
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
1 Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii and 2 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
Requests for reprints: Gertraud Maskarinec, Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, 1236 Lauhala Street, Honolulu, HI 96813. Phone: 808-586-3078; Fax: 808-586-2984. E-mail: gertraud{at}crch.hawaii.edu
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods: This 2-year dietary intervention randomized 220 healthy premenopausal women. The intervention group consumed two daily servings of soy foods containing
50 mg of isoflavones; the control group maintained their regular diet. Five blood samples (obtained in months 0, 3, 6, 12, and 24) were taken 5 days after ovulation as determined by an ovulation kit. The serum samples were analyzed for estrone, estradiol, sex hormone binding globulin, androstenedione, and progesterone by immunoassay.
Results: At baseline, both groups had similar demographic, anthropometric, and nutritional characteristics. The dropout rates of 15.6% (17 of 109) in the intervention group and 12.6% (14 of 111) in the control group did not differ significantly. According to soy intake logs, 24-hour recalls, and urinary isoflavone excretion, the women closely adhered to the study regimen. Menstrual cycles became slightly shorter in both groups but did not differ by group. Mixed general linear models indicated no significant intervention effect on any of the serum hormones. However, androstenedione and progesterone decreased significantly over time in both groups.
Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the preventive effects of soy on breast cancer risk in premenopausal women may not be mediated by circulating sex hormone levels. Different mechanisms of actions or effects of exposure earlier in life are alternate hypotheses that require further investigation.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
6 weekly servings of soy as assessed by a soy food frequency questionnaire (19, 20). After the baseline assessment and sample collection, 245 women agreed to a run-in period of 1 week during which they tasted all soy foods to be used for the intervention; 220 of these (62.3% of eligible) subjects were randomized using a blocked randomization scheme to balance the groups by age and ethnicity. The number of dropouts and the reasons for leaving the study did not differ significantly by group (Fig. 1). Altogether, 17 (15.6%) women in the intervention group and 14 (12.6%) controls left the study prematurely (P = 0.53).
|
25 mg of isoflavones (Table 1; refs. 21, 22) as determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography with photodiode array detection (23, 24). Soy foods of the same brand were used throughout the intervention. To achieve long-term compliance, a choice of fresh and silken tofu was offered along with roasted soy nuts, soy bars, and soy protein powder. Our goal was to recommend primarily traditional Asian foods such as tofu and soymilk. Absorption and metabolism of isoflavones derived from different soy foods and supplements are very similar and lead to comparable patterns of plasma levels and urinary excretion rates (23, 25, 26). Women in the intervention group received supplies of nonperishable foods and grocery store coupons for perishable foods and soymilk at regular intervals. As described previously (18), dietitians provided nutritional counseling and group meetings to women in both groups. The women in the control group maintained their regular diet and were counseled about healthy nutrition according to the Food Guide Pyramid (27).
|
Sample Collection
The goal was to obtain blood and urine samples 5 days after ovulation as determined by an ovulation kit, corresponding approximately to day 19 in a 28-day menstrual cycle. In addition to baseline, samples were collected at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after randomization. Average cycle length and the dates of the two most recent periods were recorded at the screening visit. The first day of full flow was considered to be the first day of the menstrual cycle; days of spotting were not counted. Menstruation dates were updated in the database at each contact. If a participant forgot to record the exact date of menstruation, a date based on the average cycle length or the number of days between known menstruation dates for this individual was entered into the database. If a period was skipped, no dates were entered. Ovulation was tested by the subjects using the SureStep LH Ovulation test (Applied Biotech, Inc., San Diego, CA, catalogue no. 6108). This test detects luteinizing hormone in a urine sample, contains a built-in procedural control, and complies with the WHO Second International Standard (IS 80/552). In addition, 10% of women used the more sensitive OvuQuick One-Step ovulation prediction kit (Quidel, San Diego, CA, catalogue no. 0489800). On the first day of menstruation, participants notified study staff that determined the presumptive first day for ovulation testing using estimated average cycle length. After a reminder call, participants tested daily for up to 7 days between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. at approximately the same time each day without excess consumption of liquids within 4 hours prior to testing. After testing positive, participants arranged for blood collection 5 days later or if necessary on day 6 or 4. Blood was collected before 9:30 a.m. at our center or at a commercial laboratory. If a positive test result did not occur after three cycles, blood was drawn on either day 19 of the cycle or on a day approximating an average ovulation date, but this approach was only necessary for 16 blood collections. Participants who had not menstruated within 40 days or who discontinued the study were assigned a random day for blood collection. Serum was allowed to clot for 30 minutes and then was centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 15 minutes. The samples were delivered to a central processing location on the same day, aliquoted into 1 mL cryovials, stored at 80°C, and shipped to Los Angeles on dry ice.
