Home Serum prolactin revisited: parametric reference intervals and cross platform evaluation of polyethylene glycol precipitation-based methods for discrimination between hyperprolactinemia and macroprolactinemia
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Serum prolactin revisited: parametric reference intervals and cross platform evaluation of polyethylene glycol precipitation-based methods for discrimination between hyperprolactinemia and macroprolactinemia

  • Martin Overgaard ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Susanne Møller Pedersen
Published/Copyright: February 25, 2017

Abstract

Background:

Hyperprolactinemia diagnosis and treatment is often compromised by the presence of biologically inactive and clinically irrelevant higher-molecular-weight complexes of prolactin, macroprolactin. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of two macroprolactin screening regimes across commonly used automated immunoassay platforms.

Methods:

Parametric total and monomeric gender-specific reference intervals were determined for six immunoassay methods using female (n=96) and male sera (n=127) from healthy donors. The reference intervals were validated using 27 hyperprolactinemic and macroprolactinemic sera, whose presence of monomeric and macroforms of prolactin were determined using gel filtration chromatography (GFC).

Results:

Normative data for six prolactin assays included the range of values (2.5th–97.5th percentiles). Validation sera (hyperprolactinemic and macroprolactinemic; n=27) showed higher discordant classification [mean=2.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2–4.4] for the monomer reference interval method compared to the post-polyethylene glycol (PEG) recovery cutoff method (mean=1.8; 95% CI 0.8–2.8). The two monomer/macroprolactin discrimination methods did not differ significantly (p=0.089). Among macroprolactinemic sera evaluated by both discrimination methods, the Cobas and Architect/Kryptor prolactin assays showed the lowest and the highest number of misclassifications, respectively.

Conclusions:

Current automated immunoassays for prolactin testing require macroprolactin screening methods based on PEG precipitation in order to discriminate truly from falsely elevated serum prolactin. While the recovery cutoff and monomeric reference interval macroprolactin screening methods demonstrate similar discriminative ability, the latter method also provides the clinician with an easy interpretable monomeric prolactin concentration along with a monomeric reference interval.

Acknowledgments

We thank Vivi Snedevind Møller and her team, Odense University Hospital, for their excellent technical assistance, and Marianne Skovsager Andersen, Odense University Hospital, for her advice on clinical matters.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Bernard V, Young J, Chanson P, Binart N. New insights in prolactin: pathological implications. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2015;11:265–75.10.1038/nrendo.2015.36Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Wong A, Eloy JA, Couldwell WT, Liu JK. Update on prolactinomas. Part 1: clinical manifestations and diagnostic challenges. J Clin Neurosci 2015;22:1562–7.10.1016/j.jocn.2015.03.058Search in Google Scholar

3. Garnier PE, Aubert ML, Kaplan SL, Grumbach MM. Heterogeneity of pituitary and plasma prolactin in man: decreased affinity of “Big” prolactin in a radioreceptor assay and evidence for its secretion. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1978;47:1273–81.10.1210/jcem-47-6-1273Search in Google Scholar

4. Hattori N, Ikekubo K, Nakaya Y, Kitagawa K, Inagaki C. Immunoglobulin G subclasses and prolactin (PRL) isoforms in macroprolactinemia due to anti-PRL autoantibodies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90:3036–44.10.1210/jc.2004-1600Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Jackson RD, Wortsman J, Malarkey WB. Macroprolactinemia presenting like a pituitary tumor. Am J Med 1985;78:346–50.10.1016/0002-9343(85)90448-6Search in Google Scholar

6. Soong YK, Ferguson KM, McGarrick G, Jeffcoate SL. Size heterogeneity of immunoreactive prolactin in hyperprolactinaemic serum. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1982;16:259–65.10.1111/j.1365-2265.1982.tb00715.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Hattori N, Aisaka K, Shimatsu A. A possible cause of the variable detectability of macroprolactin by different immunoassay systems. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:603–8.10.1515/cclm-2015-0484Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Fahie-Wilson M, Smith TP. Determination of prolactin: the macroprolactin problem. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;27:725–42.10.1016/j.beem.2013.07.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Hattori N, Nakayama Y, Kitagawa K, Ishihara T, Saiki Y, Inagaki C. Anti-prolactin (PRL) autoantibodies suppress PRL bioactivity in patients with macroprolactinaemia. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2008;68:72–6.10.1111/j.1365-2265.2007.03001.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Samson SL, Hamrahian AH, Ezzat S. American association of clinical endocrinologists, American college of endocrinology disease state clinical review: clinical relevance of macroprolactin in the absence or presence of true hyperprolactinemia. Endocr Pract 2015;21:1427–35.10.4158/EP15938.DSCSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Gibney J, Smith TP, McKenna TJ. Clinical relevance of macroprolactin. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2005;62:633–43.10.1111/j.1365-2265.2005.02243.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Jassam NF, Paterson A, Lippiatt C, Barth JH. Macroprolactin on the Advia Centaur: experience with 409 patients over a three-year period. Ann Clin Biochem 2009;46(Pt 6):501–4.10.1258/acb.2009.009059Search in Google Scholar

13. Fahie-Wilson MN, Soule SG. Macroprolactinaemia: contribution to hyperprolactinaemia in a district general hospital and evaluation of a screening test based on precipitation with polyethylene glycol. Ann Clin Biochem 1997;34(Pt 3):252–8.10.1177/000456329703400305Search in Google Scholar

