| Literature DB >> 23413779 |
Barbara J Fuhrman1, Ruth M Pfeiffer, Anna H Wu, Xia Xu, Larry K Keefer, Timothy D Veenstra, Regina G Ziegler.
Abstract
SCOPE: Intake of green tea may reduce the risk of breast cancer; polyphenols in this drink can influence enzymes that metabolize estrogens, known causal factors in breast cancer etiology. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23413779 PMCID: PMC3584908 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-12-25
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr J ISSN: 1475-2891 Impact factor: 3.271
Characteristics of breast cancer controls in the Asian-American Breast Cancer Study by menopausal status
| | ||||
| 41.2 | 5.4 | 53.0 | 3.4 | |
| 21.7 | 3.5 | 21.7 | 2.5 | |
| | ||||
| | | | | |
| Hawaii | 79 | 66.4% | 48 | 66.7% |
| Los Angeles | 19 | 16.0% | 13 | 18.1% |
| San Francisco | 21 | 17.6% | 11 | 15.3% |
| | | | | |
| Nulliparous | 17 | 14.3% | 11 | 15.3% |
| 1st birth age ≤ 20 y | 7 | 5.9% | 4 | 5.6% |
| 1-2 live births / age ≥ 21 | 73 | 61.3% | 28 | 38.9% |
| 3+ live births / age ≥ 21 | 22 | 18.5% | 29 | 40.3% |
| | | | | |
| ≤ 12 y | 72 | 60.5% | 30 | 41.7% |
| > 12 y | 47 | 39.5% | 42 | 58.3% |
| | | | | |
| No | 93 | 78.2% | 57 | 79.2% |
| Yes | 26 | 21.8% | 15 | 20.8% |
| | | | | |
| 0-0.5 | 35 | 29.4% | 12 | 16.7% |
| 0.5 – 1.0 | 35 | 29.4% | 22 | 30.6% |
| > 1.0 | 49 | 41.2% | 38 | 52.8% |
| | | | | |
| <once weekly | 62 | 52.1% | 25 | 34.7% |
| 1-6 times weekly | 32 | 26.9% | 23 | 31.9% |
| 7+ times weekly | 25 | 21.0% | 24 | 33.3% |
| | | | | |
| <once weekly | 85 | 71.4% | 51 | 70.8% |
| 1-6 times weekly | 21 | 17.6% | 16 | 22.2% |
| 7+ times weekly | 13 | 10.9% | 5 | 6.9% |
| | | | | |
| 0-2 times weekly | 30 | 25.2% | 11 | 15.3% |
| 3-13 times weekly | 39 | 32.8% | 22 | 30.6% |
| ≥14 times weekly | 50 | 42.0% | 39 | 54.2% |
| | | | | |
| 0-734 | 41 | 34.5% | 23 | 31.9% |
| 734-1610 | 39 | 32.8% | 23 | 31.9% |
| >1610 | 39 | 32.8% | 26 | 36.1% |
Participant characteristics by frequency of green tea intake
| | | ||||||
| 45.4 | 6.8 | 48.3 | 8.2 | 49.7 | 7.0 | 0.01 | |
| 21.9 | 3.3 | 22.0 | 3.1 | 21.0 | 2.8 | 0.18 | |
| | | ||||||
| | | | | | | 0.049 | |
| Premenopausal women in luteal phase | 62 | 52.1% | 32 | 26.9% | 25 | 21.0% | |
| Postmenopausal | 25 | 34.7% | 23 | 31.9% | 24 | 33.3% | |
| | | | | | | 0.01 | |
| Hawaii | 70 | 55.1% | 34 | 26.8% | 23 | 18.1% | |
| Los Angeles | 7 | 21.9% | 13 | 40.6% | 12 | 37.5% | |