Serum Analysis
Hormone assays were done in the Reproductive Endocrine Research Laboratory at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine over a 6-month period. The analyses were conducted in batches of 30 or 40 samples. Each batch contained all five samples collected at baseline and at months 3, 6, 12, and 24 from the same woman. The batches were assembled with an equal number of intervention and control women in each batch. Whenever possible, we balanced the batches according to our block randomization scheme described above. A complete set of samples was available for 156 women. For 15 women who donated only baseline samples, no hormone analysis was done. In addition, 61 samples were missing because women had either left the study or failed to provide a sample. The missing blood samples were distributed equally between groups: 10 and 8, 7 and 6, 6 and 7, and 9 and 8 were unavailable in the control and intervention groups for the four blood draws, respectively. Therefore, there were only four specimens available for 41 women, three specimens for 4 women, and two specimens for 4 women. For quality control, we included two or three blind samples obtained from a pooled blood sample into each batch. These samples were donated by 10 premenopausal employees at our center during the luteal phase of their menstrual cycle.
Blood samples were assayed in serum for Adione, E2, E1, Prog, and SHBG. Adione, E1, and E2 were quantified by specific and sensitive RIA after an extraction and a purification step (31-33). Prog and SHBG were measured by direct immunoassays on the Immulite system (Diagnostic Products Corp., Inglewood, CA). Free E2 was determined by calculation using a computerized algorithm described previously (34). Based on the 60 blind samples (two to three samples per batch), we obtained the following interassay coefficients of variation (%) for the 28 batches: E1, 17.7; E2, 11.2; Adione, 14.2; SHBG, 6.2; and Prog, 8.6. The respective mean (range) intraassay coefficients of variation (%) were as follows: E1, 9.2 (0.5-29.3); E2, 6.5 (1.2-14.8); Adione, 9.1 (0.28-22.1); SHBG, 2.9 (0.12-6.4); and Prog, 7.3 (0-18.9).
Statistical Analysis
The SAS statistical software package version 8.2 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) was used for all analyses. Menstrual cycle length was calculated as the number of days from the first day of full menstrual flow to the day before the next full flow. We considered only cycles with a length of >20 days because shorter cycles are biologically unlikely. Based on the lifetime soy questionnaire, we calculated an estimated number of soy servings during childhood and during the entire life.
