A method to detect fulvestrant interference in estradiol in breast cancer patients

in Endocrine Connections
Authors:
Margarida Brito Department of Medical Oncology, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal

Search for other papers by Margarida Brito in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6104-5902
,
Susana Prazeres Department of Clinical Pathology, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal

Search for other papers by Susana Prazeres in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8653-1122
, and
Marta Malheiros Department of Clinical Pathology, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal

Search for other papers by Marta Malheiros in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3679-7017

Correspondence should be addressed to M Brito: mbgoncalves@ipolisboa.min-saude.pt

*(M Brito, S Prazeres and M Malheiros contributed equally to this work)

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-23-0178
Volume/Issue:
Volume 12: Issue 11
Article ID:
e230178
Article Type:
Research Article
Online Publication Date:
03 Oct 2023
Copyright:
© the author(s) 2023
Collections:
Hormones and Cancer
Open access

Sign up for journal news

Background

Fulvestrant resembles estradiol in its structure. Reports have been published concerning fulvestrant measured as estradiol by the immunoassays. This may induce falsely elevated estradiol results and wrongly impact medical decisions. Our aim was to confirm the interference of fulvestrant on estradiol concentration and test a method to identify the false results.

Methods

Four serum samples with low estradiol levels were spiked with fulvestrant at various concentrations. Estradiol was then measured directly on serum (Dir), after a 1:5 dilution (Dil), and a ratio Dil/Dir was estimated. On the second part of the study, estradiol results (Dir, Dil and ratio Dil/Dir) from 14 women treated with fulvestrant were analysed, as well as from 14 patients not under this treatment.

Results

The addition of exogenous fulvestrant to the serum samples induced a gradual rise on estradiol concentration with a mean ratio for the Dil/Dir samples of 2.1 ± 0.4 (range 1.7–2.9). Patients on fulvestrant treatment experienced a mean ratio for the Dil/Dir estradiol sample of 2.4 ± 0.4 (range 1.6–3.0). In the control group, a mean estradiol ratio Dil/Dir of 1.1 ± 0.1 was observed (range 0.8–1.3). No correlation between the number of days after fulvestrant injection and estradiol result (r = 0.531) was observed.

Conclusion

Our study confirmed the interference of fulvestrant in the estradiol measurement by immunoassay. When fulvestrant was present, the estradiol ratio for Dil/Dir sample was about 2. In the control group, the ratio was around 1. The estradiol Dil/Dir ratio is a simple tool which can be used to identify fulvestrant false immunoassay estradiol results.

Abstract

Background

Fulvestrant resembles estradiol in its structure. Reports have been published concerning fulvestrant measured as estradiol by the immunoassays. This may induce falsely elevated estradiol results and wrongly impact medical decisions. Our aim was to confirm the interference of fulvestrant on estradiol concentration and test a method to identify the false results.

Methods

Four serum samples with low estradiol levels were spiked with fulvestrant at various concentrations. Estradiol was then measured directly on serum (Dir), after a 1:5 dilution (Dil), and a ratio Dil/Dir was estimated. On the second part of the study, estradiol results (Dir, Dil and ratio Dil/Dir) from 14 women treated with fulvestrant were analysed, as well as from 14 patients not under this treatment.

Results

The addition of exogenous fulvestrant to the serum samples induced a gradual rise on estradiol concentration with a mean ratio for the Dil/Dir samples of 2.1 ± 0.4 (range 1.7–2.9). Patients on fulvestrant treatment experienced a mean ratio for the Dil/Dir estradiol sample of 2.4 ± 0.4 (range 1.6–3.0). In the control group, a mean estradiol ratio Dil/Dir of 1.1 ± 0.1 was observed (range 0.8–1.3). No correlation between the number of days after fulvestrant injection and estradiol result (r = 0.531) was observed.

Conclusion

Our study confirmed the interference of fulvestrant in the estradiol measurement by immunoassay. When fulvestrant was present, the estradiol ratio for Dil/Dir sample was about 2. In the control group, the ratio was around 1. The estradiol Dil/Dir ratio is a simple tool which can be used to identify fulvestrant false immunoassay estradiol results.

