Background: Vitamin D, antiproliferative and proapoptotic in breast cancer cell lines, can reduce the development of mammary tumors in carcinogen-exposed rats. Current evidence in humans is limited with some suggestion that vitamin D -related factors may reduce the risk of breast cancer. We conducted a population-based case-control study to assess the evidence for a relationship between sources of vitamin D and breast cancer risk. Methods: Women with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Women without breast cancer were identified through randomly selected residential telephone numbers. Telephone interviews were completed for 972 cases and 1,135 controls. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for vitamin D -related variables were estimated using unconditional logistic regression with adjustment for potential confounders.

Vitamin D may be associated with reduced risks of several types of cancer, including colon, prostate, and breast. We examined the relationship between vitamin D -related questions administered in a telephone interview and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]. Three hundred and eight eligible women were randomly selected from controls in a breast cancer casecontrol study. Questions pertaining to sun exposure and dietary sources of vitamin D over the previous 4 weeks were asked in both summer and winter. We assessed the association between questionnairederived items and 25(OH)D using multiple linear regression. There were 217 participating women, 203 in summer and 213 in winter. Models were adjusted for age, body mass index, and skin color. Number of days when more than 0.5 hour was spent outdoors per

Evidence has emerged for a role of vitamin D in the development of breast cancer, and there is some suggestion that its antiproliferative effect is greater in hormone-receptor-positive cells. Few epidemiologic studies have considered the association between vitamin D and hormone-receptor-defined breast cancer, and the results are conflicting. Considering 759 cases and 1,135 controls from a case-control study (Ontario, Canada, 2003-2005), the authors examined the association between vitamin D intake at specific ages and combined estrogen-receptor- (ER) and progesterone-receptor- (PR) defined breast cancer. While increased intake of vitamin D (from the sun and diet) was most consistently associated with a significantly reduced risk of ER+/PR+ tumors (e.g., odds ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 0.97 for use of cod liver oil during adolescence), comparable nonsignificant associations were found for receptor-negative (ER-/PR-) (odds ratio = 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.53, 1.04) and mixed (ER+/PR-) (odds ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.51, 1.22) tumors. This study suggests that vitamin D is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer regardless of ER/PR status of the tumor. Future studies with a larger number of receptor-negative and mixed tumors are required.

There is currently no "gold standard" for measuring lifetime sun exposure. Exploration of alternatives to self-reports is important for examining illnesses related to ultraviolet light exposure. Using skin replicas obtained from 184 controls in a breast cancer case-control study (Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2004-2005), the authors compared self-reported indicators of lifetime sun exposure with two measures of cutaneous microtopography, the Beagley-Gibson system and skin line counts. With the Beagley-Gibson system, significantly increased odds ratios were found for age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05, 1.16), spending 7 days outside per week during the summer (OR = 3.33, 95% CI: 1.48, 7.50), and lifetime number of sunlamp sessions. Significantly decreased odds ratios were found for having darker skin, ever giving birth, and ever using sunlamps. With the skin line count approach, significant positive associations were found for age (OR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.23, 4.35), age squared, duration of working in outdoor jobs (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98), and average number of outdoor activities per week at ages 20-29 years (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.10). While the Beagley-Gibson method was associated with more variables than the skin line count method, both methods require further refinement before graded skin replicas can be recommended as a substitute for self-report measures.