C. E. Alken-Preis 1985Die Bedeutung immunhistochemischer Techniken für Diagnose und Therapie des Prostatakarzinoms

Allhoff, E. P.; Fischer, R.; Engelking, R

doi:10.1055/s-2008-1061649

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are several reports indicating PSA to be a more sensitive immunohistochemical marker than PAP of prostatic carcinomas, especially in poorly differentiated tumors (Allhoff et al, 1983;Ellis et al, 1984;Friedmann et al, 1985). The limitations of PAP as a histochemical marker, here observed with the monoclonal but not with the polyclonal antiserum against PAP in the moderately and poorly differentiated prostatic carcinomas, are in agreement with a report where a monoclonal antibody against PAP was said to be inferior to a polyclonal antibody in detecting the antigenic profile altered by malignant transformation ( Allhoff et al, 1986). One possible explanation for the observed discrepancy between the monoclonal and polyclonal PAP antibodies may be the expression of two almost identical gene products of PAP , where only one of them is detected by the monoclonal antibody, whereas both forms are detectable with the polyclonal antibody.…”

Section: Ultrastructural Identification Of P-mspsupporting

confidence: 91%

Three predominant prostatic proteins: Drei vorherrschende Prostataproteine

Abrahamsson

Lilja

2009

Andrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP), prostate-specific antigen (PSA; or yseminoprotein), and 0-microseminoprotein (P-MSP; PSP,, or P-inhibin) are the three predominant proteins secreted by the normal human prostate gland. In the epithelium of normal and hyperplastic prostatic acini and ducts PAP, PSA and P-MSP have an identical immunohistochemical localization. Highly differentiated (grade I) carcinomas contain an almost equal number of PAP-, PSAand 0-MSP-immunoreactive cells; the incidence of these cells is lower and they display a greater staining variability in the moderately and poorly (grade 11-111) differentiated tumours. Especially in poorly differentiated tumours PSA seems to be a more sensitive immunohistochemical marker than PAP or prostatic carcinomas. Moreover, the use of PAP as a marker for prostatic carcinomas is complicated by the reported structural similarities between the prostatic secreted acid phosphatase and lysosomal acid phosphatase occurring in all tissues. The use of P-MSP as a marker for prostatic carcinomas may be limited by indications of non-prostatic production of this protein.Zusammenfassung. Saure Prostata-Phosphatase (PAP), Prostata-spezifisches Antigen (PSA; oder y-Seminoprotein) und P-Mikroseminoprotein (P-MSP; PSP,, oder P-Inhibin) sind die drei vorherrschenden Proteine, die von der normalen Prostata sezerniert werden. Im Epithel normaler und hyperplastischer Prostata-Azini und Drusengange haben PAP, PSA und 0-MSP eine identische immunhistochemische Lokalisation. Hoch differenzierte (Grad I) Karzinome enthalten annahernd gleiche Anzahlen von PAP-, PSAund /?-MSPimmunreaktiven Zellen; das Auftreten dieser Zellen in maBig und wenig differenzierten (Grad 11, 111) Tumoren ist geringer und sic zeigen eine erhohte Variabilitat in der Anfarbung. Vor allem in wenig differenzierten Prostatakarzinomen scheint PSA ein sensitiverer immunhistochemischer Marker als PAP zu sein. Uberdies ist die Anwendung von PAP als Marker fur Prostatakarzinome durch die beschriebene strukturelle Ahnlichkeit zwischen der sekretorischen Prostataphosphatase und der lysosomalen sauren Phosphatase aus allen ubrigen Geweben kompliziert. Die Anwendung von P-MSP als Marker fur Prostatakarzinome konnte durch die extraprostatische Produktion dieses Proteins belastet sein.