Keywords: fulvestrant; estradiol; immunoassay; breast cancer

Introduction

Fulvestrant was the first selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) (1) to enter clinical practice and represents, alone or in combination with targeted therapies, a key compound for endocrine advanced breast cancer (ABC). As a drug, it competes with estradiol with high affinity to the estrogen receptor (ER); the complex fulvestrant–ER causes an unstable conformational change with ER degradation and inhibition of estrogen signalling (2).

Fulvestrant was mainly studied in postmenopausal patients (3). Yet, the recent positive results from the trials PALOMA 3 (4) and MONARCH 2 (5) in the ABC premenopausal groups ER+ HER2− have come to support its generalized use in these patients in association with CDK4/6 inhibitors and also in monotherapy.

In premenopausal patients, fulvestrant requires the combination with a gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapy for ovarian suppression (OS) (6). However, studies show that 17–24% (7, 8) of premenopausal women do not experience complete OS with GnRH agonists therapy and, although still not clear, this may contribute to poorer outcomes (7, 9, 10). Some authors (7, 8) suggest that estradiol measurement should routinely be carried out in these patients to ensure that they are indeed fully castrated.

Fulvestrant resembles estradiol in its molecular structure (Fig. 1) leading to a cross-reactivity in estradiol immunoassays (11). A few case reports (12, 13, 14) have been published concerning fulvestrant measured as estradiol by the commercial immunoassays and inducing falsely elevated estradiol results. This is a problem for clinicians and laboratory staff and may wrongly impact medical decisions.

Figure 1
Figure 1

Chemical structure similarity between estradiol and fulvestrant.

Citation: Endocrine Connections 12, 11; 10.1530/EC-23-0178

Our aim was to confirm the interference of fulvestrant on estradiol concentration and test a simple laboratory method to identify the false results.

Methods

Study design

This was a single-center, observational study with retrospective data collection, separated into two parts. Initially, four samples of serum with low estradiol levels, obtained from our laboratory serum bank, were spiked with fulvestrant at various concentrations. A serum sample with low estradiol concentration (16.5 pg/mL, sample 1) was aliquoted and spiked with fulvestrant 200 ng/mL to obtain the final concentrations of 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28 and 32 ng/mL. These concentrations were chosen because, after administration, fulvestrant is slowly absorbed and maximum plasma concentrations are reached after approximately 5 days. At steady state, fulvestrant plasma concentrations are between 16.3 and 25.1 ng/mL (15). The three remaining serum samples had respectively estradiol concentrations of 22.3 pg/mL (sample 2), 40.1 pg/mL (sample 3) and 56.1 pg/mL (sample 4) and were also aliquoted and spiked with fulvestrant 200 ng/mL to get the concentrations of 8 and 20 ng/mL. Estradiol was measured on each aliquot, directly (Dir) and, to confirm results, after a 1:5 onboard dilution (Dil) with estradiol diluent (the 1:5 dilution factor was already pre-defined by the Centaur CP system assay for estradiol). To evaluate the proportion between the two measurements, a ratio Dil/Dir was also estimated.

On the second part of the study, we reviewed the medical records and analysed the estradiol results (Dir, Dil and ratio Dil/Dir) from 14 women with stage IV hormone-receptor-positive HER 2 negative advanced breast cancer treated with fulvestrant in our center. The estradiol levels of 14 female patients not under this treatment, previously measured for routine in our laboratory, were used as a control group.

The study was approved by our Institutional Ethics Committee. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, and because adequate measures to protect data confidentiality were provisioned, permission to waive informed consent was given.

Fulvestrant

A pre-filled syringe of commercial fulvestrant (250 mg/5 mL, EVER Valinject/Kent Pharma, Heathrow, UK) was used to prepare a solution of 200 ng/mL in ethanol (Merck).