The t test procedure (35) was used to compare the means of the two groups at baseline and the mean difference in change between groups. To test for an intervention effect according to the original assignment, we examined overall group mean differences and the effect of time. This examination was carried out using maximum likelihood estimation of a mixed general linear model that takes into account the covariance structure of the repeated measures within subjects (36, 37). The repeated measurements were included as a random effect into the model testing for a change in hormone level over time in both groups combined. An interaction effect for group assignment with time was also added to the model. Analyses for all serum levels were repeated with data restrictions or model additions to account for presumed anovulatory status (<5 ng/mL Prog), excluding flagged blood draws (not timed with ovulation kit or other violation), compliant subjects according to urinary isoflavone excretion only (<4 nmol/mg creatinine for controls and
4 nmol/mg creatinine for intervention subjects), compliant subjects according to 24-hour recalls only (<10 mg/d isoflavones for controls and
10 mg/d isoflavones for intervention subjects), Asian ethnicity, body mass index (<25 and
25), and high soy consumption during childhood and during life. Based on a sample size of 100 subjects per arm (
= 0.05, two-sided; ß = 0.2), our analyses had a power of 0.80 to detect a significant difference between groups of 23 pg/mL for E1 and 35 pg/mL for E2. Our a priori power calculations were based on the somewhat lower SDs in the Japanese trial (38) and had suggested minimum detectable differences of 12 and 25 pg/mL for E1 and E2, respectively.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
Self-reported menstrual cycle length at baseline was 27.6 ± 3.7 days in the control group and 28.0 ± 2.2 days in the intervention group (P = 0.34). This agreed well with the respective values of 27.7 ± 3.2 and 27.8 ± 3.0 measured before randomization. During the entire intervention, the former group experienced 23.0 ± 6.3 cycles and the latter experienced 22.7 ± 7.1 cycles (P = 0.72). The slight decline in cycle length (0.29 and 0.38 days; P = 0.79) was similar in both groups, resulting in a mean cycle length of 27.4 days in both groups during the 2-year study period. Despite the use of ovulation kits, women in both groups sometimes donated blood when an ovulation had not occurred as indicated by a measured Prog value of <5 ng/mL, the minimum level after a successful ovulation. This could be the result of either misreading the result of the ovulation kit from an insufficient development of the corpus luteum or from a blood draw that was timed without an ovulation kit. At baseline, ovulation had not occurred for 5 control and 10 intervention women (P = 0.15) whose blood samples were included in the analysis, whereas during the entire intervention period the respective numbers were 50 and 56 (P = 0.36). Blood and urine samples were obtained during the intervention period as planned; the four blood draws occurred at 2.8 ± 0.7, 6.0 ± 1.2, 12.3 ± 1.5, and 22.7 ± 1.7 months after randomization.
We did not observe an effect of the intervention on any of the hormones measured (Table 3). Although the levels of E1, E2, and free E2 increased by close to 15% in the intervention group during the first 3 months and remained slightly higher at the 6-month blood draw, this difference disappeared after 6 to 12 months. In addition, after excluding the data for 8 control and 10 intervention subjects with Prog levels below 5 ng/mL, the difference in estrogen levels at 3-month became smaller: 89 and 94 pg/mL for E1 and 142 pg/mL for E2 in both groups. Whereas mean E1, E2, and free E2 levels remained constant during the 2-year study period, Prog (P for time effect = 0.04) and Adione (P for time effect < 0.0001) decreased significantly over time and SHBG showed some decline (P for time effect = 0.09). The decrease in hormone levels did not differ by group.
A series of post hoc analyses exploring a possible intervention effect in women with different characteristics (Table 4) suggested no effects on E1 and E2 in any subgroup. Free E2 showed a small decline in women younger than 43 years and in women who reported soy intake during childhood. Mean SHBG levels varied in a nonlinear fashion over time when ovulatory cycles only were considered, in women with a body mass index <25 kg/m2, and in compliant women according to urinary isoflavone excretion. In women with high urinary isoflavone excretion at baseline, the intervention group experienced a significant decrease in SHBG (P = 0.03). For Adione, we observed a decrease over time in all subgroups. Among younger women and among subjects who did not consume soy during childhood, Prog levels declined significantly in the intervention group. In older but not in younger women, Prog decreased significantly over time and women with higher body mass index experienced significant fluctuations of Prog over time.
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
5 ng/mL). The slight decline in Prog, Adione, SHBG, and menstrual cycle length over time that occurred in both groups probably reflects hormonal changes due to aging. Several post hoc analyses do not suggest a significant change in hormone levels during the intervention in any particular subgroup. Given the large number of comparisons in the subgroup analyses, the few suggestive findings are most likely false-positive results. Among previous interventions in premenopausal women (Table 5), decreases in estrogen levels were observed in four short studies (17, 38-40), all of which used soymilk or soy foods. Only the Japanese study (38) had >20 subjects and a control group, but the change in estrogens was not statistically significant. The lack of a control group casts considerable doubt on the findings of some studies (17, 39) despite the tightly controlled and monitored conditions in metabolic units. A large number of unmeasured factors (e.g., psychological stress, change in living environment, and physical activity) may influence the frequency of menstruation and related hormonal patterns (41). In the intervention study from California (40), the estrogen lowering effect of soy foods was restricted to Asian women. The other interventions observed either no change in serum E1 and E2 levels (33, 42-44) or a slight increase (16, 45, 46). Interestingly, a decrease in E2 and Prog levels was observed in an intervention with soymilk that had been depleted of isoflavones (47). The results regarding menstrual cycle length are as inconsistent as the estrogen results. Whereas five studies (16, 17, 38, 44, 46) reported a small delay in menstruation during the soy intervention, four studies (33, 40, 42, 43) did not detect a similar effect.
