (same cancer type, for example) (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of an effect on cancer progression among people with colorectal cancer with high 25(OH)D

Modest evidence of better survival, less progression, and fewer adverse cancer outcomes among people with colorectal cancer treated with vitamin D

Gastrointestinal cancer

Modest evidence of higher mortality and more advanced cancer among people with gastric carcinoma or liver cancer with low 25(OH)D levels

Modest evidence of lower mortality and relapse among people with stage 1–3 digestive tract cancers treated with vitamin D, especially among people with 25(OH)D levels under 40 ng/mL or with suppressed immune function

Modest evidence of substantially better 5-year relapse-free and overall survival among people with poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma taking vitamin D3 after surgery

No evidence of an effect on survival at 24 months after surgery among people with esophageal cancer taking vitamin D supplements in an observationala type of study in which individuals are observed or certain outcomes are measured, but no attempt is made to affect the outcome (for example, no treatment is given); an example is a study that records people’s diets, but doesn’t try to alter their diets, and looks for patterns of disease or other outcomes related to different foods study

Head, neck, and oral cancer

Vitamin D levels: no evidence of an effect on cancer progression or mortality among people with head and neck cancer with higher 25(OH)D levels in a combined analysis of 2 studies

Modest evidence of slightly better survival among people with head and neck cancer with high vitamin D intake

Kidney cancer

Preliminary evidence of moderately lower overall mortality but not cancer-specific mortality among people with renal cell carcinoma with higher 25(OH)D3 levels

Leukemia, lymphoma, or other blood cancers

Good evidence of less cancer progression and lower mortality among people with blood cancers with higher 25(OH)D levels

Lung cancer

Insufficient (conflicting) evidence of an effect on mortality among people with lung cancer with higher 25(OH)D levels, but with some evidence of variations according to genetic polymorphisms

Modest evidence of better overall and relapse-free survival among people with lung cancer taking vitamin D

Melanoma and other skin cancers

Modest evidence of higher overall mortality among people with skin cancer with low 25(OH)D levels

Weak evidence of higher cancer-specific mortality among people with skin cancer with low 25(OH)D levels

Preliminary evidence of lower risk of advanced tumors at diagnosis among people with melanoma with higher 25(OH)D3 level

No evidence of an effect on progression among people with melanoma with higher 25(OH)D levels in a combined analysis of studies

Weak evidence of lower risk of relapse and better overall survival among people with melanoma taking vitamin D supplements

Ovarian cancer

Modest evidence of slightly longer survival among people with ovarian cancer with higher 25(OH)D levels at diagnosis, but no evidence of an effect on progression-free survival after treatment

Pancreatic cancer

Modest evidence of lower mortality among people with pancreatic cancer with higher 25(OH)D levels

Prostate cancer

Modest evidence of lower mortality among people with prostate cancer with higher vitamin D levels

Weak evidence of less progression (better PSA response proportionthe percentage of people who achieved a defined reduction in PSA, typically set at 50% reduction or more indicating a reduction is serum PSA levels, or positive coresbiopsy samples testing positive for cancer ) among people with prostate cancer treated with vitamin D supplements

Vitamin D in combination with other therapies

Vitamin D and calcium

Weak evidence of less tumor progression among people with colorectal adenoma treated with vitamin D and calcium

No evidence of an effect on mortality among people with blood cancer (hematologic malignancy) treated with calcium and vitamin D supplements

Optimizing your body terrain

Does vitamin D promote an environment within your body that is less supportive of cancer development, growth, or spread? We present the evidence.

