Serum levels of the immunomodulatory protein, the progesterone induced blocking factor (PIBF) which is found in high levels during pregnancy is not higher in women with progesterone (P) receptor (R) positive vs. negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine if serum levels of the immunomodulatory protein, the progesterone induced blocking factor (PIBF), which is present in high levels during normal pregnancy, is present in higher levels in women with breast cancer positive for progesterone receptors. The study would also determine whether the presence or absence of the estrogen receptor in any way modifies PIBF expression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PIBF using a research ELISA was evaluated in the follicular phase in 21 women with receptor status as follows: seven with estrogen receptor (ER)+ and progesterone receptor (PR)+, seven with ER- and PR+, and seven with ER+ and PR. RESULTS: The results showed no differences in serum PIBF in the three groups. The serum PIBF levels were no different than historical controls in the follicular phase. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of serum PIBF does not seem to be an important marker to use to either detect women with breast cancer or to help determine tumor virulence or potential specific therapies. If PIBF plays a role in helping cancer cells to escape immune surveillance, it seems that the intracytoplasmic PIBF would be the form most likely operative.

Intravenous intralipid therapy is not beneficial in having a live delivery in women aged 40-42 years with a previous history of miscarriage or failure to conceive despite embryo transfer undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of intralipid intravenous infusion in achieving a live pregnancy following IVF--embryo transfer in women of advanced reproductive age (40-42 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A matched control was performed. Women aged 40-42 with a previous history of miscarriage or who failed to conceive despite previous embryo transfer who entered an IVF program were offered intravenous intralipid therapy (four ml of 20% liposyn II in 100 ml normal saline over one hour) during the mid-follicular phase. Clinical pregnancy rates (eight weeks with viable gestation) and live delivered pregnancy rates were then determined and compared. RESULTS: The results were evaluated after ten matched cycles. There were no clinical pregnancies in those receiving intralipid vs. a 40% clinical and a 30% live delivered pregnancy rate in the untreated controls (p = 0.087, Fisher's exact test). The study was terminated because of these preliminary data. CONCLUSIONS: In the test tube, adding intralipid to natural killer cells can inhibit their cytolytic action. However, the use of intravenous intralipid to suppress natural killer cell activity does not seem to improve the chance of a live delivery in women aged 40-42 years with a previous history of miscarriage. In fact this therapy may actually be detrimental in this age group. Since efficacy of this therapy was not found in a group of advanced reproductive age, it is not clear why this should be effective for a younger population. A controlled study for the younger group is needed. Perhaps such a study could be limited to only those with miscarriage rather than also concluding failure to conceive despite embryo transfer. Intralipid failed to improve live delivered pregnancy rates in women with prior miscarriage or previous failure with embryo transfer.