Vitamin D Supplementation and Melanoma Incidence and Recurrence: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
- Journal
- Clinical and experimental dermatology (Q2)
- Published
- 22 September 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Christian Roberti, Savannah Chapman, Hannah Jenkins, John Paul Lemchak, Margaret Mueller
- PMID
- 42770385
- DOI
- 10.1093/ced/llag418
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Dermatology (top studies of the week, 27 September 2026).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin D has been hypothesized to influence melanoma risk and progression, but observational findings are confounded by ultraviolet exposure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of vitamin D supplementation on melanoma recurrence and melanoma incidence using randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence. METHODS: A PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis identified RCTs evaluating oral vitamin D supplementation, with or without calcium, reporting melanoma incidence or recurrence. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled for recurrence and relative risks (RRs) for incidence using random-effects models with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) correction. RESULTS: Five RCTs including 56,901 participants met inclusion criteria. Vitamin D supplementation was not associated with reduced melanoma recurrence (pooled HR 1.23; 95% CI 0.29-5.18; HKSJ-adjusted) or melanoma incidence (pooled RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.71-1.24; HKSJ-adjusted). Findings were consistent across varied dosing regimens and follow-up durations. LIMITATIONS: Melanoma was a secondary endpoint in some trials, event rates were low, and dosing regimens varied. CONCLUSIONS: Current randomized evidence does not support vitamin D supplementation as a strategy to reduce melanoma incidence or recurrence.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.