|
We did not have complete sets of blood samples for all women, but we obtained at least four specimens for 197 (90%) of the 220 randomized subjects. Although the timing of the blood draws was not perfect, 87% of the control and 85% of the intervention blood samples were collected after an ovulation had occurred. The strongest limitation of this type of study is the lack of more frequent hormone measurements. Ideally, daily samples would allow the calculation of hormone exposure over an entire cycle, but logistic and budgetary constraints as well as the burden on the subjects did not permit such an approach. There is a concern that the variability in hormone levels and cycle length in women who are approaching perimenopause may mask a small intervention effect. However, our menstrual data indicate fairly regular cycles and little variation. The SDs for cycle lengths were close to 3 days, and 91% of all menstrual cycles recorded during the study period lasted between 26 and 30 days. One of the previous interventions (48) described lower E1 and higher SHBG levels for women excreting equol than for nonexcretors. It was not possible to test the hypothesis proposed by Setchell et al. (49) that beneficial effects of soy are limited to individuals who have the ability to produce equol from dadzein, an estimated 30% of the population, because the subjects of our trial did not undergo a soy challenge to determine their equol excretor status.
Given the results of this randomized nutritional trial, it seems likely that the putative effects of soy on breast cancer prevention, if they exist, are mediated by mechanisms other than the lowering of circulating estrogen levels in premenopausal women. These negative findings introduce a critical uncertainty into the soy-breast cancer field. Given the epidemiologic evidence in support of a protective effect of soy during adolescence (9, 50) and in populations with habitual soy intake (38) and the repeated observation that prepubertal isoflavone exposure in animals (51, 52) is more effective in suppressing the growth of mammary tumors than adult soy feeding, future investigations may consider earlier phases of life to explore possible effects of soy on hormonal variables. Alternatively, circulating hormones and isoflavones may not accurately reflect tissue exposure (53) and the hypothesis of a direct competitive effect of isoflavones in breast tissue through binding to estrogen receptors deserves future research efforts (54). It is also possible that isoflavones modulate estrogen metabolism via an effect on the activity of specific cytochrome P450 isoenzymes responsible for estrogen hydroxylation (55, 56). Thus, the relative proportion of estrogen metabolites may be altered toward a more favorable metabolite pattern as suggested by two reports (55, 57). Most importantly, mechanisms through estrogen-independent pathways have to be considered as mode of action.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Received 3/ 9/04; revised 4/29/04; accepted 5/12/04.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-hydroxyestrone in premenopausal women during a soya diet containing isoflavones. Cancer Res 2000;60:1299305.This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
K. W. Wilhelms, C. G. Scanes, and L. L. Anderson Lack of estrogenic or antiestrogenic actions of soy isoflavones in an avian model: the Japanese quail. Poult. Sci., November 1, 2006; 85(11): 1885 - 1889. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Messina, W. McCaskill-Stevens, and J. W. Lampe Addressing the soy and breast cancer relationship: review, commentary, and workshop proceedings. J Natl Cancer Inst, September 20, 2006; 98(18): 1275 - 1284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. J. Trock, L. Hilakivi-Clarke, and R. Clarke Meta-analysis of soy intake and breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst, April 5, 2006; 98(7): 459 - 471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Lurie, G. Maskarinec, R. Kaaks, F. Z. Stanczyk, and L. Le Marchand Association of Genetic Polymorphisms with Serum Estrogens Measured Multiple Times During a 2-Year Period in Premenopausal Women Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., June 1, 2005; 14(6): 1521 - 1527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Cell Growth & Differentiation |