Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
1
pubmed:dateCreated
1991-8-12
pubmed:abstractText
The production of monoclonal antibodies against estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) has permitted the development of the enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and immunocytochemical assay (ICA) for steroid receptor determination. The results obtained with these two techniques, using the same monoclonal antibodies, were compared in a large series of breast carcinomas (187 for ER and 100 for PR). The correlation between these methods was significant for ER (rs = 0.54) and PR (rs = 0.55) (P less than 0.001) but was lost when the receptor concentrations determined by EIA were less than or equal to 15 and less than or equal to 30 fmol/mg protein for ER and PR, respectively. When these values are considered as cutoffs, the concordance between the two methods was 84.5% for ER and 73% for PR. An analysis of discordant results revealed that low epithelial cellularity generally was present in ICA-positive, EIA-negative specimens, whereas only focal positivity with ICA, or positivity of only normal peripheral mammary ducts and lobules, frequently was found in ICA-negative, EIA-positive tumors. In conclusion, there is good correlation between the results obtained by EIA and ICA methods for detection of ER and PR. The authors suggest that biochemical and histochemical methods for steroid receptors could be considered complementary and used together for the analysis of breast cancer.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
AIM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jul
pubmed:issn
0002-9173
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
96
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
53-8
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1991
pubmed:articleTitle
Comparison of monoclonal immunocytochemical and immunoenzymatic methods for steroid receptor evaluation in breast cancer.
pubmed:affiliation
Cattedra di Clinica Medica II, University of Pisa S. Anna, Italy.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study