Estradiol measurement assay

Estradiol was measured by a competitive chemiluminescent immunoassay (Enhanced Estradiol, Centaur CP, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc, Tarrytown, NY, USA). The test range is 10.7–3000 pg/mL, the limit of blank is 7.9 pg/mL and the limit of detection is 10.7 pg/mL. The intra- and inter-assay precisions are 9.2% and 4.5%, respectively, at a concentration of 39.3 pg/mL. The reference interval for considering post-menopausal females cutoff is <32.2 pg/mL (16). The definition for complete ovarian suppression while on a GnRH agonist is not clearly defined (8). We used the estradiol cut-off levels for naturally postmenopausal women.

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed as mean ± s.d. and range. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between the number of days after fulvestrant injection and estradiol level.

Results

The addition of fulvestrant (0–32 ng/mL) to sample 1 induced a gradual rise in estradiol concentration, from 16.5 pg/mL (basal) to 930 pg/mL, corresponding to an increase of 5636%. A similar behavior was observed for samples 2, 3, and 4 (Table 1). In the spiked samples, the estradiol level of the 1:5 diluted sample, compared with the direct one, is about two times higher. The mean estradiol ratio obtained for the Dil/Dir samples is 2.1 ± 0.4 with a 1.7–2.9 range.

Table 1

Estradiol concentration of the serum samples spiked with fulvestrant.
Fulvestrant concentration Estradiol (pg/mL)
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Dir Dil Ratio Dil/Dir Dir Dil Ratio Dil/Dir Dir Dil Ratio Dil/Dir Dir Dil Ratio Dil/Dir
0 ng/mL 16.5 22.3 40.1 56.1
4 ng/mL 49.3 137 2.8
8 ng/mL 101 219 2.2 146 423 2.9 190  411 2.2 194  391 2.0
12 ng/mL 152 354 2.3
16 ng/mL 231 560 2.4
20 ng/mL 522 1006 1.9 526 1017 1.9 686 1241 1.8 803 1326 1.7
24 ng/mL 495 1025 2.1
28 ng/mL 689 1348 2.0
32 ng/mL 930 1641 1.8

Dil, 1:5 dilution; Dir, direct.

In the second step of the study, we analysed 27 estradiol samples (Dir, Dil and ratio Dil/Dir) from 14 patients under fulvestrant therapy (patients 1 to 14). The days between fulvestrant injection and blood collection as well as the estradiol level prior fulvestrant therapy are shown in Table 2, when available. The patients under fulvestrant therapy had an estradiol level between 116 and 838 pg/mL. The estradiol ratio Dil/Dir ranged from 1.6 to 3.0 with a mean value of 2.4 ± 0.4. Prior to the beginning of fulvestrant treatment, these women exhibited a low estradiol concentration (≤46 pg/mL). We observed no correlation between the number of days after fulvestrant injection and estradiol result (r = 0.531). The data are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Estradiol concentration of serum samples from patients under fulvestrant therapy.
Patient Age (years) Estradiol (pg/mL) pre-Fulvestrant Days after fulvestrant injection Estradiol Dir (pg/mL) Estradiol Dil (pg/mL) Ratio Dil/Dir Treatment Time on fulvestrant (months)a
1 80 –  8 116 302 2.6 Fulvestrant 0.3
2 55 17.0 28 149 373 2.5 Fulvestrant + Palbociclib  5
3 48 – 27 161 299 1.9 Fulvestrant + Palbociclib  7
4 49 46.0 32 204 524 2.6 Fulvestrant + Palbociclib + Goserelin 27
5 48 – 29 210 366 1.7 Fulvestrant + Palbociclib 24
 1 608 1814 3.0 30
6 60 – 27 214 478 2.2 Fulvestrant + Palbociclib  5
7 52 33.0 30 226 536 2.4 Fulvestrant + Palbociclib 16
27 306 778 2.5 17
13 224 604 2.7 18
8 49 29.0 28 239 592 2.5 Fulvestrant + Goserelin 44
28 301 757 2.5 46
28 364 817 2.2 48
28 389 999 2.6 50
28 248 581 2.3 52
30 317 805 2.5 54
9 54 <20 22 252 664 2.6 Fulvestrant + Palbociclib 25
21 298 744 2.5 26
21 187 569 3.0 27
10 45 12.6 NA 313 677 2.2 Fulvestrant + Goserelin  5
11 43 – 31 452 1168 2.6 Fulvestrant + Goserelin 13
12 55 <10.7 19 457 799 1.7 Fulvestrant  2
13 48 <10.7  6 498 863 1.7 Fulvestrant + Palbociclib 0,2
15 277 432 1.6  1
14 49 –  7 838 1892 2.3 Fulvestrant + Ribociclib 48
14 534 1253 2.3 50
28 233 634 2.7 53