| San Francisco | 10 | 31.3% | 8 | 25.0% | 14 | 43.8% | |
| | | | | | | 0.07 | |
| Nulliparous | 12 | 42.9% | 8 | 28.6% | 8 | 28.6% | |
| 1st birth age ≤ 20 y | 7 | 63.6% | 4 | 36.4% | 0 | .0% | |
| 1-2 live births / age ≥ 21 | 53 | 52.5% | 23 | 22.8% | 25 | 24.8% | |
| 3+ live births / age ≥ 21 | 15 | 29.4% | 20 | 39.2% | 16 | 31.4% | |
| | | | | | | <0.001 | |
| ≥ 12 y | 56 | 54.9% | 34 | 33.3% | 12 | 11.8% | |
| > 12 y | 31 | 34.8% | 21 | 23.6% | 37 | 41.6% | |
| | | | | | | <0.001 | |
| No | 74 | 49.3% | 49 | 32.7% | 27 | 18.0% | |
| Yes | 13 | 31.7% | 6 | 14.6% | 22 | 53.7% | |
| | | | | | | <0.001 | |
| 0-0.5 times weekly | 31 | 66.0% | 12 | 25.5% | 4 | 8.5% | |
| 0.5-1 times weekly | 27 | 47.4% | 20 | 35.1% | 10 | 17.5% | |
| > once weekly | 29 | 33.3% | 23 | 26.4% | 35 | 40.2% | |
| | | | | | | 0.21 | |
| < once weekly | 69 | 50.7% | 34 | 25.0% | 33 | 24.3% | |
| 1-6 times weekly | 12 | 32.4% | 15 | 40.5% | 10 | 27.0% | |
| 7+ times weekly | 6 | 33.3% | 6 | 33.3% | 6 | 33.3% | |
| | | | | | | 0.75 | |
| 0-2 times weekly | 22 | 53.7% | 11 | 26.8% | 8 | 19.5% | |
| 3-13 times weekly | 25 | 41.0% | 18 | 29.5% | 18 | 29.5% | |
| ≥14 times weekly | 40 | 44.9% | 26 | 29.2% | 23 | 25.8% | |
| | | | | | | 0.83 | |
| 0-734 | 29 | 50.0% | 15 | 25.9% | 14 | 24.1% | |
| 734-1609 | 27 | 47.4% | 15 | 26.3% | 15 | 26.3% | |
| ≥1610 | 31 | 40.8% | 25 | 32.9% | 20 | 26.3% | |
* For continuous covariates, p-values were obtained using ANOVA and reflect significance of differences between means by categories of green tea intake. For categorical covariates, p-values were obtained using Chi Square tests and reflect differences in distribution.
Age standardized geometric means for urinary concentrations of estrogens and estrogen metabolites (EM) and multivariable-adjusted percent differenceacross categories of green tea intake in premenopausal women during the luteal phase
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | |||||
| 218.16 | 156.13 | 170.36 | ||||
| 37.58 | 29.99 | −16.0% (-35.2%-8.9%) | 34.57 | −8.1% (-31.7%-23.6%) | 0.42 | |
| Estrone | 24.45 | 19.44 | −20.2% (-39.2%-4.8%) | 23.07 | −6.9% (-31.8%-27.2%) | 0.43 |
| Estradiol | 11.53 | 10.01 | −5.4% (-27.0%-22.5%) | 10.28 | −8.9% (-32.1%-22.3%) | 0.51 |
| 39.11 | 28.05 | 38.11 | −16.2%(-39.5%-16.0%) | 0.10 | ||
| 30.57 | 22.42 | 28.5 | −16.9%(-41.2%-17.6%) | 0.10 | ||
| 2-Hydroxyestrone | 27.65 | 19.68 | 27.06 | −16.3%(-40.7%-18.2%) | 0.10 | |
