Comparison of sex steroid receptor analyses and carcinoembryonic antigen with clinical response to hormone therapy
- 15 December 1980
- Vol. 46 (S12), 2846-2850
- https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19801215)46:12+<2846::aid-cncr2820461423>3.0.co;2-9
Abstract
This study corroborates previous reports which suggested the efficacy of estrogen receptor (ER) analysis in predicting responses of patients with metastatic mammary carcinoma to hormonal therapeutic manipulation. The predictive value of multiconcentration titration and sucrose density gradient analyses of ERs and progesterone receptors (PRs) are compared. The predictive value of ER analyses can be improved by the discrimination of 8S versus 4S binding species or by the use of PR analysis in combination with ER analysis. The tumor-associated antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), is evolving as an important quantitative aid in evaluating the clinical responses to patients receiving hormonal therapy.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Relationship between estrogen receptor values and clinical data in predicting the response to endocrine therapy for patients with advanced breast cancerEuropean Journal of Cancer (1965), 1979
- Sequential Carcinoembryonic Antigen Levels in the Therapy of Metastatic Breast CancerAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1978
- Steroid-nucleoside interactions with receptorsThe Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 1978
- Evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen as a plasma monitor for human breast carcinomaCancer, 1978
- Clinical correlation between CEA and breast cancerCancer, 1978
- Comparative evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen and gross cystic disease fluid protein as plasma markers for human breast carcinomaCancer, 1978
- The Prediction of Hormonal Dependency of Mammary CancerAnnals of Surgery, 1975
- Specific progesterone receptors in human breast cancerSteroids, 1975
- ON THE TREATMENT OF INOPERABLE CASES OF CARCINOMA OF THE MAMMA: SUGGESTIONS FOR A NEW METHOD OF TREATMENT, WITH ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.1The Lancet, 1896