For patients with more than one estradiol measurement, the results are presented chronologically.

aTime since the beginning of fulvestrant until the blood collection.

Dil, 1:5 dilution; Dir, direct; NA, not available.

In the group of patients not under fulvestrant (controls 1 to 14), the estradiol concentration was between 98 and 1444 pg/mL with a mean ratio Dil/Dir of 1.1 ± 0.1 (range 0.8–1.3) (Table 3).

Table 3

Estradiol concentration of serum samples from the control group (patients not under fulvestrant therapy).
Control Age (years) Estradiol Dir (pg/mL) Estradiol Dil (pg/mL) Ratio Dil/Dir Patient clinical information
1 31  98 112 1.1 Breast cancer stage II, ER+, HER2−, under adjuvant tamoxifen + goserelin.
2 49 102 108 1.1 Breast cancer stage I, ER+, HER2+, under adjuvant exemestane.
3 50 114 152 1.3 Breast cancer stage I, ER+, HER2−, under adjuvant tamoxifen.
4 52 157 173 1.1 Breast cancer stage II, ER−, HER2−, on follow-up.
5 26 210 223 1.1 Acute myeloid leukemia at 12 years old underwent allotransplant, on follow-up.
6 19 221 182 0.8 Borderline ovarian left tumour at 18 years old, performed surgery, on follow-up.
7 45 279 246 0.9 Neurofibromatosis type I on follow-up.
8 46 313 370 1.2 Breast cancer stage III, ER−, HER2+, on follow-up.
9 52 369 425 1.2 Breast cancer stage I, ER+, HER2+, under adjuvant tamoxifen.
10 47 378 420 1.1 Breast cancer stage III, ER+, HER2+, under adjuvant tamoxifen.
11 51 480 532 1.1 Breast cancer stage II, ER+, HER 2+, under adjuvant tamoxifen.
12 46 660 659 1.0 Breast cancer stage II, ER+, HER2−, under adjuvant tamoxifen.
13 45 1041 1002 1.0 Breast cancer stage II, ER+, HER2+ under adjuvant tamoxifen.
14 32 1444 1531 1.1 Hodgkin lymphoma at 25 years old, performed chemotherapy protocol ABVD and autologous transplant, on follow-up.

Dir, direct; Dil ,1:5 dilution; ER, estrogen receptor; Protocol ABVD, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine.

Discussion

The chemical structure similarity between estradiol and fulvestrant makes it impossible for the antibodies used in the immunoassays to distinguish among them (15, 16). Consequently, an increase in estradiol level due to cross-reaction with fulvestrant is observed (12, 14). In our study, we confirmed the interference of fulvestrant in the estradiol measurement by Centaur CP immunoassay and proposed a simple laboratory tool that allows to differentiate false cases from actual ovarian escape. The increase in serum estradiol level after the addition of exogenous fulvestrant showed that it was measured as estradiol in the used immunoassay. An alternative type of analysis to measure estradiol with no anticipated cross-reactivity to fulvestrant such as liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry could be used and has been recommended (15). However, it is not a practical method for a routine clinical laboratory.

The fulvestrant half-life is estimated to be 50 days (15, 17) remaining in circulation for a longer period than the interval between administrations (28 days). This is an additional problem since the interference caused by this drug may persists for months (14, 18).

