BACKGROUND: Increased serum concentrations of macroprolactin are a relatively common cause of misdiagnosis and mismanagement of hyperprolactinemic patients. METHODS: We studied sera from a cohort of 42 patients whose biochemical hyperprolactinemia was explained entirely by macroprolactin. Using 5 pretreatments, polyethylene glycol (PEG), protein A (PA), protein G (PG), anti-human IgG (anti-hIgG), and ultrafiltration (UF), to deplete macroprolactin from sera before immunoassay, we compared residual prolactin concentrations with monomer concentrations obtained by gel-filtration chromatography (GFC). A monomeric prolactin standard was used to assess recovery and specificity of the pretreatment procedures. RESULTS: Residual prolactin concentrations in all pretreated sera differed significantly (P < 0.001) from monomeric concentrations obtained after GFC. PEG underestimated (mean, 75%), whereas PA, PG, anti-hIgG, and UF overestimated (means, 178%, 151%, 178%, and 112%, respectively) the amount of monomer present. Of the 5 methods examined, PEG correlated best with GFC (r = 0.80) followed by PG (r = 0.78), PA (r = 0.72), anti-hIgG (r = 0.70), and UF (r = 0.61). After UF or pretreatment with anti-hIgG or PEG, recovery of monomeric prolactin standard was low: 60%, 85%, and 77% respectively. In contrast, pretreatment with PA or PG gave almost quantitative recovery. CONCLUSIONS: None of the methods examined yielded results identical to the GFC method. PEG pretreatment yielded results that correlated best and is recommended as the first-choice alternative to GFC.
BACKGROUND: Increased serum concentrations of macroprolactin are a relatively common cause of misdiagnosis and mismanagement of hyperprolactinemicpatients. METHODS: We studied sera from a cohort of 42 patients whose biochemical hyperprolactinemia was explained entirely by macroprolactin. Using 5 pretreatments, polyethylene glycol (PEG), protein A (PA), protein G (PG), anti-human IgG (anti-hIgG), and ultrafiltration (UF), to deplete macroprolactin from sera before immunoassay, we compared residual prolactin concentrations with monomer concentrations obtained by gel-filtration chromatography (GFC). A monomeric prolactin standard was used to assess recovery and specificity of the pretreatment procedures. RESULTS: Residual prolactin concentrations in all pretreated sera differed significantly (P < 0.001) from monomeric concentrations obtained after GFC. PEG underestimated (mean, 75%), whereas PA, PG, anti-hIgG, and UF overestimated (means, 178%, 151%, 178%, and 112%, respectively) the amount of monomer present. Of the 5 methods examined, PEG correlated best with GFC (r = 0.80) followed by PG (r = 0.78), PA (r = 0.72), anti-hIgG (r = 0.70), and UF (r = 0.61). After UF or pretreatment with anti-hIgG or PEG, recovery of monomeric prolactin standard was low: 60%, 85%, and 77% respectively. In contrast, pretreatment with PA or PG gave almost quantitative recovery. CONCLUSIONS: None of the methods examined yielded results identical to the GFC method. PEG pretreatment yielded results that correlated best and is recommended as the first-choice alternative to GFC.
Authors: Karolina Beda-Maluga; Hanna Pisarek; Irena Romanowska; Jan Komorowski; Jacek Świętosławski; Katarzyna Winczyk Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 3.318