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.