Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Prognostic role of vitamin D receptor in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Cancer volume 20, Article number: 1051 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

A higher vitamin D intake improves the prognosis of early stage breast cancer (BC) patients. We hypothesized that vitamin D intake should refer to vitamin D receptor (VDR) expression. In order to prove this hypothesis, we first intend to evaluate the correlation between VDR expression and prognosis of BC patients using meta-analysis.

Methods

Literatures from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (last update by May 20, 2020) were retrieved to find studies assessing the prognostic role of VDR in BC. The hazard ratios (HRs) for patients’ survival were extracted for pooled analyses. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

Results

Seven articles containing eight studies with 2503 patients were enrolled. The results from the pooled analyses showed that the VDR expression generally had no relationship with BC patients’ overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and progression-free survival (PFS) (P > 0.05). Because only the number of studies exploring the relationship between VDR expression and OS is greater than five and there is heterogeneity, we explored the sources of heterogeneity of these studies. Subgroup analyses showed that the VDR expression in the nucleus had no relationship with OS, but high total VDR expression in the nucleus and cytoplasm was related to a better OS (pooled HR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.18–0.95; P = 0.038). In addition, in subgroup of studies using cut-off values other than ‘immunoreactive score (IRS)>5’ and ‘IRS > 25′, high VDR expression was associated with a better OS (pooled HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30–0.74; P = 0.001). Sensitivity analysis showed that the result pattern was not obviously affected by any single study. Meta-regression showed that the source of heterogeneity was not country (P = 0.657), pathological type (P = 0.614), molecular type (P = 0.423), staining location (P = 0.481), or cut-off value (P = 0.509).

Conclusions

The protein expression level of VDR in entire BC cells evaluated by immunohistochemistry is related to the OS of BC patients. It is expected that a more individualized vitamin D intake and a more accurate prognosis assessment can be recommended for BC patients based on the VDR expression. Of course, more preclinical and clinical studies are needed.

Peer Review reports

Background

The global incidence of breast cancer (BC) has been on the rise since the late 1970s, seriously threatening women’s health [1]. According to statistics [2], there were 2.088 million new cases of BC in the world in 2018, and the incidence of BC in developed countries was significantly higher than that in developing countries. BC has become one of the most common malignant tumors that causes female death [3]. In the past few decades, despite improvements in surgical techniques and changes in chemotherapy and radiotherapy methods, the mortality rate of BC has significantly decreased, but the prognosis of BC patients is still not satisfactory [4]. Previous meta-analyses have supported an inverse association between vitamin D status/intake and BC occurrence [5, 6], and an association of low levels of vitamin D with increased risk of recurrence and death in BC patients [7, 8].

Vitamin D is a steroid hormone in structure, and its metabolic active substance is 1,25 (OH)2D3, which plays an important role in calcium and phosphorus metabolism. Preclinical studies have found that 1,25 (OH)2D3 can inhibit the proliferation of BC cell lines and promote their differentiation and apoptosis [9, 10]. Moreover, findings from a prospective study including 10,578 premenopausal and 20,909 postmenopausal women suggested that higher intakes of calcium and vitamin D may reduce the risk of BC in premenopausal women [11]. Therefore, in our clinical work, we suggest that early BC patients and premenopausal women should appropriately increase their vitamin D intake. However, it seems inappropriate to recommend that each patient take the same dose of vitamin D, because vitamin D as a ligand for its biological function depends on binding to the receptor, while the vitamin D receptor (VDR) is expressed vary in different patients. Therefore, we established a scientific hypothesis that the vitamin D intakes of BC patients should refer to their VDR expression levels. To prove this hypothesis, we first need to verify the correlation between the VDR expression and the prognosis of BC patients.

VDR is a ligand-dependent transcriptional regulator protein and a member of the nuclear receptor superfamily [12, 13]. In the breast epithelium, vitamin D interacts with VDR in the same place or in adjacent cells to maintain differentiation and quiescence [14]. A case-control study by Hemida et al. showed that VDR expression was upregulated in BC tissues and correlated with estrogen receptor alpha (ER-α) expression [15]. Retrospective studies by Heublein [16] and Huss [17] et al. showed that low expression of VDR is an indicator for poor prognosis of BC. However, there are certain differences between the various studies, and the sample size of the studies is small, so the relevant results cannot directly and effectively guide clinical work. In view of this, a meta-analysis was carried out by collecting literatures on VDR expression in BC to clarify the relationship between VDR expression and the prognosis of BC patients.

Methods

Search strategy

The following databases were retrieved to find literatures: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (last update by May 20, 2020). There were no language restrictions for literature collection. ‘Receptors, calcitriol’ and ‘breast neoplasms’ were the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. Each retrieved literature was read throughout.

Inclusion criteria

  • Studies investigated the prognostic role of VDR in BC.

  • Studies provided the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of VDR or the survival curves.

  • The patients did not receive neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy before surgery.

Exclusion criteria

  • Reviews, letters, case reports, animal trials and conference abstracts.

  • Studies with small sample size (< 50).

  • Only the complete or most recent study was enrolled if one patient cohort were researched by multiple studies.

Data extraction

Some important parameters extracted from the included studies have been showed in the Table 1. If the article reports both univariate analysis results and multivariate analysis results, the latter will be adopted because it reduces the interference of confounding factors.

Table 1 Main characteristics of all studies included in the meta-analysis
Full size table

Guidelines and quality assessment

This meta-analysis complied with the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [23]. The quality assessment of the studies followed the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). The lowest NOS score is 0 and the highest is 9. A score of 6 or more indicates high quality of the study.

Statistical analysis

When the article did not directly report HR and 95% CI and only provided Kaplan-Meier survival curves, we indirectly extracted HR and 95% CI from the curves according to Tierney’ method [24]. The P value of chi-square test < 0.05 and/or I2 ≥ 25% indicated heterogeneity, then the random-effects model (the DerSimonian-Laird method) was used [25], otherwise the fixed-effects model (the Mante-Haenszel method) was used [26]. If there is heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression will be performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity. The STATA version 12.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) was used to analysis data and generate figures. Except estimating heterogeneity and publication bias, a P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Study characteristics

Summarizing the search results of the three databases, 307 articles were initially screened out. Then 298 articles were excluded because their content did not include the prognostic value of VDR in BC. We read the full text of the remaining nine articles. We found that two remaining articles investigated the relationship between VDR mRNA expression and prognosis of BC patients. Since the data in these two articles came from public databases and was duplicated, they were excluded. Finally, seven articles containing eight studies with 2503 patients were included in this meta-analysis (Fig. 1) [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. The article by Zehni et al. [22] contains two subgroup studies. The mean score of NOS for the eight studies was 7.25, ranging from 6 to 8 (Table 1). VDR expression was detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC) in all included studies.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of the study selection process for the meta-analysis

Full size image

Table 1 showed the important parameters of included studies. Patients came from five countries: Germany, Sweden, America, Yugoslavia or Japan. The number of patients in each study ranged from 82 to 1114. Patients in most included studies had multiple pathological types and molecular types. Four studies investigated the prognostic role of intranuclear VDR expression. Two studies investigated the prognostic role of total VDR expression in nucleus and cytoplasm. Four studies used immunoreactive score (IRS) to assess the protein expression of VDR. HRs for overall survival (OS) were extracted in six studies, five of which were reported directly. HRs for disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted in five studies, three of which were reported directly. HRs for cancer-specific survival (CSS) were reported directly in two studies. Only one study investigated patients’ progression-free survival (PFS).

Overall survival

Five articles containing six studies with 1681 patients investigated the relationship between VDR expression and patients’ OS in BC. Because the heterogeneity of these six studies existed (I2 = 69.2%, P = 0.006), a random-effects model was used. The results of pooled analyses were showed in Table 2. In general, the VDR expression had no relationship with BC patients’ OS (pooled HR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.64–1.06; P = 0.052) (Fig. 2). Because the number of these studies is greater than five, we explored the sources of heterogeneity.

Table 2 The pooled associations between VDR expression and the prognosis of patients with breast cancer
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of studies evaluating the hazard ratio of high VDR expression for the overall survival of breast cancer patients. VDR: vitamin D receptor; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval

Full size image

The results of subgroup analyses showed that in different subgroups divided by patients’ country, pathological type and molecular type, VDR expression remained unrelated to BC patients’ OS (P > 0.05, Table 2). However, in subgroups divided by staining location and cut-off value, positive results were observed. The VDR expression in the nucleus had no relationship with OS, but high total VDR expression in nucleus and cytoplasm was related to better OS (pooled HR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.18–0.95; P = 0.038) (Table 2; Fig. 3). In subgroup of studies using cut-off values other than ‘IRS > 5′ and ‘IRS > 25′, high VDR expression was associated with better OS (pooled HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30–0.74; P = 0.001) (Table 2; Fig. 4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of studies evaluating the hazard ratio of high VDR expression for the overall survival of breast cancer patients stratified by staining location. VDR: vitamin D receptor; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of studies evaluating the hazard ratio of high VDR expression for the overall survival of breast cancer patients stratified by cut-off value. VDR: vitamin D receptor; IRS: immunoreactive score; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis using a random-effects model showed that the result pattern was not obviously affected by any single study (Fig. 5). Meta-regression showed that the source of heterogeneity was not country (P = 0.657), pathological type (P = 0.614), molecular type (P = 0.423), staining location (P = 0.481), or cut-off value (P = 0.509).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Sensitivity analysis of studies evaluating the relationship between VDR expression and patients’ overall survival in breast cancer. VDR: vitamin D receptor; CI: confidence interval

Full size image

There was a publication bias because the funnel plot was asymmetrical (Fig. 6). The “Trim and Fill” method under a random-effects model was used to eliminate the publication bias [27]. After eliminating the publication bias, the VDR expression was still not related to BC patients’ OS in general (corrected pooled HR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.64–1.06; P = 0.127).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Funnel plot of publication bias for studies evaluating the relationship between VDR expression and patients’ overall survival in breast cancer

Full size image

Disease-free survival

Four articles containing five studies with 594 patients investigated the relationship between VDR expression level and patients’ DFS in BC. Because the heterogeneity of these five studies existed (I2 = 72.7%, P = 0.005), a random-effects model was used. The pooled result showed that there was no relationship between VDR expression and patients’ DFS (pooled HR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.73–1.70; P = 0.625) (Table 2; Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest plot of studies evaluating the hazard ratio of high VDR expression for the disease-specific survival of breast cancer patients. VDR: vitamin D receptor; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval

Full size image

Cancer-specific survival

Two studies with 1792 patients investigated the relationship between VDR expression level and patients’ CSS in BC. Because the heterogeneity of these two studies existed (I2 = 73.4%, P = 0.052), a random-effects model was used. The pooled result showed that there was no relationship between VDR expression and patients’ CSS (pooled HR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.42–1.46; P = 0.439) (Table 2).

Progression-free survival

Only one study containing 1114 patients investigated the relationship between VDR expression and patients’ PFS in BC. There was no relationship between VDR expression and patients’ PFS (HR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.87–1.50) (Table 2).

Discussion

It has been reported that vitamin D can be regarded as a protective factor for reducing the risk of various cancers including BC, and can inhibit the cell proliferation of normal and malignant breast cells [28], and induce cell differentiation and apoptosis [29]. Vitamin D is involved in the process of regulating cell growth, differentiation, and apoptosis by binding to VDR [30]. VDR is a nuclear receptor that regulates gene expression and is expressed in 80 to 90% of BC patients [31]. VDR can be expressed in breast epithelial cells, which suggests that vitamin D may directly affect the sensitivity of the glands. In vitro studies have shown that the VDR ligand, 1,25 (OH)2D3, is involved in maintaining the differentiation of breast cells. Knocking out the VDR gene increases the susceptibility of BC in mice. The expression of VDR is down-regulated in invasive BC [30], suggesting that the expression of VDR is negatively correlated with the progress of BC, and the expression of VDR has a certain protective effect on the breast. Therefore, in theory, the high expression of VDR in BC should be related to a good prognosis.

In this meta-analysis, we found that the relationship between VDR expression and prognosis in BC was mainly affected by the staining location. Results of the subgroup analysis showed that only the total VDR expression in nucleus and cytoplasm was related to BC patients’ survival. VDR mainly functions as a nuclear receptor [32, 33], but it is widely distributed on multiple subcellular structures, including the nucleus, nuclear membrane, cytoplasm, and cell membrane [17]. Our results indicate that VDR in the cytoplasm also exerts specific biological functions in the progression of BC cells. In view of this, we recommend that when performing immunohistochemical analysis of BC specimens in clinical work, the total expression of VDR in nucleus and cytoplasm should be detected instead of only the expression of VDR in nucleus.

Our study has made it clear that both the serum vitamin D level and the expression of VDR are related to the prognosis of BC patients, which suggests that the serum vitamin D level of different BC patients should be adjusted according to the expression of VDR. BC patients with high total VDR expression in nucleus and cytoplasm may not need too much vitamin D intake. Of course, this hypothesis needs to be further verified by controlled clinical trials with larger sample sizes. In addition, our results are also conducive to more accurate assessment of the prognosis of BC patients, which is important for formulating appropriate treatment plans.

At present, Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) staging is the most important indicator for assessing the prognosis of BC patients, but the accuracy of prediction is reduced due to individual differences. It is well known that patients with same TNM staging may have different prognosis. Therefore, an effective biological indicator is urgently needed to help assess the prognosis of BC patients [20]. Although serum vitamin D level and VDR expression are both related to the prognosis of BC patients [7, 11], VDR expression seems a more suitable prognostic indicator of BC because serum vitamin D level fluctuates greatly due to diet and sunlight exposure.

In addition to the prognostic value of VDR protein expression, the prognostic value of VDR mRNA expression in BC has also been reported [34, 35]. Murray et al. [34] evaluated a pooled database of 12 publicly available BC datasets (n = 2592 patients) containing gene expression data, then found that the mRNA expression of VDR was not related to the DFS of BC patients as a whole. In this meta-analysis, we found that the protein expression of VDR was also not related to the DFS of BC patients. This suggests that the mRNA expression and the protein expression of VDR may be consistent. However, there is still a lack of reports on the relationship between VDR mRNA expression and OS of BC patients. The correlation between VDR polymorphism and BC has also been researched in previous studies [36,37,38]. Raimondi et al. reported that the polymorphism of the third gene Bsml and fifth gene Fokl of the VDR gene may be able to regulate the risk of BC [39]. A high-quality meta-analysis showed that the Fokl polymorphism of the VDR gene was associated with an increased risk of BC [37]. However, another meta-analysis by Lu et al. showed that VDR polymorphism (Fok1, Bsm1, Taq1, and Apa1) were not associated with the risk of BC in general population [36]. The roles of VDR mRNA expression and polymorphism in BC need to be further explored by more prospective clinical studies.

Our meta-analysis is the first to study the relationship between VDR protein expression level and BC prognosis. Although only 8 studies were included, the present meta-analysis based on the data of 2503 patients can still provide some help and reference for assessing the prognostic role of VDR expression in BC. Of course, the small number of included studies may affect the reliability of the results of the subgroup analysis. In addition, this meta-analysis also has some other shortcomings. For example, part of the HRs is obtained from univariate analyses, which will overestimate the effect size because the influence of confounding factors is not excluded. The clinical information provided by the included studies is inadequate. Some studies did not provide the pathological and molecular types of patients, which prevented us from performing high-quality subgroup analyses based on these clinical features, leading to the omission of some valuable positive results. Furthermore, some HRs were estimated based on survival curves, which caused statistical errors.

Conclusion

Previous meta-analyses have shown an inverse association between serum vitamin D level and BC prognosis. Similarly, VDR expression is also related to the prognosis of BC patients. Our review and meta-analysis demonstrated that BC patients with high total VDR expression in nucleus and cytoplasm had better OS. This is an important finding in terms of future randomized controlled trials which might reveal a directive function of VDR expression for the adjustment of vitamin D intake in BC patients. VDR expression is not affected by diet and sunlight exposure, so it is more suitable for assessing the prognosis of BC than the serum vitamin D level. A more accurate assessment of the prognosis by combining TNM staging and VDR expression is conducive to formulating a more appropriate treatment plan for BC patients. VDR expression is expected to become a routine immunohistochemical examination item in the pathological diagnosis of BC.

Availability of data and materials

Meta-analysis is a secondary analysis, which the data are all fully available without restriction, and all the material can be found in the included original studies.

Abbreviations

BC:

Breast cancer

VDR:

Vitamin D receptor

MeSH:

Medical Subject Heading

IHC:

Immunohistochemistry

HR:

Hazard ratio

CI:

Confidence intervals

TNM:

Tumor Node Metastasis

NOS:

Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale

IRS:

Immunoreactive score

OS:

Overall survival

DFS:

Disease-free survival

CSS:

Cancer-specific survival

PFS:

Progression-free survival

References

  1. Global Burden of Disease Cancer C, Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, Hamavid H, Moradi-Lakeh M, MF MI, Allen C, Hansen G, Woodbrook R, et al. The global burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(4):505–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Mathers C, Parkin DM, Pineros M, Znaor A, Bray F. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer. 2019;144(8):1941–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hossain S, Beydoun MA, Beydoun HA, Chen X, Zonderman AB, Wood RJ. Vitamin D and breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2019;30:170–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Estebanez N, Gomez-Acebo I, Palazuelos C, Llorca J, Dierssen-Sotos T. Vitamin D exposure and risk of breast Cancer: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):9039.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rose AA, Elser C, Ennis M, Goodwin PJ. Blood levels of vitamin D and early stage breast cancer prognosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141(3):331–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hu K, Callen DF, Li J, Zheng H. Circulating vitamin D and overall survival in breast Cancer patients: a dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies. Integr Cancer Ther. 2018;17(2):217–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. So JY, Lee HJ, Smolarek AK, Paul S, Wang CX, Maehr H, Uskokovic M, Zheng X, Conney AH, Cai L, et al. A novel Gemini vitamin D analog represses the expression of a stem cell marker CD44 in breast cancer. Mol Pharmacol. 2011;79(3):360–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Verma A, Cohen DJ, Schwartz N, Muktipaty C, Koblinski JE, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. 24R,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 regulates breast cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Biochim Biophys Acta Gen Subj. 2019;1863(10):1498–512.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dizdar O, Harputluoglu H, Altundag K. Vitamin D intake and breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(22):2532 author reply 2532.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zheng W, Cao L, Ouyang L, Zhang Q, Duan B, Zhou W, Chen S, Peng W, Xie Y, Fan Q, et al. Anticancer activity of 1,25-(OH)2D3 against human breast cancer cell lines by targeting Ras/MEK/ERK pathway. OncoTargets Ther. 2019;12:721–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gandini S, Gnagnarella P, Serrano D, Pasquali E, Raimondi S. Vitamin D receptor polymorphisms and cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014;810:69–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Welsh J. Vitamin D metabolism in mammary gland and breast cancer. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2011;347(1–2):55–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hemida MA, AbdElmoneim NA, Hewala TI, Rashad MM, Abdaallah S. Vitamin D receptor in breast Cancer tissues and its relation to estrogen receptor alpha (ER-alpha) gene expression and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in Egyptian breast Cancer patients: a case-control study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019;19(3):e407–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Heublein S, Mayr D, Meindl A, Kircher A, Jeschke U, Ditsch N. Vitamin D receptor, retinoid X receptor and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma are overexpressed in BRCA1 mutated breast cancer and predict prognosis. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2017;36(1):57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Huss L, Butt ST, Borgquist S, Elebro K, Sandsveden M, Rosendahl A, Manjer J. Vitamin D receptor expression in invasive breast tumors and breast cancer survival. Breast Cancer Res. 2019;21(1):84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Al-Azhri J, Zhang Y, Bshara W, Zirpoli G, McCann SE, Khoury T, Morrison CD, Edge SB, Ambrosone CB, Yao S. Tumor expression of vitamin D receptor and breast Cancer Histopathological characteristics and prognosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(1):97–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ditsch N, Toth B, Mayr D, Lenhard M, Gallwas J, Weissenbacher T, Dannecker C, Friese K, Jeschke U. The association between vitamin D receptor expression and prolonged overall survival in breast cancer. J Histochem Cytochem. 2012;60(2):121–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Soljic M, Mrklic I, Tomic S, Omrcen T, Sutalo N, Bevanda M, Vrdoljak E. Prognostic value of vitamin D receptor and insulin-like growth factor receptor 1 expression in triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2018;71(1):34–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ishida N, Baba M, Hatanaka Y, Hagio K, Okada H, Hatanaka KC, Togashi K, Matsuno Y, Yamashita H. PIK3CA mutation, reduced AKT serine 473 phosphorylation, and increased ERalpha serine 167 phosphorylation are positive prognostic indicators in postmenopausal estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2018;9(25):17711–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zati Zehni A, Jacob SN, Mumm JN, Heidegger HH, Ditsch N, Mahner S, Jeschke U, Vilsmaier T. Hormone Receptor Expression in Multicentric/Multifocal versus Unifocal Breast Cancer: Especially the VDR Determines the Outcome Related to Focality. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(22):5740.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22(4):719–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Crew KD, Gammon MD, Steck SE, Hershman DL, Cremers S, Dworakowski E, Shane E, Terry MB, Desai M, Teitelbaum SL, et al. Association between plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D and breast cancer risk. Cancer Prev Res. 2009;2(6):598–604.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. O'Brien KM, Sandler DP, Xu Z, Kinyamu HK, Taylor JA, Weinberg CR. Vitamin D, DNA methylation, and breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20(1):70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Trivedi T, Zheng Y, Fournier PGJ, Murthy S, John S, Schillo S, Dunstan CR, Mohammad KS, Zhou H, Seibel MJ, et al. The vitamin D receptor is involved in the regulation of human breast cancer cell growth via a ligand-independent function in cytoplasm. Oncotarget. 2017;8(16):26687–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Singh T, Adams BD. The regulatory role of miRNAs on VDR in breast cancer. Transcription. 2017;8(4):232–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang YG, Lu R, Wu S, Chatterjee I, Zhou D, Xia Y, Sun J. Vitamin D receptor protects against dysbiosis and tumorigenesis via the JAK/STAT pathway in intestine. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;10(4):729–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kazemian E, Amouzegar A, Akbari ME, Moradi N, Gharibzadeh S, Jamshidi-Naeini Y, Khademolmele M, As'habi A, Davoodi SH. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms affecting changes in visceral fat, waist circumference and lipid profile in breast cancer survivors supplemented with vitamin D3. Lipids Health Dis. 2019;18(1):161.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Murray A, Madden SF, Synnott NC, Klinger R, O'Connor D, O'Donovan N, Gallagher W, Crown J, Duffy MJ. Vitamin D receptor as a target for breast cancer therapy. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2017;24(4):181–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. West DC, Pan D, Tonsing-Carter EY, Hernandez KM, Pierce CF, Styke SC, Bowie KR, Garcia TI, Kocherginsky M, Conzen SD. GR and ER Coactivation alters the expression of differentiation genes and associates with improved ER+ breast Cancer outcome. Mol Cancer Res. 2016;14(8):707–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lu D, Jing L, Zhang S. Vitamin D receptor polymorphism and breast Cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Medicine. 2016;95(18):e3535.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhang K, Song L. Association between vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 39 studies. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e96125.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Xu Y, He B, Pan Y, Deng Q, Sun H, Li R, Gao T, Song G, Wang S. Systematic review and meta-analysis on vitamin D receptor polymorphisms and cancer risk. Tumour Biol. 2014;35(5):4153–69.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Raimondi S, Johansson H, Maisonneuve P, Gandini S. Review and meta-analysis on vitamin D receptor polymorphisms and cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30(7):1170–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Haiyan Xu and Zhenhua Liu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Oncology, The Second People’s Hospital of Lianyungang, 41 Hailian Road, Lianyungang, 222000, China

    Haiyan Xu

  2. Department of Radiotherapy, The First People’s Hospital of Yancheng, 66 Renmin Street, Yancheng, 224005, China

    Zhenhua Liu

  3. Department of Radiotherapy, The Third People’s Hospital of Yancheng, 75 Juchang Street, Yancheng, 224005, China

    Hongtai Shi

  4. Department of Oncology, The Third People’s Hospital of Yancheng, 75 Juchang Street, Yancheng, 224005, China

    Chunbin Wang

Authors
  1. Haiyan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhenhua Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hongtai Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chunbin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HTS and CBW conceived and designed the study. HYX and ZHL performed the analysis, prepared the figures and tables and wrote the main manuscript. All of the authors reviewed the manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hongtai Shi or Chunbin Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All analyses were based on previous published studies, thus no ethical approval and patient consent are required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest concerning this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, H., Liu, Z., Shi, H. et al. Prognostic role of vitamin D receptor in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 20, 1051 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07559-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07559-w

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us