The estimation of the estradiol ratio between the diluted and the direct serum sample (ratio Dil/Dir) permitted to identify the interference of fulvestrant on estradiol quantification, by immunoassay. In the serum where fulvestrant is present, we found that the estradiol ratio for Dil/Dir sample is about 2. In the serum of patients not under fulvestrant, this ratio is around 1. Fulvestrant forms spontaneous and reversible colloidal aggregates in an aqueous solution, which can be converted to the monomeric form by dilution (19, 20, 21). Moreover, 99% of fulvestrant binds, reversibly, to plasma proteins (mainly very low, low- and high-density lipoprotein fractions) (15, 22). The fulvestrant feature of colloidal aggregates formation and its bind to plasma proteins can explain why, after sera dilution and consequent disaggregation, the measured estradiol increases in samples with the drug, leading to a ratio Dil/Dir of about 2.

The study results are also meaningful for clinical practice. Since efficacy data in premenopausal women became available (4, 5), fulvestrant (with GnRH for ovarian suppression) in combination with CDK4/6 or in monotherapy is a widely used option in ABC premenopausal women ER+. Failure to attain complete ovarian suppression with GnRH can however occur (7, 8) and may conceivably be associated with higher recurrence risk (9, 10). So, although not a level I recommendation, routine monitorization of estradiol in these patients may be considered. Patients on fulvestrant with chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea and no GnRH support, especially when younger, may experience ovarian recovery initially without bleeding and can also be candidates to estradiol measurements. Assuming an ovarian escape in a patient, and not being aware of the fulvestrant falsely elevated estradiol levels and how to distinguish it, can create errors and mistakenly influence medical decisions. It may result in unneeded surgical castration, unnecessary interruption of fulvestrant, an increase in blood tests and costs, and inconvenience for the patient and the clinician.

In our center, we also observed unexpectedly high estradiol levels not consistent with the patient’s clinical history. This triggered the discussion and the study resulted from a straight collaboration between the clinical and the laboratory team, emphasizing once again the critical role of multidisciplinary work and communication in the management of cancer patients.

In conclusion, we present the estimation of the estradiol Dil/Dir ratio as a simple tool to detect fulvestrant interference and identify the false Centaur CP immunoassay estradiol results.

Declaration of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.

Ethics committee approval

The study was approved by our Institutional Ethics Committee. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, and because adequate measures to protect data confidentiality were provisioned, permission to waive informed consent was given. The ethics committee is Instituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil Lisboa Ethics Committee for Health (e-mail: comissaoetica@ipolisboa.min-saude.pt).

Data availability statement

The data underlying this article are available in the article.

Author contribution statement

All authors have contributed equally to the study design, data collection, results interpretation, draft and revision of the manuscript and approval of the final version. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work were appropriately investigated and resolved.

Acknowledgements

There are no acknowledgements to declare.

References

  • 1↑

    Hernando C, Ortega-Morillo B, Tapia M, Moragón S, Martínez MT, Eroles P, Garrido-Cano I, Adam-Artigues A, Lluch A, Bermejo B, et al.Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) as a Novel Breast Cancer Therapy: present and future from a clinical perspective. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2021 22 7812. (https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22157812)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2↑

    Osborne CK, Wakeling A, & Nicholson RI. Fulvestrant: an oestrogen receptor antagonist with a novel mechanism of action. British Journal of Cancer 2004 90(Supplement 1) S2–S6. (https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601629)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3↑

    Ciruelos E, Pascual T, Arroyo Vozmediano ML, Blanco M, Manso L, Parrilla L, Muñoz C, Vega E, Calderón MJ, Sancho B, et al.The therapeutic role of fulvestrant in the management of patients with hormone receptor‐positive breast cancer. Breast 2014 23 201–208. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2014.01.016)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4↑

