Cargando…

Ultrafiltration – an alternative method to polyethylene glycol precipitation for macroprolactin detection

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate two methods of macroprolactin (MaPRL) detection – precipitation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and ultrafiltration and to compare these techniques with “gold standard” – gel filtration chromatography (GFC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conduc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beda-Maluga, Karolina, Pisarek, Hanna, Romanowska, Irena, Komorowski, Jan, Świętosławski, Jacek, Winczyk, Katarzyna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26528343
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2015.54854
_version_ 1782397850795114496
author Beda-Maluga, Karolina
Pisarek, Hanna
Romanowska, Irena
Komorowski, Jan
Świętosławski, Jacek
Winczyk, Katarzyna
author_facet Beda-Maluga, Karolina
Pisarek, Hanna
Romanowska, Irena
Komorowski, Jan
Świętosławski, Jacek
Winczyk, Katarzyna
author_sort Beda-Maluga, Karolina
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate two methods of macroprolactin (MaPRL) detection – precipitation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and ultrafiltration and to compare these techniques with “gold standard” – gel filtration chromatography (GFC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted on 245 patients – 45 with organic and 200 with functional hyperprolactinaemia. In all the subjects MaPRL was detected by precipitation with PEG and ultrafiltration. Additionally, gel filtration chromatography was performed in some of the serum samples. RESULTS: Macroprolactinaemia was detected in 27 patients – 8 with prolactinoma and 19 with functional hyperprolactinaemia. Assessing positive and negative results for MaPRL, we observed high diagnostic agreement (95.9%) and positive correlation (r = 0.506, p < 0.001) between the methods. The results of precipitation and ultrafiltration positive for MaPRL were concordant in 63%. The dominance of MaPRL detected with precipitation and/or ultrafiltration was confirmed by GFC in 76% of cases (all patients with functional hyperprolactinaemia). Among 6 examined patients with prolactinoma, GFC showed four false-positive results – 1 case of precipitation and 3 cases of ultrafiltration. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of MaPRL detection with precipitation and ultrafiltration is comparable especially in cases of functional hyperprolactinaemia. In patients with prolactinoma, precipitation seems to be a more efficient separation method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4624744
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46247442015-11-02 Ultrafiltration – an alternative method to polyethylene glycol precipitation for macroprolactin detection Beda-Maluga, Karolina Pisarek, Hanna Romanowska, Irena Komorowski, Jan Świętosławski, Jacek Winczyk, Katarzyna Arch Med Sci Clinical Research INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate two methods of macroprolactin (MaPRL) detection – precipitation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and ultrafiltration and to compare these techniques with “gold standard” – gel filtration chromatography (GFC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted on 245 patients – 45 with organic and 200 with functional hyperprolactinaemia. In all the subjects MaPRL was detected by precipitation with PEG and ultrafiltration. Additionally, gel filtration chromatography was performed in some of the serum samples. RESULTS: Macroprolactinaemia was detected in 27 patients – 8 with prolactinoma and 19 with functional hyperprolactinaemia. Assessing positive and negative results for MaPRL, we observed high diagnostic agreement (95.9%) and positive correlation (r = 0.506, p < 0.001) between the methods. The results of precipitation and ultrafiltration positive for MaPRL were concordant in 63%. The dominance of MaPRL detected with precipitation and/or ultrafiltration was confirmed by GFC in 76% of cases (all patients with functional hyperprolactinaemia). Among 6 examined patients with prolactinoma, GFC showed four false-positive results – 1 case of precipitation and 3 cases of ultrafiltration. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of MaPRL detection with precipitation and ultrafiltration is comparable especially in cases of functional hyperprolactinaemia. In patients with prolactinoma, precipitation seems to be a more efficient separation method. Termedia Publishing House 2015-10-12 2015-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4624744/ /pubmed/26528343 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2015.54854 Text en Copyright © 2015 Termedia & Banach http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Research
Beda-Maluga, Karolina
Pisarek, Hanna
Romanowska, Irena
Komorowski, Jan
Świętosławski, Jacek
Winczyk, Katarzyna
Ultrafiltration – an alternative method to polyethylene glycol precipitation for macroprolactin detection
title Ultrafiltration – an alternative method to polyethylene glycol precipitation for macroprolactin detection
title_full Ultrafiltration – an alternative method to polyethylene glycol precipitation for macroprolactin detection
title_fullStr Ultrafiltration – an alternative method to polyethylene glycol precipitation for macroprolactin detection
title_full_unstemmed Ultrafiltration – an alternative method to polyethylene glycol precipitation for macroprolactin detection
title_short Ultrafiltration – an alternative method to polyethylene glycol precipitation for macroprolactin detection
title_sort ultrafiltration – an alternative method to polyethylene glycol precipitation for macroprolactin detection
topic Clinical Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26528343
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2015.54854
work_keys_str_mv AT bedamalugakarolina ultrafiltrationanalternativemethodtopolyethyleneglycolprecipitationformacroprolactindetection
AT pisarekhanna ultrafiltrationanalternativemethodtopolyethyleneglycolprecipitationformacroprolactindetection
AT romanowskairena ultrafiltrationanalternativemethodtopolyethyleneglycolprecipitationformacroprolactindetection
AT komorowskijan ultrafiltrationanalternativemethodtopolyethyleneglycolprecipitationformacroprolactindetection
AT swietosławskijacek ultrafiltrationanalternativemethodtopolyethyleneglycolprecipitationformacroprolactindetection
AT winczykkatarzyna ultrafiltrationanalternativemethodtopolyethyleneglycolprecipitationformacroprolactindetection