Blood sugar and insulin resistance

Preliminary evidencesignificant effects in small or poorly designed clinical studies OR conflicting results in adequate studies but a preponderance of evidence of an effect (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of higher insulin sensitivity and better blood glucose levels among people at risk for type 2 diabetes with higher 25(OH)D levels

Preliminary evidence of lower 25(OH)D levels among people with diabetes

Weak (conflicting) evidenceone or more case studies, supported by animal evidence OR small treatment effects of limited clinical significance OR studies with no controls OR weak trends of effects (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of an effect on glycemic control (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, insulin levels, and other measures of blood glucose and insulin balance among people with diabetes or insulin resistance

Preliminary evidence of lower insulin resistance (HOMA) and better insulin sensitivity among people with diabetes or insulin resistance treated with vitamin D3

Good evidencesignificant effects in one large or several mid-sized and well-designed clinical studies (randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate placebo or other strong comparison control or observational studies that control for confounds) (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of higher risk of type 2 diabetes among people with lower 25(OH)D levels

Good evidence of better markers of glycemic control (HbA1c) and lower risk of insulin resistance  among people without diabetes with higher 25(OH)D levels

Modest evidencesignificant effects in at least three small but well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or one or more well-designed, mid-sized clinical studies of reasonably good quality (RCTs or observational studies), or several small studies aggregated into a meta-analysis (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of lower fasting glucose among women with polycystic ovary syndrome treated with vitamin D

Weak evidence of lower insulin levels among women with polycystic ovary syndrome taking vitamin D supplements, but only when used in combination with calcium, vitamin K, zinc, or magnesium

Modest evidence of lower insulin resistance and higher insulin sensitivity among people treated with vitamin D

Modest evidence of a slightly lower risk of type 2 diabetes among women with the highest vitamin D intake from supplements

Hormone imbalance

Preliminary evidence of higher incidence of early onset of menstruation (menarche) among girls with low 25(OH)D levels

Preliminary (conflicting) evidence of better balance of some sex hormones among people with imbalances treated with vitamin D

Insufficient evidencepreclinical evidence only OR clinical studies with such poor or unclear methodology that no conclusion can be drawn OR conflicting findings across clinical studies with no preponderance of evidence in one direction; conflicting evidence occurs when studies find conflicting effects (positive effect vs no effect or negative effect) with the same treatment and the same general study population (same cancer type, for example) (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of an effect on parathyroid hormone among people with low 25(OH)D levels treated with vitamin D

Preliminary evidence of a substantial increase in leptin, which inhibits hunger responses, among people with type 2 diabetes treated with vitamin D

Immune function

Preliminary evidence of balanced immune function among people with higher vitamin D levels

Preliminary evidence of balanced immune function among people treated with vitamin D

Inflammation

Good evidence of higher markers of inflammation among people with low 25(OH)D levels, typically below 10 ng/mL

Strong evidenceconsistent, significant effects in several large (or at least one very large) well designed clinical studies or at least two meta-analyses of clinical studies of moderate or better quality (or one large meta-analysis) finding similar results (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of lower markers of inflammation among people treated with vitamin D

Oxidative stress

Strong evidence of lower markers of oxidative stressan imbalance between free radicals and antioxidants in your body; this imbalance can cause harmful oxidation reactions in your body chemistry among people, mostly with polycystic ovary syndrome, treated with vitamin D

Body weight

Good evidence of a link between overweight or larger waist circumference and lower 25(OH)D levels

Modest evidence of a link between metabolic health and 25(OH)D levels among people with obesity

No evidence of an effectoverall, one or more studies did not demonstrate that a treatment or intervention led to an expected outcome; this does not always mean that there is no effect in clinical practice, but that the studies may have been underpowered (too few participants) or poorly designed. Larger, well-designed studies provide more confidence in making assessments. on body weight among postmenopausal women treated with vitamin D in a small study

Other terrain factors

Weak evidence of lower mammographic density among premenopausal women at high risk breast of cancer with a low baseline 25(OH)D level treated with vitamin D

Preliminary evidence of lower levels of a signaling protein related to the formation of new blood vessels among women with polycystic ovary syndrome treated with vitamin D

