BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that women who metabolize a larger proportion of their endogenous estrogen via the 16alpha-hydroxylation pathway may be at elevated risk of breast cancer compared with women who metabolize proportionally more estrogen via the 2-hydroxylation pathway. However, the supporting epidemiologic data are scant. Consequently, we compared the ratio of urinary 2-hydroxyestrone (2-OHE1) to 16alphahydroxyestrone (16alpha-OHE1) in postmenopausal women with breast cancer and in healthy control subjects. METHODS: Estrogen metabolites were measured in urine samples obtained from white women who had participated in a previous population-based, breast cancer case-control study at our institution. All P values are from two-sided tests. RESULTS: All of the urinary estrogens measured, with the exception of estriol, were higher in the 66 case patients than in the 76 control subjects. The mean value of urinary 2-OHE1 in case patients was 13.8% (P = .20) higher than that in control subjects, 16alpha-OHE1 was 12.1% (P = .23) higher, estrone was 20.9% higher (P = .14), and 17beta-estradiol was 12.0% higher (P = .36). The ratio of 2-OHE1 to 16alpha-OHE1 was 1.1% higher in the patients (P = .84), contrary to the hypothesis. Compared with women in the lowest third of the values for the ratio of urinary 2-OHE1 to 16alpha-OHE1, women in the highest third were at a nonstatistically significantly increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio = 1.13; 95% confidence interval = 0.46-2.78), again contrary to the hypothesis. CONCLUSION: This study does not support the hypothesis that the ratio of the two hydroxylated metabolites (2-OHE1/16alpha-OHE1) is an important risk factor for breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that women who metabolize a larger proportion of their endogenous estrogen via the 16alpha-hydroxylation pathway may be at elevated risk of breast cancer compared with women who metabolize proportionally more estrogen via the 2-hydroxylation pathway. However, the supporting epidemiologic data are scant. Consequently, we compared the ratio of urinary 2-hydroxyestrone (2-OHE1) to 16alphahydroxyestrone (16alpha-OHE1) in postmenopausal women with breast cancer and in healthy control subjects. METHODS: Estrogen metabolites were measured in urine samples obtained from white women who had participated in a previous population-based, breast cancer case-control study at our institution. All P values are from two-sided tests. RESULTS: All of the urinary estrogens measured, with the exception of estriol, were higher in the 66 case patients than in the 76 control subjects. The mean value of urinary 2-OHE1 in case patients was 13.8% (P = .20) higher than that in control subjects, 16alpha-OHE1 was 12.1% (P = .23) higher, estrone was 20.9% higher (P = .14), and 17beta-estradiol was 12.0% higher (P = .36). The ratio of 2-OHE1 to 16alpha-OHE1 was 1.1% higher in the patients (P = .84), contrary to the hypothesis. Compared with women in the lowest third of the values for the ratio of urinary 2-OHE1 to 16alpha-OHE1, women in the highest third were at a nonstatistically significantly increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio = 1.13; 95% confidence interval = 0.46-2.78), again contrary to the hypothesis. CONCLUSION: This study does not support the hypothesis that the ratio of the two hydroxylated metabolites (2-OHE1/16alpha-OHE1) is an important risk factor for breast cancer.
Authors: A Heather Eliassen; Donna Spiegelman; Xia Xu; Larry K Keefer; Timothy D Veenstra; Robert L Barbieri; Walter C Willett; Susan E Hankinson; Regina G Ziegler Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Barbara J Fuhrman; Louise A Brinton; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Xia Xu; Timothy D Veenstra; Barbara E Teter; Celia Byrne; Cher M Dallal; Maddalena Barba; Paola C Muti; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Yukiko Morimoto; Shannon M Conroy; Ian S Pagano; Marissa Isaki; Adrian A Franke; Frank J Nordt; Gertraud Maskarinec Journal: Nutr Cancer Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 2.900
Authors: Rachel H Mackey; Theresa J Fanelli; Francesmary Modugno; Jane A Cauley; Kathleen M McTigue; Maria Mori Brooks; Rowan T Chlebowski; JoAnn E Manson; Thomas L Klug; Kevin E Kip; J David Curb; Lewis H Kuller Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Cynthia A Thomson; H H Sherry Chow; Betsy C Wertheim; Denise J Roe; Alison Stopeck; Gertraud Maskarinec; Maria Altbach; Pavani Chalasani; Chuan Huang; Meghan B Strom; Jean-Philippe Galons; Patricia A Thompson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jessica M Faupel-Badger; Barbara J Fuhrman; Xia Xu; Roni T Falk; Larry K Keefer; Timothy D Veenstra; Robert N Hoover; Regina G Ziegler Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: A Heather Eliassen; Stacey A Missmer; Shelley S Tworoger; Susan E Hankinson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: A Heather Eliassen; Regina G Ziegler; Bernard Rosner; Timothy D Veenstra; John M Roman; Xia Xu; Susan E Hankinson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 4.254