The role of vitamin D in cancer cachexia.
Penna F., Camperi A., Muscaritoli M., Filigheddu N., Costelli P.
Narrative Review, published in Curr Opin Support Palliat Care (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Curr Opin Support Palliat Care (2017)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 28922293
- DOI
- 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000302
Abstract (original English)
The possibility to use vitamin D supplementation to improve muscle wasting, with particular focus on cancer cachexia, is discussed. Vitamin D exerts biological actions on myogenic precursor proliferation and differentiation, impinging on muscle regeneration. However, the effects of VitD supplementation in diseases associated with muscle atrophy, such as cancer cachexia, are poorly investigated. Data obtained in experimental models of cancer cachexia show that the administration of vitamin D to tumor-bearing animals is not able to prevent or delay both muscle wasting and adipose tissue depletion, despite increased expression of muscle vitamin D receptor. Not just vitamin D supplementation impairs muscle damage-induced regeneration, suggesting that upregulation of vitamin D receptor signaling could contribute to muscle wasting. Vitamin D supplementation is likely beneficial to reduce or delay aging-related sarcopenia and osteoporosis, although the available data still put in evidence significant discrepancies. By contrast, VitD supplementation to tumor-bearing animals or to rats with arthritis was shown to be totally ineffective. In this regard, the adoption of VitD treatment in patients with cancer cachexia or other chronic diseases should be carefully evaluated, in particular whenever a regenerative process might be involved.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.