Search

Oestrogen is important in the development of breast cancer. Oestrogen receptor positive breast cancers are associated with a better prognosis than oestrogen-receptor negative breast cancers since they are more responsive to hormonal treatment. Oestrone sulphate acts as a huge reservoir for oestrogens in the breast. It is converted to the potent oestrogen, oestradiol (E(2)) by the enzymes oestrone sulphatase and oestradiol-17beta hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (E(2)DH). Retinoic acid and carotenoids have been shown to have chemopreventive activity against some cancers. The aim of our study was to determine and compare the effects of retinoic acid and palm oil carotenoids on growth of and oestrone sulphatase and E(2)DH activities in the oestrogen receptor positive, MCF-7 and oestrogen receptor negative, MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cell lines. Retinoic acid and carotenoids inhibited MCF-7 cell growth but had no effect on MDA-MB-231 cell growth. Both retinoic acid and carotenoids stimulated oestrone sulphatase activity in the MCF-7 cell line. E(1) to E(2) conversion was inhibited by 10(-7) M carotenoids but was stimulated at 10(-6) M in the MCF-7 cell line. Retinoic acid had no effect on E(1) to E(2) conversion at 10(-7) M but stimulated E(1) to E(2) conversion at 10(-6) M. Retinoic acid and carotenoids had no effect on E(2) to E(1) conversion in the MCF-7 cell line. Retinoic acid stimulated E(1) to E(2) conversion in the MDA-MB-231 cell line but had no effect on oestrone sulphatase activity or E(2) to E(1) conversion in this cell line. Both oestrone sulphatase and E(2)DH activity were not affected by carotenoids in the MDA-MB-231 cell line. In conclusion, retinoic acid and carotenoids may prevent the development of hormone-dependent breast cancers since they inhibit the growth of the MCF-7 cell line.

Background: Interpretative commenting is an important activity of the clinical diagnostic laboratory. We describe a study of interpretative commenting abilities among senior laboratory professionals in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa. Methods: Five sets of laboratory results reflecting common and important problems encountered in clinical chemistry were distributed at 4-weekly intervals to 31 registered participants from countries in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa. Participants were asked to attach an interpretative comment to the results assuming that the requesting doctor had asked for an interpretation of the result. Results: Twelve pathologists and 19 scientists from seven countries registered to participate and the overall reply rate was ∼50% for the five cases. The quality of the comments returned by participants was diverse and some reflected incorrect or misleading interpretation and advice. Conclusions: While interpretative commenting is an important laboratory activity, the results of this study suggest that there is room for improvement in the quality of interpretative comments offered by senior laboratory professionals, even for commonly reported results relating to most prevalent and important public health conditions. Interpretative commenting should be formally taught during training of pathologists and scientists, and continuing professional development in this area is required for the provision of a quality interpretative service. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:963–70.