Evaluation of polyethylene glycol precipitation as screening test for macroprolactinemia using Architect immunoanalyser |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China;2. National Key Clinical Department of Laboratory Medicine, Nanjing 210029, China;1. Institute of Pathology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany;2. Tumor Bank Ovarian Cancer Network (TOC), Berlin, Germany;3. Department of Gynecology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany;4. Department of Hematology and Oncology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany;1. School of Computer & Information Technology, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, Shanxi 030006, China;2. Shanxi Key Laboratory of Mathematical Techniques and Big Data Analysis on Disease Control and Prevention, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, Shanxi030006, China;3. Science and Technology on Electronic Test and Measurement Laboratory, North University of China, Taiyuan, Shanxi 030051, China;4. Center for Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China;5. Complex Systems Research Center, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, Shanxi 030006, China;6. School of Mathematics and Physics, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China;7. School of Mechanical Engineering and Center for OPTical IMagery Analysis and Learning (OPTIMAL), Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China;1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary and Calgary Laboratory Services, Canada;2. Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | We performed the polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation test to determine the prevalence of macroprolactinemia in 172 hyperprolactinemic subjects with prolactin (PRL) levels > 700 mIU/l. PRL was measured by Architect i2000 (Abbott Diagnostics) both in serum and in supernatant obtained after PEG. We used the PRL recovery percentage (R%) as interpretative criterion of PEG test and we estimated a prevalence of macroprolactinemia of 21.5% (R% ≤ 40%), whereas 74.4% of subjects showed a true hyperprolactinemia (R% ≥ 60%). In true hyperprolactinemic subjects PRL levels obtained before and after PEG showed a good correlation (Pearson coefficient, R = 0.995); in macroprolactinemic individuals no correlation was found. The PEG test was also performed in 50 normoprolactinemic subjects and a new PRL reference interval was obtained: 64–453 mIU/l. In this case the macroprolactinemic subjects (hyperprolactinemic presenting a normal PRL value after PEG) were 20.3% whereas 79.7% showed still elevated PRL levels. In 35 females we were also able to evaluate the symptoms and the pituitary imaging findings: no significant differences between macroprolactinemic (N = 11) and true hyperprolactinemic (N = 24) subjects were found. In conclusion, the PEG test appears to be simple, reproducible and absolutely necessary for diagnostics of hyperprolactinemia. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