    Loibl S, Turner NC, Ro J, Cristofanilli M, Iwata H, Im SA, Masuda N, Loi S, André F, Harbeck N, et al.Palbociclib combined with fulvestrant in premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer and prior progression on endocrine therapy: PALOMA-3 results. Oncologist 2017 22 1028–1038. (https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0072)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5↑

    Neven P, Rugo HS, Tolaney SM, Iwata H, Toi M, Goetz MP, Kaufman PA, Lu Y, Haddad N, Hurt KC, et al.Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in premenopausal women: subgroup analysis from the MONARCH 2 trial. Breast Cancer Research 2021 23 87. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-021-01463-2)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6↑

    Rocca A, Maltoni R, Bravaccini S, Donati C, & Andreis D. Clinical utility of fulvestrant in the treatment of breast cancer: a report on the emerging clinical evidence. Cancer Management and Research 2018 10 3083–3099. (https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S137772)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7↑

    Bellet M, Gray KP, Francis PA, Láng I, Ciruelos E, Lluch A, Climent MA, Catalán G, Avella A, Bohn U, et al.Twelve‐month estrogen levels in premenopausal women with hormone receptor‐positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant triptorelin plus exemestane or tamoxifen in the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT): the SOFT‐EST substudy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016 34 1584–1593. (https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.2259)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8↑

    Burns E, Koca E, Xu J, McLean E, Lee R, Patel T, Chang J, & Niravath P. Measuring ovarian escape in premenopausal estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients on ovarian suppression therapy. Oncologist 2021 26 e936–e942. (https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13722)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9↑

    LHRH-agonists in Early Breast Cancer Overview Group, Cuzick J, Ambroisine L, Davidson N, Jakesz R, Kaufmann M, Regan M, & Sainsbury R. Use of luteinising‐hormone‐releasing hormone agonists as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with hormone‐receptor‐positive breast cancer: a meta‐analysis of individual patient data from randomised adjuvant trials. Lancet 2007 369 1711–1723. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(0760778-8)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10↑

    Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF, Walley BA, Colleoni M, Láng I, Gómez HL, Tondini C, Ciruelos E, Burstein HJ, et al. Tailoring Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2018 379 122–137. (https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1803164)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11↑

    Ghazal K, Brabant S, Prie D, & Piketty ML. Hormone immunoassay interference: a 2021 update. Annals of Laboratory Medicine 2022 42 3–23. (https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2022.42.1.3)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12↑

    Ding J, Cao Y, & Guo Y. Fulvestrant may falsely increase 17bEstradiol levels in immunoassays: a case report of a 57-year-old postmenopausal patient with recurrent estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. Frontiers in Oncology 2022 12 832763. (https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.832763)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13↑

    Berger D, Waheed S, Fattout Y, Kazlauskaite R, & Usha L. False increase of estradiol levels in a 36-year-old postmenopausal patient with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with fulvestrant. Clinical Breast Cancer 2016 16 e11–e13. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2015.07.004)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14↑

    Samuel E, Chiang C, Jennens R, Faulkner D, & Francis PA. Fulvestrant falsely elevates oestradiol levels in immunoassays in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer 2020 126 104–105. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.10.015)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15↑

    Summary of product characteristics: Faslodex. Amsterdam, Netherlands: European Medicines Agency, 2023. (available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/faslodex-epar-product-information_en.pdf)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16↑

    Siemens. Advia Centaur CP, immunoassay system. Erlangen, Germany: Siemens Healthineers, 2023. (available at: https://doclib.siemens-healthineers.com/rest/v1/view?document-id=766620)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17↑

    Robertson JFR, Odling-Smee W, Holcombe C, Kohlhardt SR, & Harrison MP. Pharmacokinetics of a single dose of fulvestrant prolonged-release intramuscular injection in postmenopausal women awaiting surgery for primary breast cancer. Clinical Therapeutics 2003 25 1440–1452. (https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2918(0380131-5)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18↑

    Owen LJ, Monaghan PJ, Armstrong A, Keevil BG, Higham C, Salih Z, & Howell S. Oestradiol measurement during fulvestrant treatment for breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer 2019 120 404–406. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0378-9)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19↑

