BACKGROUND: Differences in the estrogen receptor (ER) status of tumors may explain ambiguities in epidemiologic studies between the blood concentrations of enterolactone and breast cancer. To our knowledge, the association between enterolactone and ERbeta-defined breast cancer has previously not been examined. METHODS: A nested case-control study within the Malmö Diet and Cancer cohort used 366 cases and 733 matched controls to identify the major determinants of plasma enterolactone and to examine the association between enterolactone concentration and breast cancer risk and if this association differs depending on the ERalpha and ERbeta status of tumors. A modified diet history method assessed dietary habits. Time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay determined enterolactone concentrations and immunohistochemistry using tissue microarray determined ER status. RESULTS: Dietary fiber, as well as fruits and berries, and high-fiber bread showed statistically significant correlations with enterolactone (r, 0.13-0.22). Smoking and obesity were associated with lower enterolactone concentrations. Enterolactone concentrations above the median (16 nmol/L) were associated with reduced breast cancer risk when compared with those below [odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.58-0.98]. The reduced risk was only observed for ERalpha [positive (+); odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.97] and ERbeta [negative (-)] tumors (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.84), with significantly different risks for ERbeta (-) and ERbeta (+) tumors (P for heterogeneity = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the suggestion that enterolactone is a biomarker of a healthy lifestyle. The protective association between enterolactone and breast cancer was significantly different between ERbeta (-) and ERbeta (+) tumors and most evident in tumors that express ERalpha but not ERbeta.
BACKGROUND: Differences in the estrogen receptor (ER) status of tumors may explain ambiguities in epidemiologic studies between the blood concentrations of enterolactone and breast cancer. To our knowledge, the association between enterolactone and ERbeta-defined breast cancer has previously not been examined. METHODS: A nested case-control study within the Malmö Diet and Cancer cohort used 366 cases and 733 matched controls to identify the major determinants of plasma enterolactone and to examine the association between enterolactone concentration and breast cancer risk and if this association differs depending on the ERalpha and ERbeta status of tumors. A modified diet history method assessed dietary habits. Time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay determined enterolactone concentrations and immunohistochemistry using tissue microarray determined ER status. RESULTS: Dietary fiber, as well as fruits and berries, and high-fiber bread showed statistically significant correlations with enterolactone (r, 0.13-0.22). Smoking and obesity were associated with lower enterolactone concentrations. Enterolactone concentrations above the median (16 nmol/L) were associated with reduced breast cancer risk when compared with those below [odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.58-0.98]. The reduced risk was only observed for ERalpha [positive (+); odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.97] and ERbeta [negative (-)] tumors (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.84), with significantly different risks for ERbeta (-) and ERbeta (+) tumors (P for heterogeneity = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the suggestion that enterolactone is a biomarker of a healthy lifestyle. The protective association between enterolactone and breast cancer was significantly different between ERbeta (-) and ERbeta (+) tumors and most evident in tumors that express ERalpha but not ERbeta.
Authors: Carol J Fabian; Bruce F Kimler; Carola M Zalles; Jennifer R Klemp; Brian K Petroff; Qamar J Khan; Priyanka Sharma; Kenneth D R Setchell; Xueheng Zhao; Teresa A Phillips; Trina Metheny; Jennifer R Hughes; Hung-Wen Yeh; Karen A Johnson Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2010-08-19
Authors: Alesia Walker; Barbara Pfitzner; Susanne Neschen; Melanie Kahle; Mourad Harir; Marianna Lucio; Franco Moritz; Dimitrios Tziotis; Michael Witting; Michael Rothballer; Marion Engel; Michael Schmid; David Endesfelder; Martin Klingenspor; Thomas Rattei; Wolfgang Zu Castell; Martin Hrabé de Angelis; Anton Hartmann; Philippe Schmitt-Kopplin Journal: ISME J Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 10.302
Authors: Huiru Chang; Song Yao; David Tritchler; Meredith A Hullar; Johanna W Lampe; Lilian U Thompson; Susan E McCann Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jing Xie; Shelley S Tworoger; Adrian A Franke; Kathryn L Terry; Megan S Rice; Bernard A Rosner; Walter C Willett; Susan E Hankinson; A Heather Eliassen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Elin Hålldin; Anne Kirstine Eriksen; Carl Brunius; Andreia Bento da Silva; Maria Bronze; Kati Hanhineva; Anna-Marja Aura; Rikard Landberg Journal: Mol Nutr Food Res Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 5.914
Authors: Peter Wallström; Isabel Drake; Emily Sonestedt; Bo Gullberg; Anders Bjartell; Håkan Olsson; Herman Adlercreutz; Matti J Tikkanen; Elisabet Wirfält Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 5.614