Radioimmunoassay of Prostatic Acid Phosphatase: Comparison with Enzymatic Assay.
- Author:
Eun Sik LEE
1
;
Chong Wook LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
prostatic acid phosphatase
- MeSH:
Acid Phosphatase*;
Diagnosis;
Enzyme Assays*;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Male;
Prostate;
Radioimmunoassay*;
Reference Values
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
1984;25(4):483-488
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
Assay of serum acid phosphatase activity have become a routine and standard examination for the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with prostatic carcinoma. However its value in these situation has become increasingly controversial. Herein we performed enzymatic assay and radioimmunoassay in 30 normal Korean males, 20 histologically diagnosed B. P. H patients and 15 patients with a histologic diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma. Bodansky method was used in enzymatic assay and its normal range was 0.1 U/dl. In radioimmunoassay the double-antibody method was used. The results of enzymatic assay in normal males were in within normal range. In radioimmunoassay the results were ranged 0.5-3.2ng/ml and the mean was 1. 65+/-0.62 ng/ml. The results of B. P. H. patients were in normal range by both methods. Three of 15 patients with prostatic carcinoma were in stage A or C and their values were within normal range by both methods. Among 12 patients with bony metastatic prostate carcinoma, the valus were elevated in 10 patients by enzymatic away, but were elevated in all patients by radioimmunoassay. There was no significant difference between two methods statistically (p >0.05). The elevated values were found in B. F. H. patients immediately following T. U. R. in 3 patients by radioimmunoassay In 4 patients with bony metastatic prostate carcinoma, the values were decreased following endocrine therapy. Assay of prostatic acid phosphatase are very important in differentiating the tumor stage and in follow-up. Considering a false-positive and false-negative rate, technical problem and cost-effectiveness, the radioimmunoassay is not better than enzymatic assay.
