This site is dedicated to discussions about topics related to skin cancer practice in Australia and the world, case discussion, new treatment modalities, conferences and job opportunities.
#1 by Lester Cowell on July 2, 2011 - 10:16 am
This study’s vitamin D dose harks back as many do to now dated concepts about doses required.
Certainly 400iu may have averted the risk of osteomalacia, but Vit D has effects upon tumours at much higher levels. Inputs of 4000 iu are motre appropriate. And yes some heliophils I have tested can get levels of 194 with just sunshine alone. Indeed at the 2009 Photobiology Congress in Berlin a paper presented the case for a level above 100nmol/l. The effects on bone are a minimal impact when the modulation of Vit D on IDDM MS hypertension and tumours is considered . |Since the Mel D study was published in Aug 2009, we have been pushing all our melanoma patients to upper normal quartile range ie 130-160. Soo There is the patient with the Breslow 9.0 yes 9.0 mm who has had a a third PET CT at 24 months and is tumour negative and the occult primary patient who has had 21 separate node excisions who was following advice to avoid the Sun until 2009 when his Vit D was 30nmol/L .Got his Vitr D up to 130 and the next 2 PET CTs have NOT found any tumour for excision.
If seeing is believing then see Ian for my images of early cutaneous lymphoma. Vit D at baseline was 70 nmol . Then 15 months l;ater with vit D 149 the lesion has all but gone .
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 142 other followers
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.