Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Year of publication
- 2020 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Keywords
- vitamin D (2) (remove)
Institute
Patients affected by gastroenteropancreatic–neuroendocrine tumors (GEP–NETs) have an increased risk of developing osteopenia and osteoporosis, as several factors impact on bone metabolism in these patients. In fact, besides the direct effect of bone metastasis, bone health can be affected by hormone hypersecretion (including serotonin, cortisol, and parathyroid hormone-related protein), specific microRNAs, nutritional status (which in turn could be affected by medical and surgical treatments), and vitamin D deficiency. In patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), a hereditary syndrome associated with NET occurrence, bone damage may carry other consequences. Osteoporosis may negatively impact on the quality of life of these patients and can increment the cost of medical care since these patients usually live with their disease for a long time. However, recommendations suggesting screening to assess bone health in GEP–NET patients are missing. The aim of this review is to critically analyze evidence on the mechanisms that could have a potential impact on bone health in patients affected by GEP–NET, focusing on vitamin D and its role in GEP–NET, as well as on factors associated with MEN1 that could have an impact on bone homeostasis.
Vitamin D deficiency is a global health concern that is estimated to afflict over one billion people globally. The major role of vitamin D is that of a regulator of calcium and phosphate metabolism, thus, being essential for proper bone mineralisation. Concomitantly, vitamin D is known to exert numerous extra-skeletal actions. For example, it has become evident that vitamin D has direct anti-proliferative, pro-differentiation and pro-apoptotic actions on cancer cells. Hence, vitamin D deficiency has been associated with increased cancer risk and worse prognosis in several malignancies. We have recently demonstrated that vitamin D deficiency promotes secondary cancer growth in bone. These findings were partly attributable to an increase in bone remodelling but also through direct effects of vitamin D on cancer cells. To date, very little is known about vitamin D status of patients with bone tumours in general. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess vitamin D status of patients with diverse bone tumours. Moreover, the aim was to elucidate whether or not there is an association between pre-diagnostic vitamin D status and tumour malignancy in patients with bone tumours.
In a multi-center analysis, 25(OH)D, PTH and calcium levels of 225 patients that presented with various bone tumours between 2017 and 2018 were assessed. Collectively, 76% of all patients had insufficient vitamin D levels with a total mean 25(OH)D level of 21.43 ng/ml (53.58 nmol/L). In particular, 52% (117/225) of patients were identified as vitamin D deficient and further 24% of patients (55/225) were vitamin D insufficient. Notably, patients diagnosed with malignant bone tumours had significantly lower 25(OH)D levels than patients diagnosed with benign bone tumours [19.3 vs. 22.75 ng/ml (48.25 vs. 56.86 nmol/L); p = 0.04).
In conclusion, we found a widespread and distressing rate of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency in patients with bone tumours. However, especially for patients with bone tumours sufficient vitamin D levels seem to be of great importance. Thus, we believe that 25(OH)D status should routinely be monitored in these patients. Collectively, there should be an increased awareness for physicians to assess and if necessary correct vitamin D status of patients with bone tumours in general or of those at great risk of developing bone tumours.