Clinical and preclinical studies have provided conflicting data on the postulated beneficial effects of vitamin D in patients with prostate cancer. In this opinion piece, we discuss reasons for discrepancies between preclinical and clinical vitamin D studies. Different criteria have been used as evidence for the key roles of vitamin D. Clinical studies report integrative cancer outcome criteria such as incidence and mortality in relation to vitamin D status over time. In contrast, preclinical vitamin D studies report molecular and cellular changes resulting from treatment with the biologically active vitamin D metabolite, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol) in tissues. However, these reported changes in preclinical in vitro studies are often the result of treatment with biologically irrelevant high calcitriol concentrations. In typical experiments, the used calcitriol concentrations exceed the calcitriol concentrations in normal and malignant prostate tissue by 100 to 1000 times. This raises reasonable concerns regarding the postulated biological effects and mechanisms of these preclinical vitamin D approaches in relation to clinical relevance. This is not restricted to prostate cancer, as detailed data regarding the tissue-specific concentrations of vitamin D metabolites are currently lacking. The application of unnaturally high concentrations of calcitriol in preclinical studies appears to be a major reason why the results of preclinical in vitro studies hardly match up with outcomes of vitamin D-related clinical studies. Regarding future studies addressing these concerns, we suggest establishing reference ranges of tissue-specific vitamin D metabolites within various cancer entities, carrying out model studies on human cancer cells and patient-derived organoids with biologically relevant calcitriol concentrations, and lastly improving the design of vitamin D clinical trials where results from preclinical studies guide the protocols and endpoints within these trials.