I'm not sure if you're saying high B12 is rare or not, so:But as far as I am aware this is a pretty rare situation. I never came across it in my practice. The paper looks at a wide population with no particular link to cancer.
https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/106/6/505/1538806The high frequency of high serum cobalamin was recently exemplified in a retrospective study by Deneuville et al., which included 3702 hospitalized patients in whom high levels of vitamin B12 were found in 12% of cases, whereas a deficiency was only observed in 10% of cases.3 The study from the Carmel’s group found a prevalence of 14% of high coabalaminemia (>664 pmol/l) in an hospital laboratory.4 The recent study from Arendt documented a prevalence of ‘high’ (600–1000 pmol/l corresponding to 813–1355 pg/ml) and ‘very high’ (>1000 pmol/l) cobalamin levels in, respectively, 13 and 7% of hospital-treated patients (n = 12 070).2 In the multicentre ‘BDOSE’ study, the frequency of high serum cobalamin was 18%.5 To our knowledge, these are the only currently available studies. Large-scale studies are thus needed to assess the actual incidence and prevalence of this anomaly in the general population.
But with B12 being touted as some wonderful thing for many diseases, it could be so simple that a higher percentage of sick people is taking supplements with B12 in them. Maybe there's a B12 transport protein anomaly in these diseases, so they just have a lot more of it in the blood without it doing much, who knows.
From the abstract of the paper I already quoted:The paper by Andres looks to me to be pushing a line, with a number of inconsistencies. I doubt a high B12 level is a useful route to diagnosis of any particular disease.
The aetiological profile of high serum cobalamin predominantly encompasses severe disease entities for which early diagnosis is critical for prognosis. These entities are essentially comprised of solid neoplasms, haematological malignancies and liver and kidney diseases. This review reflects the potential importance of the vitamin B12 assay as an early diagnostic marker of these diseases.
I don't get these quartiles either, they are very similar to another paper about high B12 and cancer that was discussed a year or so ago. I've seen other studies exclude patients with serum levels above the range, so they haven't really been looking at "high levels of B12" but "high normal ranges of B12". It's sort of misleading.The other thing that is strange about the splitting up of the subjects is that 455.41 pg/mL is not even a high level of serum vitamin B12. It is well within the reference ranges of any test of serum vitamin B12 I've seen used in the UK. The last NHS test of serum vitamin B12 that I had (5 years ago) had a reference range of 197 - 866 pg/mL.