| 2-Hydroxyestradiol | 3.02 | 1.90 | 2.61 | −25.5% (-52.4%-16.5%) | 0.07 | |
| 7.24 | 5.66 | 7.77 | −9.6%(-36.3%-28.2%) | 0.34 | ||
| 2-Methoxyestrone | 5.17 | 4.18 | −24.0% (-44.6%-4.2%) | 5.74 | −1.3%(-31.4%-41.9%) | 0.67 |
| 2-Methoxyestradiol | 0.56 | 0.41 | −28.7% (-50.8%-3.3%) | 0.64 | 0.6% (-34.0%-53.4%) | 0.73 |
| 2-Hydroxyestrone-3-methyl ether | 1.15 | 0.81 | 1.06 | −22.9%(-51.5%-22.5%) | 0.17 | |
| 4.13 | 3.32 | −21.4% (-43.3%-8.9%) | 3.80 | −13.5% (-40.3%-25.3%) | 0.33 | |
| 4-Pathway catechol: 4-Hydroxyestrone | 3.71 | 2.95 | −21.9% (-44.3%-9.6%) | 3.31 | −15.5% (-42.4%-24.1%) | 0.29 |
| 0.33 | 0.28 | −19.1% (-43.3%-15.3%) | 0.36 | −7.1% (-38.0%-39.2%) | 0.53 | |
| 4-Methoxyestrone | 0.23 | 0.17 | −23.9% (-48.1%-11.6%) | 0.24 | 4.0% (-32.5%-60.4%) | 0.93 |
| 4-Methoxyestradiol | 0.05 | 0.06 | −15.2% (-56.1%-63.6%) | 0.08 | −8.2% (-56.4%-93.4%) | 0.77 |
| 123.03 | 84.72 | −21.3% (-39.7%-2.7%) | 87.57 | |||
| 16α-Hydroxyestrone | 12.68 | 9.31 | 9.78 | |||
| Estriol | 68.67 | 44.67 | −23.5% (-43.2%-2.9%) | 46.16 | ||
| 16-Ketoestradiol | 25.68 | 19.98 | −17.8% (-39.8%-12.2%) | 19.32 | ||
| 16-Epiestriol | 10.09 | 7.11 | −15.1% (-36.6%-13.6%) | 7.74 | ||
| 17-Epiestriol | 1.79 | 0.97 | −27.4% (-54.9%-16.8%) | 0.95 | ||
| 0.21 | 0.24 | 10.6% (-11.5%-38.3%) | 0.26 | 23.1% (-3.8%-57.6%) | 0.09 | |
| 1.04 | 0.94 | −19.3% (-37.3%-3.8%) | 1.10 | −9.5% (-31.7%-20.1%) | 0.37 | |
| 0.11 | 0.11 | −9.9% (-32.9%-21.2%) | 0.11 | −15.8% (-39.2%-16.6%) | 0.28 | |
| 3.27 | 2.83 | −5.1% (-27.8%-24.8%) | 2.53 | −20.0% (-41.0%-8.5%) | 0.17 | |
| 0.32 | 0.33 | −3.7% (-33.2%-38.8%) | 0.44 | 21.2% (-19.8%-83.0%) | 0.41 | |
| 0.03 | 0.04 | 16.8% (-21.3%-73.3%) | 0.04 | 21.8% (-21.8%-89.8%) | 0.34 | |
| 9.47 | 8.46 | −13.3% (-28.3%-4.7%) | 10.04 | −1.2% (-20.2%-22.4%) | 0.70 | |
| 0.09 | 0.09 | 20.7% (-13.4%-68.1%) | 0.11 | 23.9% (-15.2%-81.0%) | 0.20 | |
| 0.23 | 0.26 | 9.1% (-11.6%-34.6%) | 0.26 | 7.7% (-15.1%-36.7%) | 0.48 | |
Derived measures of estrogen metabolism and statistically significant estimates are presented in bold font.
1 Robust linear regression models were used to estimate percent difference in EM measures with 95% confidence limits across categories of green tea intake while adjusting for age and study center.
2 Robust linear regression was used to test for trends in log-transformed EM measures across tea categories. Ptrend was modeled using categories coded as 0, 1, and 2.
Age-standardized mean urinary concentrations (picomoles per mg creatinine) of estrogens and estrogen metabolites (EM) and multivariable-adjusted percent differenceacross categories of green tea intake in postmenopausal women
| | | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | |||||
| 27.7 | 26.7 | −6.2% (-33.7%-32.6%) | 26.5 | −10.5% (-36.0%-25.1%) | 0.52 | |
| 5.81 | 3.89 | 4.01 | ||||
| Estrone | 1.96 | 0.66 | 0.59 | |||
| Estradiol | 2.06 | 1.36 | −41.5% (-65.9%-0.1%) | 1.46 | −36.0% (-61.8% -7.2%) | 0.09 |
| 6.41 | 4.13 | −33.6% (-57.2% -3.0%) | 5.92 | −15.1% (-44.4%-29.6%) | 0.48 | |
| 4.90 | 3.53 | −30.8% (-58.4%-15.1%) | 4.18 | −20.3% (-51.1%-30.0%) | 0.37 | |
| 2-Hydroxyestrone | 4.12 | 2.42 | −31.5% (-59.0%-14.6%) | 3.29 | −24.9% (-54.3%-23.4%) | 0.27 |
| 2-Hydroxyestradiol | 0.65 | 0.4 | −15.3% (-58.4%-72.6%) | 0.80 | 6.7% (-45.1%-107.2%) | 0.83 |
| 1.18 | 0.89 | −26.9% (-50.6%-8.1%) | 1.39 | 9.7% (-24.8%-60.0%) | 0.54 | |
| 2-Methoxyestrone | 0.72 | 0.48 | −35.8% (-61.3%-6.2%) | 0.68 | −6.2% (-42.7%-53.4%) | 0.85 |
| 2-Methoxyestradiol | 0.11 | 0.08 | −33.2% (-64.8%-27.0%) | 0.12 | 19.3% (-36.7%-124.8%) | 0.60 |
| 2-Hydroxyestrone-3-methyl ether | 0.2 | 0.25 | −19.4% (-52.8%-37.7%) | 0.45 | 34.9% (-19.1%-124.8%) | 0.17 |
| 1.01 | 0.67 | 1.04 | −13.6% (-40.6%-25.7%) | 0.60 | ||
| 0.81 | 0.49 | 0.73 | −18.0% (-47.6%-28.2%) | 0.43 | ||
| 0.16 | 0.13 | −14.1% (-49.0%-44.7%) | 0.25 | 48.8% (-10.4%-146.9%) | 0.11 | |
| 4-Methoxyestrone | 0.12 | 0.09 | −9.5% (-45.7%-51.0%) | 0.15 | ||
| 4-Methoxyestradiol | 0.02 | 0.02 | −29.9% (-70.7%-67.7%) | 0.07 | 87.2% (-19.3%-334.2%) | 0.08 |
| 12.9 | 15.9 | 19.5% (-24.8%-90.1%) | 13.4 | −1.6% (-37.4%-54.8%) | 0.95 | |
| 16α-Hydroxyestrone | 1.15 | 1.22 | −6.7% (-42.1%-50.1%) | 1.25 | −22.1% (-50.6%-22.7%) | 0.27 |
| Estriol | 5.41 | 7.24 | 24.3% (-32.4%-128.6%) | 5.85 | 3.5% (-42.8%-87.6%) | 0.91 |
| 16-Ketoestradiol | 4.28 | 5.09 | 20.5% (-22.1%-86.3%) | 3.86 | −18.5% (-46.8%-25.0%) | 0.36 |
| 16-Epiestriol | 0.88 | 0.77 | −20.6% (-48.9%-23.4%) | 0.91 | 6.4% (-30.5%-63.0%) | 0.75 |
| 17-Epiestriol | 0.15 | 0.11 | −8.8% (-53.5%-79.0%) | 0.16 | 1.6% (-46.2%-91.9%) | 0.94 |
| 0.27 | 0.17 | 0.18 | ||||
| 1.10 | 1.06 | 8.7% (-29.4%-67.4%) | 1.48 | 12.0% (-26.4%-70.6%) | 0.60 | |
| 0.17 | 0.17 | 6.0% (-37.4%-79.5%) | 0.26 | 32.5% (-21.2%-122.6%) | 0.28 | |
| 2.22 | 4.08 | 3.34 | 0.05 | |||
| 0.50 | 0.26 | 0.44 | −19.9% (-51.7%-33.0%) | 0.41 | ||
| 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.08 | −10.1% (-45.7%-48.8%) | 0.69 | ||
| 6.34 | 6.15 | 7.6% (-14.9%-36.0%) | 5.70 | 2.6% (-18.9%-29.9%) | 0.87 | |
| 0.20 | 0.26 | 37.3% (-23.3%-145.7%) | 0.35 | |||
| 0.24 | 0.29 | 14.4% (-25.4%-75.4%) | 0.32 | 33.6% (-11.2%-100.8%) | 0.16 | |
Derived measures of estrogen metabolism and statistically significant estimates are presented in bold font.
1 Robust linear regression models were used to estimate percent difference in EM measures with 95% confidence limits across categories of green tea intake while adjusting for age and study center.
2 Robust linear regression was used to test for trends in log-transformed EM measures across tea categories. Ptrend was modeled using categories coded as 0, 1, and 2.