Skip to main content
. 2009 Jun 16;101(1):185–191. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605137

Table 2. Associations of urinary phytoestrogen excretion with prostate cancer riska.

  Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 P-value for linear trend
Daidzein ⩽0.053b 0.053–⩽0.151 0.151–⩽0.386 0.386–⩽1.630 >1.630  
Cases/controls 59/71 57/75 48/81 45/86 40/91  
OR (95% CI) 1.00 1.03 (0.61–1.74) 0.83 (0.50–1.38) 0.74 (0.44–1.25) 0.55 (0.31–0.98) 0.03
             
Genistein ⩽0.009 0.009–⩽0.038 0.038–⩽0.126 0.126–⩽0.729 >0.729  
Cases/controls 54/76 62/70 46/87 45/85 42/89  
OR (95% CI) 1.00 1.48 (0.88–2.49) 0.91 (0.53–1.55) 0.99 (0.59–1.69) 0.72 (0.40–1.31) 0.09
             
Equol ⩽0.001 0.001–⩽0.010 >0.010      
Cases/controls 90/148c 70/137 89/119      
OR (95% CI) 1.00 0.89 (0.58–1.37) 1.32 (0.84–2.08)     0.08
             
Equol (producers only)d ⩽0.005 0.005–⩽0.023 >0.023      
Cases/controls 47/64 47/64 50/61      
OR (95% CI) 1.00 1.05 (0.59–1.85) 1.32 (0.72–2.42)     0.64
             
Daidzein+Genistein ⩽0.069 0.069–⩽0.202 0.202–⩽0.522 0.522–⩽2.565 >2.565  
Cases/controls 56/74 62/69 44/86 45/87 42/88  
OR (95% CI) 1.00 1.38 (0.83–2.30) 0.74 (0.44–1.24) 0.83 (0.49–1.39) 0.63 (0.35–1.14) 0.07
             
Daidzein+Genistein+Equol ⩽0.077 0.077–⩽0.213 0.213–⩽0.549 0.549–⩽2.773 >2.773  
Cases/controls 56/74 58/73 47/84 44/86 44/87  
OR (95% CI) 1.00 1.27 (0.76–2.21) 0.84 (0.51–1.40) 0.86 (0.51–1.44) 0.74 (0.42–1.30) 0.19
             
Enterolactone ⩽0.227 0.227–⩽0.798 0.798–⩽1.493 1.493–⩽2.667 >2.667  
Cases/controls 57/74 47/83 38/92 55/77 52/78  
OR (95% CI) 1.00 0.71 (0.42–1.21) 0.58 (0.34–0.98) 0.97 (0.57–1.66) 0.98 (0.58–1.66) 0.44
a

Matching for geographic location (Hawaii or California), race/ethnicity, birth year (±1 year), date (±6 months) and time (±2 h) of specimen collection, and fasting hours (0–<6, 6–<8, 8–<10, and 10+ h). The models were adjusted for age at specimen collection and fasting hours as continuous variables, as well as family history of prostate cancer, BMI, and education.

b

Expressed as nmol mg−1 creatinine.

c

Subjects with values below the limit of quantitation.

d

Unconditional logistic regression was used with adjustment for the matching criteria and the same covariates as in conditional logistic models.