Table 3 |
||||||
| Age standardized geometric means for urinary concentrations of estrogens and estrogen metabolites (EM) and multivariable-adjusted percent difference1across categories of green tea intake in premenopausal women during the luteal phase | ||||||
| Categories of green tea intake | ||||||
| <1 per week (n = 62) | 1-6 times per week (n = 32) | 7+ times per week (n = 25) | ||||
| Urinary concentration | Urinary concentration | Percent difference | Urinary concentration | Percent difference | Ptrend | |
| Total Estrogens and Metabolites | 218.16 | 156.13 | −25.5% (-40.7%--6.4%) | 170.36 | −26.3% (-43.0%--4.6%) | 0.01 |
| Parent Estrogens | 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 |
| 2-Hydroxylation pathway | 39.11 | 28.05 | −36.9% (-52.3%--16.4%) | 38.11 | −16.2%(-39.5%-16.0%) | 0.10 |
| 2-Pathway catechols | 30.57 | 22.42 | −38.3%(-54.2%--16.8%) | 28.5 | −16.9%(-41.2%-17.6%) | 0.10 |
| 2-Hydroxyestrone | 27.65 | 19.68 | −38.8%(-54.6%--17.6%) | 27.06 | −16.3%(-40.7%-18.2%) | 0.10 |
| 2-Hydroxyestradiol | 3.02 | 1.90 | −43.9%(-61.9%--17.3%) | 2.61 | −25.5% (-52.4%-16.5%) | 0.07 |
| 2-Pathway methylated catechols | 7.24 | 5.66 | −28.9%(-47.7%--3.5%) | 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 | −34.1% (-56.3%--0.5%) | 1.06 | −22.9%(-51.5%-22.5%) | 0.17 |
| 4-Hydroxylation pathway EM | 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 |
| 4-Pathway methylated catechols | 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 |
| 16-Hydroxylation pathway | 123.03 | 84.72 | −21.3% (-39.7%-2.7%) | 87.57 | −33.3% (-50.3% --10.4%) | 0.001 |
| 16α-Hydroxyestrone | 12.68 | 9.31 | −24.0%(-40.9%--2.3%) | 9.78 | −31.1% (-48.2%--8.5%) | 0.01 |
| Estriol | 68.67 | 44.67 | −23.5% (-43.2%-2.9%) | 46.16 | −33.1% (-51.9%--7.0%) | 0.01 |
| 16-Ketoestradiol | 25.68 | 19.98 | −17.8% (-39.8%-12.2%) | 19.32 | −31.5% (-51.3%--3.7%) | 0.02 |
| 16-Epiestriol | 10.09 | 7.11 | −15.1% (-36.6%-13.6%) | 7.74 | −30.8% (-49.9%--4.2%) | 0.02 |
| 17-Epiestriol | 1.79 | 0.97 | −27.4% (-54.9%-16.8%) | 0.95 | −40.4% (-65.1%-1.7%) | 0.04 |
| Ratios | ||||||
| Parent estrogens / estrogen metabolites | 0.21 | 0.24 | 10.6% (-11.5%-38.3%) | 0.26 | 23.1% (-3.8%-57.6%) | 0.09 |
| 2-Hydroxylation pathway / parent estrogens | 1.04 | 0.94 | −19.3% (-37.3%-3.8%) | 1.10 | −9.5% (-31.7%-20.1%) | 0.37 |
| 4-Hydroxylation pathway / parent estrogens | 0.11 | 0.11 | −9.9% (-32.9%-21.2%) | 0.11 | −15.8% (-39.2%-16.6%) | 0.28 |
| 16-Hydroxylation pathway / parent estrogens | 3.27 | 2.83 | −5.1% (-27.8%-24.8%) | 2.53 | −20.0% (-41.0%-8.5%) | 0.17 |
| 2-Hydroxylation pathway / 16-hydroxylation pathway | 0.32 | 0.33 | −3.7% (-33.2%-38.8%) | 0.44 | 21.2% (-19.8%-83.0%) | 0.41 |
| 4-Hydroxylation pathway / 16-hydroxylation pathway | 0.03 | 0.04 | 16.8% (-21.3%-73.3%) | 0.04 | 21.8% (-21.8%-89.8%) | 0.34 |
| 2-Hydroxylation pathway / 4-hydroxylation pathway | 9.47 | 8.46 | −13.3% (-28.3%-4.7%) | 10.04 | −1.2% (-20.2%-22.4%) | 0.70 |
| 4-Pathway methylated catechols / 4-pathway catechols | 0.09 | 0.09 | 20.7% (-13.4%-68.1%) | 0.11 | 23.9% (-15.2%-81.0%) | 0.20 |
| 2-Pathway methylated catechols / 2-pathway catechols | 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.
Fuhrman et al. Nutrition Journal 2013 12:25 doi:10.1186/1475-2891-12-25