↓ Skip to main content

Deficiencies in immunoassay methods used to monitor serum Estradiol levels during aromatase inhibitor treatment in postmenopausal breast cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Deficiencies in immunoassay methods used to monitor serum Estradiol levels during aromatase inhibitor treatment in postmenopausal breast cancer patients
Published in
SpringerPlus, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-2-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenny Jaque, Heather Macdonald, Doerthe Brueggmann, Sherfaraz K Patel, Colleen Azen, Nigel Clarke, Frank Z Stanczyk

Abstract

Optimal care for breast cancer patients undergoing aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment is ensured when estradiol (E2) levels are adequately suppressed. To assess treatment efficacy accurately, it is important to measure the serum E2 levels using a well validated assay method with high sensitivity and specificity. This translates into the urgent need to evaluate various E2 immunoassay kits, which are frequently used in hospital settings to measure E2 serum levels in patients undergoing AI treatment, so clinicians obtain accurate and reliable measurements allowing appropriate clinical decision making. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of different commercially available and commonly used E2 immunoassay kits regarding measurement of E2 levels in the serum of postmenopausal breast cancer patients treated with AIs, in comparison to a highly accurate and reliable mass spectrometry assay. Clinical and demographic data were obtained from 77 postmenopausal breast cancer patients who were treated with an AI. Serum E2 levels were measured by 6 immunoassay methods and by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), which served as the standard for comparison. Analysis of E2 by LC-MS/MS showed that 70% of the samples had levels that were <5 pg/ml. Three of the assays carried out with commercial E2 immunoassay kits had poor sensitivities and were not able to detect E2 levels <10 or <20 pg/ml. Although two of the E2 assays using commercial kits demonstrated a better sensitivity (5 pg/ml), the measured E2 values were substantially higher than those obtained by LC-MS/MS. The assay with the sixth commercial E2 kit grossly underestimated the true E2 values. E2 assays carried out with commercial E2 immunoassay kits lack the accuracy to measure the very low serum E2 levels found in patients being treated with AIs. Serum samples from such patients should be sent to laboratories that use a mass spectrometry assay.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Psychology 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 14 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2013.
All research outputs
#20,178,031
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,973
of 282,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#38
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.