    Ganesh AN, Aman A, Logie J, Barthel BL, Cogan P, Al-Awar R, Koch TH, Shoichet BK, & Shoichet MS. Colloidal drug aggregate stability in high serum conditions and pharmacokinetic consequence. ACS Chemical Biology 2019 14 751–757. (https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.9b00032)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20↑

    Owen SC, Doak AK, Wassam P, Shoichet MS, & Shoichet BK. Colloidal aggregation affects the efficacy of anticancer drugs in cell culture. ACS Chemical Biology 2012 7 1429–1435. (https://doi.org/10.1021/cb300189b)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21↑

    Coan KED, & Shoichet BK. Stoichiometry and physical chemistry of promiscuous aggregate-based inhibitors. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2008 130 9606–9612. (https://doi.org/10.1021/ja802977h)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22↑

    Zhang F, Xue J, Shao J, & Jia L. Compilation of 222 drugs’ plasma protein binding data and guidance for study designs. Drug Discovery Today 2012 17 475–485. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2011.12.018)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Endocrine Connections is committed to supporting researchers in demonstrating the impact of their articles published in the journal.

As an open-access journal, Endocrine Connections articles are immediately available to read on publication, without restriction. The two types of article metrics we measure are (i) more traditional full-text views and pdf downloads, and (ii) Altmetric data, which shows the wider impact of articles in a range of non-traditional sources, such as social media.

More information is on the Reasons to publish page.

Sept 2018 onwards Past Year Past 30 Days
Full Text Views 2609 2143 195
PDF Downloads 589 420 52

 

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Online ISSN:
2049-3614
Copyright:
© the author(s) 2023
Article ID:
e230178
Article Type:
Research Article
Received Date:
07 May 2023
Accepted Date:
06 Sep 2023
Online Publication Date:
03 Oct 2023
Keywords:
fulvestrant; estradiol; immunoassay; breast cancer
  • Figure 1
    View in gallery
    Figure 1

    Chemical structure similarity between estradiol and fulvestrant.

