Folic Acid Supplements Raise Prostate Cancer Risk

But 10-year study also showed having enough folate in diet might offer protection

Posted: March 10, 2009

By Ed Edelson
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, March 10 (HealthDay News) -- A 10-year study has found that men who took folic acid supplements faced more than twice the risk of prostate cancer as those who didn't take the supplements.

But the incidence of prostate cancer in the study was slightly lower in men who simply got adequate amounts of folate in their diet, according to a report in the March 10 online issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

"What we think is that perhaps too much folate is not necessarily beneficial, whereas adequate levels may be," said study leader Jan Figueiredo, an assistant professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California.

Folic acid is a synthetic version of folate, a basic nutrient found in green, leafy vegetables. In the study, which followed 643 men for slightly more than a decade, the estimated prostate cancer risk was 9.7 percent for the men who took the daily 1-milligram supplements, and 3.3 percent for men who took a placebo.

"Folate plays an important role in cell growth and division, and cancer cells often uprate their folate receptors," Figueiredo noted. "Folic acid, the synthetic version, has more bioavailability, meaning that the effective dose in the cell is higher than what you get from natural sources."

Dietary sources of folic acid in the United States now include cereals and other grain products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has required folic acid enrichment of those foods since 1996, in part to reduce the incidence of birth defects affecting development of the central nervous system.

"Since we fortified, the amount of folate we consume from fortified foods is probably more than sufficient," Figueiredo said.

The newly reported results resemble those of a study done several years ago by Victoria Stevens, strategic director of laboratory services at the American Cancer Society, who specializes in research on folate metabolism.

That study of folate intake and prostate cancer "found that it really didn't have much effect," Stevens said. "Our study actually suggested that folate might be protective for men with advanced prostate cancer, a group that wasn't included in this study."

Overall, "it's a pretty complicated picture," Stevens said. "Previous epidemiological evidence suggests that not having enough folate can be bad, but having an excess might not be good. You need to have adequate folate nutrition. But it doesn't get better if you have more, and it may get worse."

The study is the latest to throw cold water on the hope that supplements can reduce the risk of cancer. Two studies reported late last year that supplements containing selenium, vitamin E and vitamin C had no effect on the incidence of prostate cancer.

One of those studies included more than 35,000 men aged 50 and over who were followed for more than five years, and the other included almost 15,000 male physicians aged 50 and over who were followed for an average of eight years.

"It is safe to conclude that cancer prevention is not going to be as simple as recommending high-dose micronutrient supplements for middle-aged and older adults," said an editorial accompanying the latest report.

Detailed studies to understand how diet and supplements affect biological mechanisms of cancer in humans are needed, as well as large-scale epidemiological studies looking for ways in which diet can reduce risk, according to the editorial by Alan Kristal of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and Dr. Scott Lippman of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

"There is no evidence that supplements of any type reduce cancer risk, and increasing evidence that they may increase the risk for some cancers in some people," said Kristal, who is a professor of epidemiology and associate director of the cancer prevention program at Fred Hutchinson. "The only exception is calcium for recurrence of colorectal polyps, where there is solid evidence that calcium can reduce risk."

More information

Learn about prostate cancer prevention from the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

Timothy takes too many vitamins

"64 pills a day"

Oh come on. No one needs to take that many vitamins.

One must understand what vitamins are. During evolution we have lost the function of certain enzymes since our diet generally supplied what they produce. We need vitamin C since we lost the enzymes which produce it. Many animals such as dogs don't need vitamin C since they retain the necessary enzymes.

A good diet will supply most everything we need. If you must take a pill, then a simple cheap multivitamin is all that most everyone will need. Save your money.

EtherDoc of MA @ Sep 24, 2009 08:49:28 AM

Why don't they study young people?

I have been taking 64 pills/capsules supplements/vitamins per day for over 4 years now. I started at age 27. As far as I am concerned, men have a near 100% chance of cancer between the ages of 50 & 80, but nobody ever starts young enough for supplements/vitamins to provide help before their visible physical decline.

If you spend 60-70% of your life with a vitamin deficiency, the damage has already been done. At old age, your body doesn't process nutrients correctly anymore because some parts aren't working as well as they did when you were young. And for many, genetics tells us many are naturally born with deficiencies. It is fairly likely that high concentrations of certain supplements would cause higher incidents of cancer in older age groups simply because the body declines with age. High levels may not filter easily nor be processed properly.

It has already been proven that vitamins when supplied early and in proper quantities, to correct for deficiencies, is a life saver, including folic acid, which must be taken as early a pregnancy to see a difference.

Poor studies such as the one mentioned in this article are leading us away from the solution because the control groups have not been diversified properly by age: old, middle, teen, youth, child, baby, pre-birth, pre-pregnancy etc. We should be trying to prevent problems before they begin, during the ages of most growth and healing, in the teens, at childhood, and during fetal development instead of starting way after the signs of old age have already wrecked havoc on the human body.

The Hayflick limit (Leonard Hayflick, 1965) tells us a human cell can only divide 50 times before it becomes cancerous and its functions being failing. When will people learn that every cell division is a huge step towards getting cancer? When will they learn that healthy cell division and nutrition supplement before division and to slow body growth is the best way to prevent rapid cellular decline and the best way to extend your life?

timothymburke of AL @ Apr 10, 2009 11:55:46 AM

The problem with statistics

Even if we assume that the numbers are golden

the apparent associated risk of folic acid and prostate

cancer has a 1 in 20 chance of being a random

event. The confidence intervals for the two

sets of subjects are very close.

One sentence from the relevant abstract reveals this point.

(That should be inside of the fair usage rules.)

"Among the 643 men who were randomly assigned to placebo or supplementation

with folic acid, the estimated probability of being diagnosed with prostate

cancer over a 10-year period was

9.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.5% to 14.5%) in the folic acid group and

3.3% (95% CI = 1.7% to 6.4%) in the placebo group

(age-adjusted hazard ratio = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.23 to 5.65, Wald test P = .01)."

Dwight Hooper of WA @ Mar 10, 2009 22:07:40 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

U.S. News Rankings & Research

Best Hospitals

See the best hospitals, and the best children's hospitals, in specialties from cancer to urology.

Best Health Plans

U.S. News and NCQA review over 700 health insurance plans in the Best Health Plan rankings.

Best Nursing Homes

The Best Nursing Homes rankings feature data on 15,000-plus homes. Search for one near you.

Diseases & Conditions

Get information on preventing, treating, and managing diseases and conditions. Centers:

advertisement

Sponsored Poll

What factor do you think is responsible for the majority of teen-driving crashes?

View Results

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!