ReviewCancers2026
Vitamin D Status and Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Biological Rationale, Clinical Associations and Limitations of Current Evidence.
Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVitamin D deficiency is common in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs). Whether vitamin D status influences tumor aggressiveness and clinical outcomes remains uncertain. This review examines current evidence on the prevalence, determinants, clinical associations, and clinical relevance of vitamin D deficiency in GEP-NENs.
methodsA narrative and critical review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Clinical studies, observational cohorts, translational research, selected mechanistic studies, and current clinical guidelines addressing vitamin D metabolism and neuroendocrine neoplasms were evaluated.
resultsVitamin D deficiency has been reported in approximately 60-80% of patients with GEP-NENs. Low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations likely reflect multiple disease-related factors, including malabsorption, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, chronic diarrhea, previous gastrointestinal surgery, and nutritional impairment. Several observational studies have linked lower vitamin D status with markers of more aggressive disease, including higher Ki-67 proliferation index values and shorter progression-free survival. Nevertheless, the available data are heterogeneous, predominantly observational, and do not support a causal relationship between vitamin D deficiency and tumor progression. At present, the main clinical rationale for assessing vitamin D status is to support metabolic care, preserve bone health, and prevent osteoporosis.
conclusionsVitamin D deficiency is a frequent and clinically relevant comorbidity in patients with GEP-NENs. Although lower vitamin D status has been associated with markers of more aggressive disease, current findings do not support vitamin D supplementation as an anticancer treatment strategy. Prospective clinical and translational studies are needed to clarify the biological and clinical significance of vitamin D signaling in GEP-NENs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.