show abstract

Section: Ultrastructural Identification Of P-mspsupporting

confidence: 91%

Three predominant prostatic proteins: Drei vorherrschende Prostataproteine

Abrahamsson

Lilja

2009

Andrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To evaluate its potential value as a diagnostic/prognostic histological marker, several studies were made to demonstrate: (1) the presence of PSA in prostatic cancer, and (2) the correlation of staining intensity with the degree of tumor differentiation [20], Papsidero et al [19] evaluated a large variety of dif ferent histological sections from different organs and malignancies, but found no positive results. Epstein et al [21] reported a statistically significant correlation be tween the foci of poor immunoreactivity and progression of disease, establishing PSA as a valuable adjunct to histopathological grading, while Vernon and Williams [22] proved that the effects of therapy on immunostaining showed no significant difference before and after treat- With the more recent development of monoclonal PSA antibodies, serum PSA determination for wide clin ical practice became possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prostate-Specific Antigen in Prostatic Carcinoma

Jurincic¹,

Pixberg²,

Gasser³

et al. 1990

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the clinical and prognostic value of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of tumor and tumor growth after therapy, 520 sera from 246 patients with prostatic carcinoma, 990 sera from patients with BPH, and 1,488 sera from patients with other urological diseases were analyzed. The values ranged from 0.1 to 1,828.9 ng/ml. 51 % of all values were about 2.5 ng/ml, and 76.8% of all values about 10 ng/ml. The commercial recommendation for the cutoff values is 2.5 ng/ml (IBL, FRG). In patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy this cutoff means 61% false-positive results, which makes the test highly sensitive but unspecific. In prostatic carcinoma patients this borderline means a false-negative result in 9.75% (24 of 246). By determinating the cutoff at 10 ng/ml in our series, a false-negative result appeared in 14.6 %. Therefore a plea is made for the 10-ng/ml cutoff. In follow-up studies a marked decline in PSA values after transurethral resection or antiandrogen therapy (orchiectomy/Zoladex® /ICI/flutamide, Essex). Generally, the greater the PSA levels the more advanced the stage of disease. These data suggest that PSA may be a useful adjuvant marker for monitoring tumor growth in patients with regionally confined tumor.

show abstract

Immunohistochemical distribution of the three predominant secretory proteins in the parenchyma of hyperplastic and neoplastic prostate glands

et al. 1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prostatic acid phosphate (PAP), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and beta-microseminoprotein (beta-MSP) were regularly localized immunohistochemically to the epithelium of the acini and that of the ducts in the nodules of 24 cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia. The immunohistochemical distribution of these three prostatic-secreted proteins was also examined, with monoclonal antisera against PAP and PSA and with polyclonal antisera against PAP, PSA, and beta-MSP, in a series of 40 cases of prostatic adenocarcinomas graded according to the WHO classification. Highly differentiated (grade I) carcinomas showed a high incidence of PAP-, PSA-, and beta-MSP-immunoreactive cells. As in the normal and hyperplastic prostate parenchyma, highly differentiated (grade I) carcinomas were found to contain an almost equal number of PAP-, PSA-, and beta-MSP-immunoreactive cells. When semiquantitatively assessed, the incidence of PAP-, PSA-, and beta-MSP-immunoreactive cells was found to be lower in the moderately and poorly differentiated (grades II and III) tumors than in the highly differentiated ones; they also showed greater staining variability. Tumor cells immunoreactive with a monoclonal antiserum raised against PAP in carcinomas of grades II and III were less frequent than tumor cells immunoreactive with antisera against PSA, beta-MSP, and a polyclonal antiserum against PAP. The almost identical distribution of PSA and beta-MSP in carcinomas of grades II and III suggests that PSA and beta-MSP are not less sensitive tumor markers than PAP for the monitoring of the course and the treatment of prostatic carcinomas.

show abstract

C. E. Alken-Preis 1985Die Bedeutung immunhistochemischer Techniken für Diagnose und Therapie des Prostatakarzinoms

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Three predominant prostatic proteins: Drei vorherrschende Prostataproteine

Three predominant prostatic proteins: Drei vorherrschende Prostataproteine

Prostate-Specific Antigen in Prostatic Carcinoma

Immunohistochemical distribution of the three predominant secretory proteins in the parenchyma of hyperplastic and neoplastic prostate glands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About