4.2 Article

Mammographic densities in a one-year isoflavone intervention

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 165-169

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00008469-200304000-00011

Keywords

breast neoplasm; intervention; isoflavones; mammographic density; nutrition; risk factors

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

dThe estrogenic and antiestrogenic effects of isoflavones, phytoestrogens contained in soy foods, have been proposed as mechanisms for the possible involvement of soy products in the development of breast cancer. We investigated the hypothesis that: isoflavones reduce mammographic density, a predictor of breast cancer risk. We conducted a double-blind randomized trial in premenopausal women who received a daily 100 mg isoflavone supplement or a placebo over 12 months. Compliance with the study regimen was confirmed: by urinary isoflavones and tablet counts. We used a computer-assisted method to measure mammographic density and paired t-tests to assess changes in mammographic characteristics from baseline to follow-up mammogram. Complete sets of mammograms were available for 30 women. The two groups differed by age and mammographic density at baseline, but were similar in body weight and nutritional intakes. We detected no significant changes either in the size of the dense areas or in the per cent densities. A nonsignificant decrease in breast area among intervention group subjects was probably the result of methodological issues in comparing mammograms taken under different conditions. In conclusion, our findings. do not support the hypothesis that isoflavones decrease mammographic density during a one-year intervention. Although this exploratory,study had limited power, it appears that isoflavones do not exert an estrogenic effect similar to hormone replacement therapy on mammographic density. (C) 2003 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available