Skip to content
Catalyst
Search

Papers/PMID:23601861

Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

The British journal of nutrition2013The record

4 findings · 1 compound · 4 endpoints · 3 null

What it reported

How to read these marks

What moved

1 finding

  • Ca(2+) — decreases prostate cancer incidence

    Evidence strength: very limited.Finding
    “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.”
    Quoted verbatim from Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials..
    Study
    meta-analysis
    Dose
    Ca supplements of at least 500 mg/d, without co-administered vitamin D
    Population
    Participants in placebo-controlled randomised trials of calcium supplements without co-administered vitamin D (ten trials with trial-level data, mean duration 3.9 years)

    Effect 0.54 risk ratio, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.96

    Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.2013PMID:2360186110.1017/S0007114513001050Permalink

What did not

3 findings

  • Ca(2+) — no detected effect on all-site cancer incidence

    Evidence strength: very limited.FindingNull result
    “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.”
    Quoted verbatim from Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials..
    Study
    meta-analysis
    Dose
    Ca supplements of at least 500 mg/d, without co-administered vitamin D
    Population
    Participants in placebo-controlled randomised trials of calcium supplements without co-administered vitamin D (ten trials with trial-level data, mean duration 3.9 years)

    Effect 0.95 risk ratio, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18

    Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.2013PMID:2360186110.1017/S0007114513001050Permalink

  • Ca(2+) — no detected effect on colorectal cancer incidence

    Evidence strength: very limited.FindingNull result
    “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.”
    Quoted verbatim from Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials..
    Study
    meta-analysis
    Dose
    Ca supplements of at least 500 mg/d, without co-administered vitamin D
    Population
    Participants in placebo-controlled randomised trials of calcium supplements without co-administered vitamin D (ten trials with trial-level data, mean duration 3.9 years)

    Effect 1.38 risk ratio, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.15

    Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.2013PMID:2360186110.1017/S0007114513001050Permalink

  • Ca(2+) — no detected effect on breast cancer incidence

    Evidence strength: very limited.FindingNull resultreplicated ×1
    “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.”
    Quoted verbatim from Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials..
    Study
    meta-analysis
    Dose
    Ca supplements of at least 500 mg/d, without co-administered vitamin D
    Population
    Participants in placebo-controlled randomised trials of calcium supplements without co-administered vitamin D (ten trials with trial-level data, mean duration 3.9 years)

    Effect 1.01 risk ratio, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.59

    Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.2013PMID:2360186110.1017/S0007114513001050Permalink