Luqmani Y A, Temmim L, Memon A, Ali M A, Parkar A H
Kuwait Cancer Control Center, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Kuwait University.
Int J Cancer. 1997 May 16;71(4):526-38. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19970516)71:4<526::aid-ijc5>3.0.co;2-w.
We have analysed cytoplasmic and nuclear extracts of breast-cancer tissue from a total of 799 patients, measuring both oestrogen and progesterone receptors (ER, PR) using either the ligand binding assay (LBA) or the enzyme immunoassay technique (EIA). Mean and median receptor levels were much lower than those widely reported by others. For ER, this may in part be a consequence of the younger median age of the patient group. The frequency of positivity, using consensus cut-off values for clinical evaluation, was also lower than that reported by the EORTC Receptor Study Group. Although the measurements comparing the 2 methods were statistically correlated in terms of positivity, based on the above criteria for clinical assessment, concordance was considered to be relatively poor, particularly for ER when assayed in the same samples by the 2 methods. In cytosolic but not nuclear extracts, the LBA method gave a higher median value for ER than the EIA (except in the group that had EIA values greater than 15 fmol/mg protein); for PR, median values were higher with EIA in both cell fractions. There was an excellent correlation between receptor amounts in cytosolic and nuclear extracts for both ER and PR using the EIA; this was significantly better than with LBA. We also observed a correlation between ER and PR in both cytosolic and nuclear fractions which was most pronounced when the analysis was done by EIA. The amounts of ER in the cytosolic fraction were also correlated with the those of PR in the nuclear fraction and ER in the nuclear fraction with PR in the cytosolic fraction, but only when the EIA method was used. We conclude that the EIA method appears to be more sensitive and gives biologically more reliable results. However, the disagreement between the methods may be due to legitimate recognition of altered forms of the receptor and may be of biological significance. Although the presence of receptor in the cytosolic fraction is artifactual, its measurement by EIA does parallel the amounts of nuclear receptor, which may be a more relevant biological parameter.
我们分析了来自799例患者的乳腺癌组织的细胞质和细胞核提取物，使用配体结合分析法（LBA）或酶免疫分析技术（EIA）检测雌激素和孕激素受体（ER、PR）。受体水平的均值和中位数远低于其他研究广泛报道的数值。对于ER而言，这可能部分归因于患者组的年龄中位数较低。采用临床评估的共识临界值时，阳性频率也低于欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织（EORTC）受体研究组报道的数值。尽管两种方法检测结果在阳性方面具有统计学相关性，但基于上述临床评估标准，一致性被认为相对较差，尤其是对同一批样本采用两种方法检测ER时。在细胞质提取物而非细胞核提取物中，LBA法测得的ER中位数高于EIA法（EIA值大于15 fmol/mg蛋白的组除外）；对于PR，两种细胞组分中EIA法测得的中位数更高。使用EIA法时，细胞质和细胞核提取物中ER和PR的受体含量之间具有良好的相关性；这明显优于LBA法。我们还观察到细胞质和细胞核组分中ER和PR之间存在相关性，采用EIA法分析时最为明显。仅在使用EIA法时，细胞质组分中ER的含量与细胞核组分中PR的含量以及细胞核组分中ER与细胞质组分中PR的含量相关。我们得出结论，EIA法似乎更灵敏，且能给出生物学上更可靠的结果。然而，两种方法之间的差异可能是由于对受体改变形式的合理识别，可能具有生物学意义。尽管细胞质组分中受体的存在是人为的，但通过EIA法对其进行测量确实与细胞核受体的含量平行，而细胞核受体含量可能是一个更相关的生物学参数。
