open access
The detection of macroprolactin by precipitation and ultrafiltration methods
open access
Abstract
Material and methods: The study was conducted on 120 sera obtained from patients hospitalised in the Department of Clinical Endocrinology, Medical University of Lodz, in whom PRL concentration was above 30 ng/mL Of these 120 patients, 25 had pituitary adenoma, 52 had polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and 43 had idiopathic hyperprolactinaemia (HPRL). Macroprolactin was detected using two methods: precipitation with PEG and ultrafiltration. Concentration of PRL was measured by Immulite 1000 immunoassay (Siemens).
Results: We detected a predominance of MaPRL in ten patients (three with macroprolactinoma, three with PCOS and four with HPRL) using precipitation and ultrafiltration. Positive correlation and diagnostic concordance between the results of precipitation and ultrafiltration were noted, especially in the group with functional hyperprolactinaemia. In half of the patients with macroprolactinaemia, and in 12 of the 110 subjects without significant amounts of MaPRL, real PRL concentration was within the reference range.
Conclusions: MaPRL is not a significant clinical problem in the studied population. However, in patients with hyperprolactinaemia, especially non-organic, screening for macroprolactinaemia should be performed. The effectiveness of the precipitation and ultrafiltration methods for detecting MaPRL is comparable in functional hyperprolactinaemia, but the usefulness of ultrafiltration in patients with pituitary adenoma requires further examination. (Pol J Endocrinol 2011; 62 (6): 529–536)
Abstract
Material and methods: The study was conducted on 120 sera obtained from patients hospitalised in the Department of Clinical Endocrinology, Medical University of Lodz, in whom PRL concentration was above 30 ng/mL Of these 120 patients, 25 had pituitary adenoma, 52 had polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and 43 had idiopathic hyperprolactinaemia (HPRL). Macroprolactin was detected using two methods: precipitation with PEG and ultrafiltration. Concentration of PRL was measured by Immulite 1000 immunoassay (Siemens).
Results: We detected a predominance of MaPRL in ten patients (three with macroprolactinoma, three with PCOS and four with HPRL) using precipitation and ultrafiltration. Positive correlation and diagnostic concordance between the results of precipitation and ultrafiltration were noted, especially in the group with functional hyperprolactinaemia. In half of the patients with macroprolactinaemia, and in 12 of the 110 subjects without significant amounts of MaPRL, real PRL concentration was within the reference range.
Conclusions: MaPRL is not a significant clinical problem in the studied population. However, in patients with hyperprolactinaemia, especially non-organic, screening for macroprolactinaemia should be performed. The effectiveness of the precipitation and ultrafiltration methods for detecting MaPRL is comparable in functional hyperprolactinaemia, but the usefulness of ultrafiltration in patients with pituitary adenoma requires further examination. (Pol J Endocrinol 2011; 62 (6): 529–536)
Keywords
prolactin; macroprolactin; hyperprolactinaemia; polyethylene glycol; precipitation; ultrafiltration


Title
The detection of macroprolactin by precipitation and ultrafiltration methods
Journal
Issue
Article type
Original paper
Pages
529-536
Published online
2011-12-06
Page views
687
Article views/downloads
4229
Bibliographic record
Endokrynol Pol 2011;62(6):529-536.
Keywords
prolactin
macroprolactin
hyperprolactinaemia
polyethylene glycol
precipitation
ultrafiltration
Authors
Karolina Beda-Maluga
Hanna Pisarek
Jan Komorowski
Marek Pawlikowski
Jacek Świętosławski
Katarzyna Winczyk