OBJECTIVE: To define whether the pathophysiology of euprolactinemic galactorrhea (EuG) involves hyperresponsiveness to thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH). STUDY DESIGN: Basal and TRH-induced prolactin (PRL) patterns were examined in women with EuG (n = 7) and compared to those in controls (n = 10) with normal menstrual cycles. PRL activity was measured by radioimmunoassay (RIA) and Nb2 lymphoma cell bioassay (BA). The response of BA-PRL, RIA-PRL, the BA/RIA-PRL ratio and lactogenic activity to TRH given intravenously were studied. RESULTS: The response of RIA-PRL, BA-PRL, lactogenic activity (representing both PRL and growth hormone in the Nb2 lymphoma cell bioassay) and BA/RIA-PRL ratio were not significantly different in EuG as compared to controls. In both groups the combined BA/ RIA-PRL ratio increased at 15 (P = .006), 30 (P = .011), and 90 minutes (P = .022) after TRH injection as compared to zero time. The level of serum progesterone at the time of TRH stimulation did not affect the response of any parameter studied. CONCLUSION: The response of BA-PRL, RIA-PRL and the BA/RIA-PRL ratio to TRH was not significantly different in EuG as compared to controls. The mechanism of EuG did not involve hyperresponsiveness of BA-PRL, RIA-PRL, the BA/RIA-PRL ratio or lactogenic activity to TRH.
OBJECTIVE: To define whether the pathophysiology of euprolactinemic galactorrhea (EuG) involves hyperresponsiveness to thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH). STUDY DESIGN: Basal and TRH-induced prolactin (PRL) patterns were examined in women with EuG (n = 7) and compared to those in controls (n = 10) with normal menstrual cycles. PRL activity was measured by radioimmunoassay (RIA) and Nb2 lymphoma cell bioassay (BA). The response of BA-PRL, RIA-PRL, the BA/RIA-PRL ratio and lactogenic activity to TRH given intravenously were studied. RESULTS: The response of RIA-PRL, BA-PRL, lactogenic activity (representing both PRL and growth hormone in the Nb2 lymphoma cell bioassay) and BA/RIA-PRL ratio were not significantly different in EuG as compared to controls. In both groups the combined BA/ RIA-PRL ratio increased at 15 (P = .006), 30 (P = .011), and 90 minutes (P = .022) after TRH injection as compared to zero time. The level of serum progesterone at the time of TRH stimulation did not affect the response of any parameter studied. CONCLUSION: The response of BA-PRL, RIA-PRL and the BA/RIA-PRL ratio to TRH was not significantly different in EuG as compared to controls. The mechanism of EuG did not involve hyperresponsiveness of BA-PRL, RIA-PRL, the BA/RIA-PRL ratio or lactogenic activity to TRH.