Comparison of a new microplate oestrogen receptor (ER) enzyme immunoassay with other ER detection methods.

In a study involving 50 breast cancer tumours, we compared two oestrogen receptor (ER) detection methods developed by us--a microplate immunoenzymometric assay (EIA96) and an immunohistochemistry kit (HistoCIS-ER)--with the radioligand assay (RLA), the Abbott immunoenzymometric assay ER-EIA and the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction technique (RT-PCR). Among the three ER protein cytosolic assays (EIA96, ER-EIA and RLA), the two EIAs showed the best agreement (y = 1.086x - 7.840; r2 = 0.876). At the calculated optimal cut-off values (8 and 14 fmol mg(-1) protein for EIA96 and RLA respectively), EIA96 was more sensitive than RLA (0.94 for EIA96, 0.88 for RLA), but slightly less specific (0.82 for EIA96, 0.94 for RLA). The Cox logistical regression model applied to EIA96, RLA and RT-PCR showed that EIA96 discriminated the best between ER-EIA+ and ER-EIA- samples. The RT-PCR technique and HistoCIS-ER both had a positivity-negativity concordance of 86% with EIA96.

Microtiter plate immunoenzymometric assay for estrogen receptor.

The estrogen receptor (ER) status of breast cancer is used both as a prognostic factor and as a predictor of response to endocrine therapy. An immunoenzymometric assay for ER was developed on 96-well microtiter plates (EIA96). This technique involves two monoclonal antibodies directed against different epitopes in the B domain of ER. The two-step protocol (16-18 h and 3 h at 4 degrees C) requires 100 microL of cytosol. This assay showed a detection limit of 0.58 pmol/L. Intra- and interassay CVs of clinical specimens were < or = 5% except for the least concentrated sample (6.5 pmol/L, CV = 6.7%). In a comparison study involving cytosols of breast adenocarcinoma tissue biopsies, we compared the EIA96 with the radioligand assay (RLA) and the Abbott ER-EIA, widely used techniques for determining ER concentration in cytosols of breast cancer tumors. The two EIAs showed excellent agreement; however, two samples showed discrepant results by EIA96 and RLA.