Bump of an old thread, hoping for some updates to this poll(sorry if I have started a new poll about
this since this one 3 years ago, I did not see it). Maybe I should just start a new poll? Not sure. Results so far:
Low/intermediate Risk, sufficient, 30-100 ng/ml - 0.0% - 5.0% - 1 votes
Low/intermediate Risk, insufficient 21-29ng/ml - 50.0% - 10 votes
Low/intermediate Risk, deficient, 0-19ng/ml - 10.0% - 2 votes
High Risk, sufficient, 30-100 ng/ml - 5.0% - 1 votes
High Risk, insufficient 21-29 ng/ml - 10.0% - 2 votes
High Risk, deficient 0-20 ng/ml - 20.0% - 4 votes
So, as of 2/2016, we only had 20 votes. Probably because most people had no idea what their vitamin D levels were at or near their diagnosis with PC. Others(like me) might have had a level checked only after they had already started supplementing. This left me to guess I had been either insufficient or deficient, since first time I checked it was after some months of 2000 IU/day, and I was still "only" 30 ng/ml. But, I'm not even sure if I voted, since I was already supplementing.
Anyway, only 20 votes. Looking at all risk category of PC, of the 20 voting, 2(10%) were "sufficient". 18(90%) were either insufficient or deficient.
Breaking it down by risk category:
low/intermediate risk N=13: 1 was sufficient(7.6%), 10(77%) were insufficient, but only 2(15%) were out right deficient.
High risk(N=7)....1(14%) was sufficient, 2(28%) were insufficient, and a solid 4(57%) were deficient. A whopping 85% of us high risk guys were ether insufficient or deficient in vitamin D.
Of course, a whopping 92% of the low/inter group were either insufficient or deficient. But looking at just the worst category- deficient(<20ng/ml), only 15% of the low/inter group were in that category, compared to 57% of the high risk guys. 3.8 times greater high risk in those who were deficient. Still makes me wonder if there might be a relationship.
Of course, the question always remains: is it the vitamin D deficiency increasing risk of PC? Or, is it PC causing low Vit D levels? RCTs with Vit D vs breast cancer as well as all other cancers(but not PC) in the study group, where the higher the level(attained from supplementation), the better the results, with the very highest levels(over 60, or maybe 50?) being by far the best results even compared to the next highest level, make me think it is not the PC causing deficient vit D levels. But I could be wrong of course. ( 1 unconfirmed RCT of Vit D vs PC showed no advantage or harm, but I had a lot of questions about
that study, if memory serves- not that means it was a bad study, but I had questions)
But the more guys we can get with way over sufficient levels(for 99% of us, only attainable via supplementation), at least if it existed some years before diagnosis, the better an idea we will have of which of the above it is.
So guys, if there are more members here who did not participate in this poll from 3 years ago, please do so and we can have greater numbers. Vote supplying you vit D and risk category. If the poll is still working? If not, I will have to start a new one. Unless the mods can make it function again(I'd hate to lose all those voters from 3 years ago)
PSA 10.9 ~112013
Bx on 112013 at age ~65yrs, with 5 of 12 pos, G9(5+4), T2B.
RALP with lymph nodes at Vanderbilt 021914. (nodes clear, SV+, G9 down graded to 4+5, 1 focal margin )
only rare pad use after 1 year
PSA <.01 on 6/14 and all until 9/15 = .01, still .01 9/16, .02 on 3/17,6/17,10/17, .06 1/18, .06 4/18, <.05 7/18, .06 10/18, .06 01/19
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 1/17/2019 12:39:29 PM (GMT-7)