Vitamin D in combination with other therapies

Preliminary evidence of lower markers of blood glucose, insulin imbalance, or inflammation among people treated with vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids

Modest evidence of better blood sugar and insulin balance among people treated with both vitamin D and calcium

Weak evidence of better biomarkers of intestinal barrier function, which is related to risk of colorectal cancer, among people treated with calcium, with stronger effects among people with low 25(OH)D levels

Preliminary evidence of better markers of blood glucose and insulin among vitamin D-deficient women diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome treated with vitamin D, vitamin K, and calcium

No evidence of an effect on markers of blood glucose and insulin resistance during participation in progressive resistance training among adults aged 50–75 years with overweight or obesity and with type 2 diabetes treated with whey protein vitamin D3

Managing side effects and promoting wellness

Is vitamin D linked to fewer or less severe side effects or symptoms? Is it linked to less toxicity from cancer treatment? Does it support your quality of life or promote general well-being? We present the evidence.

Side effects and symptoms as a whole

Weak evidenceone or more case studies, supported by animal evidence OR small treatment effects of limited clinical significance OR studies with no controls OR weak trends of effects (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of more lymphoma-related symptoms among people with low levels of 25(OH)D

Body composition or cachexia

Weak evidence of increased weight, body mass index (BMI), and fat-free mass (FFM) during chemotherapy among people with colorectal cancer treated with vitamin D

Preliminary evidencesignificant effects in small or poorly designed clinical studies OR conflicting results in adequate studies but a preponderance of evidence of an effect (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of better muscle function among people with prostate cancer treated with vitamin D

Bone and joint symptoms

Preliminary evidence of less loss of bone mineral density during hormone therapy among people with cancer treated with high amounts of vitamin D

Fatigue

Preliminary evidence of less fatigue among people with advanced cancer treated with vitamin D

Neurological symptoms

Modest evidencesignificant effects in at least three small but well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or one or more well-designed, mid-sized clinical studies of reasonably good quality (RCTs or observational studies), or several small studies aggregated into a meta-analysis (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of a link between lower 25(OH)D levels and more chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) among people with cancer

Oral symptoms

Preliminary evidence of substantially less oral mucositisinflammation and ulceration of the mucous membranes lining the digestive tract, usually as an adverse effect of chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment for cancer during radiotherapy among people with head and neck cancer treated with a topical oral vitamin D gel

Pain

Preliminary evidence of less opioid use among people with advanced cancer with 25(OH)D levels less than 20 ng/mL treated with vitamin D

Modest evidence of lower pain during hormone therapy among people treated with vitamin D, and especially among people starting with lower 25(OH)D levels

No evidence of an effectoverall, one or more studies did not demonstrate that a treatment or intervention led to an expected outcome; this does not always mean that there is no effect in clinical practice, but that the studies may have been underpowered (too few participants) or poorly designed. Larger, well-designed studies provide more confidence in making assessments. on pain after brain tumor surgery among people with vitamin D serum levels of 20 ng/dL or lower treated with vitamin D before surgery in a small study

Sexual difficulties

Preliminary evidence of less vaginal atrophy during tamoxifen treatment among women with breast cancer treated with vaginal vitamin D suppositories

Other side effects and symptoms

Preliminary evidence of higher severity of radiation-induced acute proctitis among people with vitamin D deficiency

Symptoms not specific to cancer
Vitamin D in combination with other therapies

Vitamin D and calcium

No evidence of an effect on bone mineral density during androgen deprivation therapy among people with prostate cancer or among adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with vitamin D and calcium in several clinical trials

Weak evidence of only slight decline in bone mineral density during conventional or hypofractionated radiation therapy among people with prostate cancer treated with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist, calcium, and vitamin D3

Good evidence of lower incidence of vertebral fractures but no evidence of an effect on incidence of hip fracture among postmenopausal women treated with calcium plus vitamin D

Vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids: no evidence of an effect on mood scores, risk of depression incidence or recurrence, or clinically relevant depressive symptoms among people without depression treated with vitamin D and fish oil in a very large study

Vitamin D with outdoor walking, light exposure, and several other vitamins: preliminary evidence of better mood and less depression among women with symptoms of mild to moderate depression treated with a brisk 20-minute outdoor walk at target heart rate of 60% of maximum heart rate, increased light exposure throughout the day, and a vitamin regimen

Vitamin D and vitamin K: preliminary evidence of better markers of bone metabolism during chemotherapy among children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with vitamin K2 and vitamin D3

DiVFuSS formulation: preliminary evidence of less diabetic peripheral neuropathy among people treated with DiVFuSS formulation

QR-333: preliminary evidence of less severe numbness, jolting pain, and irritation among people with diabetic peripheral neuropathy treated with QR-333

Reducing cancer risk

Is vitamin D linked to lower risks of developing cancer or of recurrence? We present the evidence.

Cancer as a whole

Weak evidenceone or more case studies, supported by animal evidence OR small treatment effects of limited clinical significance OR studies with no controls OR weak trends of effects (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of lower risk of cancer among people with higher 25(OH)D levels

Good evidencesignificant effects in one large or several mid-sized and well-designed clinical studies (randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate placebo or other strong comparison control or observational studies that control for confounds) (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of lower cancer mortality among people without cancer at baseline with higher 25(OH)D levels

Strong evidenceconsistent, significant effects in several large (or at least one very large) well designed clinical studies or at least two meta-analyses of clinical studies of moderate or better quality (or one large meta-analysis) finding similar results (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of slightly lower cancer mortality among people without cancer at baseline taking vitamin D supplements

Modest evidencesignificant effects in at least three small but well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or one or more well-designed, mid-sized clinical studies of reasonably good quality (RCTs or observational studies), or several small studies aggregated into a meta-analysis (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of lower risk of cancer among healthy adults aged 70 years or older taking vitamin D supplements

Advanced cancer

Good evidence of lower risk of metastatic or fatal cancer among people without cancer and not overweight or obese at baseline treated with vitamin D3

Breast cancer

Good evidence of lower risk of recurrence among people with breast cancer with higher 25(OH)D levels at diagnosis

Good evidence of higher risk of breast cancer among people with low 25(OH)D levels, and especially among premenopausal women

Modest evidence of moderately lower risk of recurrence among people taking vitamin D supplements after a diagnosis of ER positive but not ER negative breast cancer

Preliminary evidencesignificant effects in small or poorly designed clinical studies OR conflicting results in adequate studies but a preponderance of evidence of an effect (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of slightly lower risk of breast cancer among people with higher vitamin D intake

Colorectal cancer

Good evidence of lower risk of colorectal cancer incidence or mortality among people with higher 25(OH)D level

Good evidence of lower risk of colorectal cancer among people with higher total vitamin D intake

Modest evidence of slightly lower risk of CRC as a whole with each increase of 100 IU dietary vitamin D intake

Good evidence of slightly lower risk of colorectal cancer among people taking vitamin D supplements

No evidence of an effectoverall, one or more studies did not demonstrate that a treatment or intervention led to an expected outcome; this does not always mean that there is no effect in clinical practice, but that the studies may have been underpowered (too few participants) or poorly designed. Larger, well-designed studies provide more confidence in making assessments. on risk of adenoma after colorectal adenoma surgery among people treated with vitamin D3 in a large study

Gastrointestinal cancer

Good evidence of higher risk of liver cancer among people with low levels of vitamin D

Preliminary evidence of lower risk of recurrence after surgery among people with esophageal cancer taking vitamin D supplements

Gynecological cancer

Preliminary evidence of lower risk of recurrence among women with grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia treated with vitamin D

Head, neck, and oral cancer

Good evidence of lower risk of head and neck cancer among people with high 25(OH)D levels

Good evidence of lower risk of head and neck cancer among people with high intake of vitamin D in their diet

Preliminary evidence of lower risk of recurrence among people with head and neck cancer with higher total (diet and supplement) intake of vitamin D

Kidney cancer

Modest evidence of lower risk of renal cell carcinoma among people, especially women, with the highest circulating vitamin D levels

Modest evidence of lower risk of renal cell carcinoma among people, especially women, with the highest dietary vitamin D intake

Lung cancer

Good evidence of lower risk of lung cancer among people with higher 25(OH)D levels, although levels—above about 34 ng/mL—are linked to increased risk

Modest evidence of lower lung-cancer mortality among people without cancer at baseline with higher 25(OH)D levels

Modest evidence of slightly lower risk of lung cancer among people with the highest vitamin D intake from either diet or supplements

Lymphoma

Modest evidence of lower risk of recurrence among people with lymphoma with the highest 25(OH)D levels at diagnosis

No evidence of an effect of 25(OH)D levels on risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a combined analysis of 3 studies

Modest evidence of lower risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among people with high levels of exposure to sunlight/ultraviolet radiation

No evidence of an effect on risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among people with higher levels of dietary vitamin D intake in a combined analysis of 9 studies

Melanoma and other skin cancers

Vitamin D levels

Modest evidence of link between vitamin D deficiency and melanoma incidence/stage; also see evidence of a higher risk of skin cancer among people with high levels of vitamin D in Safety and precautions ›

Preliminary evidence of lower risk of recurrence among people with higher 25(OH)D levels

Ovarian cancer

Modest evidence of slightly lower risk of ovarian cancer among people with higher circulating vitamin D levels

Weak evidence of a lower risk of ovarian cancer among people with higher dietary vitamin D intake

No evidence of an effect on risk of ovarian cancer among people with higher vitamin D intake from supplements in a very large combined analysis of studies

Pancreatic cancer

No evidence of an effect on risk of pancreatic cancer among people with higher 25(OH)D levels in a combined analysis of studies

Insufficient (conflicting) evidencepreclinical evidence only OR clinical studies with such poor or unclear methodology that no conclusion can be drawn OR conflicting findings across clinical studies with no preponderance of evidence in one direction; conflicting evidence occurs when studies find conflicting effects (positive effect vs no effect or negative effect) with the same treatment and the same general study population (same cancer type, for example) (this is the CancerChoices definition; other researchers and studies may define this differently) of an effect of vitamin D intake on risk of pancreatic cancer

Prostate cancer

Good evidence of higher risk of prostate cancer among men with low 25(OH)D levels

Modest evidence of lower risk of aggressive prostate cancer among African-Americans or people with low body mass index taking the highest levels of vitamin D supplements, but not among other people

No evidence of an effect at 3 months on free or total PSA among healthy men taking vitamin D in a small study

Thyroid cancer

Good evidence of higher risk of thyroid cancer among people with low levels of vitamin D

Vitamin D in combination with other therapies

No evidence of an effect on risk of conventional adenomas and serrated polyps among people treated with vitamin D and fish oil in a very large study

Good evidence of lower risk of cancer as a whole among postmenopausal women treated with vitamin D and calcium

Good evidence of lower risk of blood cancer among people treated with calcium and vitamin D supplements

Modest evidence of lower risk of cancer among healthy  community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older  treated with vitamin D in combination with strength exercise, omega-3 fatty acids, or both

No evidence of an effect on risk of invasive breast cancer among postmenopausal women treated with calcium plus vitamin D

Weak evidence of a lower risk of colorectal cancer among women not treated with estrogen, but no evidence of an effect on risk across all women treated with vitamin D and calcium

Modest evidence of a slightly lower risk of colorectal adenoma recurrence, including advanced adenomas, among people treated with calcium and with higher 25(OH)D levels

Modest evidence of lower risk of invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma among people with colorectal adenomas treated with vitamin D and calcium

Good evidence of lower risk of melanoma among postmenopausal women aged 50-79 with a history of non-melanoma skin cancer treated with vitamin D and calcium

No evidence of an effect on risk of melanoma among postmenopausal women aged 50-79 without a history of non-melanoma skin cancer treated with vitamin D and calcium

Resources

Keep reading about vitamin D

Authors

Nancy Hepp, MS

Lead Researcher and Program Manager
View profile

Ms. Hepp is a researcher and communicator who has been writing and editing educational content on varied health topics for more than 20 years. She serves as lead researcher, program manager, and writer for CancerChoices. Her graduate work in research and cognitive psychology, her master’s degree in instructional design, and her certificate in web design have all guided her in writing and presenting information for a wide variety of audiences and uses. Nancy’s service as faculty development coordinator in the Department of Family Medicine at Wright State University also provided experience in medical research, plus insights into medical education and medical care from the professional’s perspective.

Nancy Hepp, MS Lead Researcher and Program Manager

Dr. Ryan is a research associate for CancerChoices. She is a licensed and board certified naturopathic physician and acupuncturist in Oregon. Dr. Ryan is the founder of Gentle Natural Wellness, a clinic specializing in bridging classical Chinese medicine with naturopathic medicine to provide individualized, compassionate care for people in the community. A Doctorate of Naturopathic Medicine and Master of Science in Oriental Medicine with honors from the National University of Natural Medicine, research in medical anthropology at the University of Hawai’i and George Mason University, language and culture programs at Obirin University (Tokyo) and Sogang University (Seoul), and studies of Chinese herbal medicine and qigong in China have provided a diverse background that has helped form a foundation for her community health and healing path.

Emily Ryan, ND, MSOM, LAc Research Associate

Reviewer

Laura Pole, RN, MSN, OCNS

Senior Clinical Consultant
View profile

Laura Pole is senior clinical consultant for CancerChoices. Laura is an oncology clinical nurse specialist who has been providing integrative oncology clinical care, navigation, consultation, and education services for over 40 years. She is the co-creator and co-coordinator of the Integrative Oncology Navigation Training at Smith Center for Healing and the Arts in Washington, DC. Laura also manages the “Media Watch Cancer News That You Can Use” listserv for Smith Center/Commonweal. In her role as a palliative care educator and consultant, Laura has served as statewide Respecting Choices Faculty for the Virginia POST (Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment) Collaborative as well as provided statewide professional education on palliative and end-of-life care for the Virginia Association for Hospices and Palliative Care.

For CancerChoices, Laura curates content and research, networks with clinical and organizational partners, brings awareness and education of integrative oncology at professional and patient conferences and programs, and translates research into information relevant to the patient experience as well as clinical practice.

Laura sees her work with CancerChoices as a perfect alignment of all her passions, knowledge and skills in integrative oncology care. She is honored to serve you.

Laura Pole, RN, MSN, OCNS Senior Clinical Consultant

Last update: September 22, 2022

Last full literature review: February 2022

CancerChoices provides information about integrative in cancer care, a patient-centered approach combining the best of conventional care, self care and evidence-informed complementary care in an integrated plan cancer care. We review complementaryin cancer care, complementary care involves the use of therapies intended to enhance or add to standard conventional treatments; examples include supplements, mind-body approaches such as yoga or psychosocial therapy, and acupuncture therapies and self-care lifestyle actions and behaviors that may impact cancer outcomes; examples include eating health-promoting foods, limiting alcohol, increasing physical activity, and managing stress practices to help patients and professionals explore and integrate the best combination of conventionalthe cancer care offered by conventionally trained physicians and most hospitals; examples are chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy and complementary therapies and practices for each person.

Our staff have no financial conflicts of interest to declare. We receive no funds from any manufacturers or retailers gaining financial profit by promoting or discouraging therapies mentioned on this site.

References[+]