14. Vieira JG, Tachibana TT, Obara LH, Maciel RM. Extensive experience and validation of polyethylene glycol precipitation as a screening method for macroprolactinemia. Clin Chem 1998;44(8 Pt 1):1758–9.10.1093/clinchem/44.8.1758Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Beltran L, Fahie-Wilson MN, McKenna TJ, Kavanagh L, Smith TP. Serum total prolactin and monomeric prolactin reference intervals determined by precipitation with polyethylene glycol: evaluation and validation on common immunoassay platforms. Clin Chem 2008;54:1673–81.10.1373/clinchem.2008.105312Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Smith TP, Fahie-Wilson MN. Reporting of post-PEG prolactin concentrations: time to change. Clin Chem 2010;56:484–5.10.1373/clinchem.2009.135210Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Seth J. UKNEQAS for prolactin: survey of laboratory practice for macroprolactin determination. UKNEQAS for peptide hormones and related substances. Annual Review 2001;UKNEQAS. 2001:A23–9.Search in Google Scholar

18. Strachan MW, Teoh WL, Don-Wauchope AC, Seth J, Stoddart M, Beckett GJ. Clinical and radiological features of patients with macroprolactinaemia. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2003;59:339–46.10.1046/j.1365-2265.2003.01852.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Solberg HE. RefVal: a program implementing the recommendations of the International federation of clinical chemistry on the statistical treatment of reference values. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1995;48:247–56.10.1016/0169-2607(95)01697-XSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Lippi G, Plebani M. Macroprolactin: searching for a needle in a haystack? Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:519–22.10.1515/cclm-2015-1283Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Melmed S, Casanueva FF, Hoffman AR, Kleinberg DL, Montori VM, Schlechte JA, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of hyperprolactinemia: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:273–88.10.1210/jc.2010-1692Search in Google Scholar PubMed


Supplemental Material:

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0902).


Received: 2016-10-7
Accepted: 2017-1-23
Published Online: 2017-2-25
Published in Print: 2017-10-26

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. High-sensitivity assays for cardiac troponins – continued
  4. Reviews
  5. The 99th percentile of reference population for cTnI and cTnT assay: methodology, pathophysiology and clinical implications
  6. Vitamin B1 in critically ill patients: needs and challenges
  7. Opinion Papers
  8. Point
  9. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin: do think twice, it’s not all right
  10. Counterpoint
  11. Terminology of cardiac troponin assays and data censoring
  12. Establishing consensus-based, assay-specific 99th percentile upper reference limits to facilitate proper utilization of cardiac troponin measurements
  13. Fast track protocols using highly sensitive troponin assays for ruling out and ruling in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome
  14. Genetics and Molecular Diagnostics
  15. Relationship between polymorphisms in the CRP, LEP and LEPR genes and high sensitivity C-reactive protein levels in Spanish children
  16. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  17. An approach for estimating measurement uncertainty in medical laboratories using data from long-term quality control and external quality assessment schemes
  18. Selecting multi-rule quality control procedures based on patient risk
  19. Moving sum of number of positive patient result as a quality control tool
  20. Multidisciplinary training activities for decreasing preanalytical mistakes in samples from primary care
  21. Harmonization protocols for TSH immunoassays: a multicenter study in Italy
  22. Circulating free light chain measurement in the diagnosis, prognostic assessment and evaluation of response of AL amyloidosis: comparison of Freelite and N latex FLC assays
  23. Serum prolactin revisited: parametric reference intervals and cross platform evaluation of polyethylene glycol precipitation-based methods for discrimination between hyperprolactinemia and macroprolactinemia
  24. Temporal and regional variability in the request of vitamin D from general practitioners in Spain
  25. Fibrinogen determination according to Clauss: commutability assessment of International and commercial standards and quality control samples
  26. Reference Values and Biological Variations
  27. S100B maternal blood levels are gestational age- and gender-dependent in healthy pregnancies
  28. Gestational age-specific reference intervals for serum thyroid hormone levels in a multi-ethnic population
  29. Cancer Diagnostics
  30. Serum complexed and free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the diagnosis of the polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)
  31. Cardiovascular Diseases
  32. A new immunochemistry platform for a guideline-compliant cardiac troponin T assay at the point of care: proof of principle
  33. Diabetes
  34. Adiponectin and leptin as first trimester markers for gestational diabetes mellitus: a cohort study
  35. Letters to the Editor
  36. Can we still trust hemoglobin A1c in all situations?
  37. Automated detection of unstable hemoglobin variants by Sysmex XE-Series analyzers
  38. Mean hemoglobin concentrations in fasting venous and non-fasting capillary blood of Cambodian women using a hemoglobinometer and an automated hematology analyzer
  39. Evaluation of a POCT device for C-reactive protein, hematocrit and leukocyte differential
  40. New perspectives on existing data in comparative measurements: a simple extension of the regression analysis
  41. Evaluation of a human anti-mouse antibody rapid test for patients requiring radio-immunodiagnostic
  42. The cortisol-CBG ratio affects cortisol immunoassay bias at elevated CBG concentrations
  43. Prognostic value of total antioxidant capacity to predict functional outcome in traumatic brain injury patients
  44. Use of IFCC guidelines to verify acetylcholinesterase reference interval in adults determined with ChE check mobile testing system
  45. Congress Abstracts
  46. 49th National Congress of the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC – Laboratory Medicine)
  47. Congress of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Downloaded on 11.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2016-0902/html
Scroll to top button