Figure 1

Chemical structure similarity between estradiol and fulvestrant.
  • 1

    Hernando C, Ortega-Morillo B, Tapia M, Moragón S, Martínez MT, Eroles P, Garrido-Cano I, Adam-Artigues A, Lluch A, Bermejo B, et al.Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) as a Novel Breast Cancer Therapy: present and future from a clinical perspective. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2021 22 7812. (https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22157812)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Osborne CK, Wakeling A, & Nicholson RI. Fulvestrant: an oestrogen receptor antagonist with a novel mechanism of action. British Journal of Cancer 2004 90(Supplement 1) S2–S6. (https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601629)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Ciruelos E, Pascual T, Arroyo Vozmediano ML, Blanco M, Manso L, Parrilla L, Muñoz C, Vega E, Calderón MJ, Sancho B, et al.The therapeutic role of fulvestrant in the management of patients with hormone receptor‐positive breast cancer. Breast 2014 23 201–208. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2014.01.016)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Loibl S, Turner NC, Ro J, Cristofanilli M, Iwata H, Im SA, Masuda N, Loi S, André F, Harbeck N, et al.Palbociclib combined with fulvestrant in premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer and prior progression on endocrine therapy: PALOMA-3 results. Oncologist 2017 22 1028–1038. (https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0072)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Neven P, Rugo HS, Tolaney SM, Iwata H, Toi M, Goetz MP, Kaufman PA, Lu Y, Haddad N, Hurt KC, et al.Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in premenopausal women: subgroup analysis from the MONARCH 2 trial. Breast Cancer Research 2021 23 87. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-021-01463-2)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Rocca A, Maltoni R, Bravaccini S, Donati C, & Andreis D. Clinical utility of fulvestrant in the treatment of breast cancer: a report on the emerging clinical evidence. Cancer Management and Research 2018 10 3083–3099. (https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S137772)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Bellet M, Gray KP, Francis PA, Láng I, Ciruelos E, Lluch A, Climent MA, Catalán G, Avella A, Bohn U, et al.Twelve‐month estrogen levels in premenopausal women with hormone receptor‐positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant triptorelin plus exemestane or tamoxifen in the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT): the SOFT‐EST substudy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016 34 1584–1593. (https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.2259)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Burns E, Koca E, Xu J, McLean E, Lee R, Patel T, Chang J, & Niravath P. Measuring ovarian escape in premenopausal estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients on ovarian suppression therapy. Oncologist 2021 26 e936–e942. (https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13722)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    LHRH-agonists in Early Breast Cancer Overview Group, Cuzick J, Ambroisine L, Davidson N, Jakesz R, Kaufmann M, Regan M, & Sainsbury R. Use of luteinising‐hormone‐releasing hormone agonists as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with hormone‐receptor‐positive breast cancer: a meta‐analysis of individual patient data from randomised adjuvant trials. Lancet 2007 369 1711–1723. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(0760778-8)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF, Walley BA, Colleoni M, Láng I, Gómez HL, Tondini C, Ciruelos E, Burstein HJ, et al. Tailoring Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2018 379 122–137. (https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1803164)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Ghazal K, Brabant S, Prie D, & Piketty ML. Hormone immunoassay interference: a 2021 update. Annals of Laboratory Medicine 2022 42 3–23. (https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2022.42.1.3)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Ding J, Cao Y, & Guo Y. Fulvestrant may falsely increase 17bEstradiol levels in immunoassays: a case report of a 57-year-old postmenopausal patient with recurrent estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. Frontiers in Oncology 2022 12 832763. (https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.832763)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Berger D, Waheed S, Fattout Y, Kazlauskaite R, & Usha L. False increase of estradiol levels in a 36-year-old postmenopausal patient with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with fulvestrant. Clinical Breast Cancer 2016 16 e11–e13. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2015.07.004)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Samuel E, Chiang C, Jennens R, Faulkner D, & Francis PA. Fulvestrant falsely elevates oestradiol levels in immunoassays in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer 2020 126 104–105. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.10.015)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Summary of product characteristics: Faslodex. Amsterdam, Netherlands: European Medicines Agency, 2023. (available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/faslodex-epar-product-information_en.pdf)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Siemens. Advia Centaur CP, immunoassay system. Erlangen, Germany: Siemens Healthineers, 2023. (available at: https://doclib.siemens-healthineers.com/rest/v1/view?document-id=766620)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Robertson JFR, Odling-Smee W, Holcombe C, Kohlhardt SR, & Harrison MP. Pharmacokinetics of a single dose of fulvestrant prolonged-release intramuscular injection in postmenopausal women awaiting surgery for primary breast cancer. Clinical Therapeutics 2003 25 1440–1452. (https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2918(0380131-5)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Owen LJ, Monaghan PJ, Armstrong A, Keevil BG, Higham C, Salih Z, & Howell S. Oestradiol measurement during fulvestrant treatment for breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer 2019 120 404–406. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0378-9)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Ganesh AN, Aman A, Logie J, Barthel BL, Cogan P, Al-Awar R, Koch TH, Shoichet BK, & Shoichet MS. Colloidal drug aggregate stability in high serum conditions and pharmacokinetic consequence. ACS Chemical Biology 2019 14 751–757. (https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.9b00032)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Owen SC, Doak AK, Wassam P, Shoichet MS, & Shoichet BK. Colloidal aggregation affects the efficacy of anticancer drugs in cell culture. ACS Chemical Biology 2012 7 1429–1435. (https://doi.org/10.1021/cb300189b)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Coan KED, & Shoichet BK. Stoichiometry and physical chemistry of promiscuous aggregate-based inhibitors. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2008 130 9606–9612. (https://doi.org/10.1021/ja802977h)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Zhang F, Xue J, Shao J, & Jia L. Compilation of 222 drugs’ plasma protein binding data and guidance for study designs. Drug Discovery Today 2012 17 475–485. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2011.12.018)

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation