1976
DOI: 10.1007/bf00667747
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Macrophage electrophoretic mobility(MEM)test in malignant gynaecological diseases

Abstract: All patients examined [52] with malignant disease of the female genital tract showed lymphocyte reactions to encephalitogenic factor (EF) of more than 10% as measured by the macrophage electrophoretic mobility (MEM) test and its modification (MOD-MEM). Whilst 13 patients with non-malignant disease of the genital tract and 30 normals showed lymphocyte reaction to EF of less than 6%, 4 patients with nonmalignant gynaecological disease gave values above the 10% limit. The lymphocyte reactions of this latter group… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
1

Year Published

1977
1977
1981
1981

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The lymphocytes from three of these patients reacted like the lymphocytes from cases with benign gynecological diseases or from the control group, where as in eight patients we found values similar to those of the patients with malignancies. This is in contrast to the literature where only uniform inhibition rates are described [14,[19][20][21], Whether this discrepancy is due to the small number of cases we examined or to some other reason, e. g. the non-uniform defini tion of the term carcinoma in situ, cannot be concluded from the present results. We feel that any possibility of giving an explana tion is too speculative for the time being.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 55%
“…The lymphocytes from three of these patients reacted like the lymphocytes from cases with benign gynecological diseases or from the control group, where as in eight patients we found values similar to those of the patients with malignancies. This is in contrast to the literature where only uniform inhibition rates are described [14,[19][20][21], Whether this discrepancy is due to the small number of cases we examined or to some other reason, e. g. the non-uniform defini tion of the term carcinoma in situ, cannot be concluded from the present results. We feel that any possibility of giving an explana tion is too speculative for the time being.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 55%
“…In the non-malignant group again the neurological diseases gave cross reaction in 33 % of cases. The encephalitogenic factor (EF) is well defined and analysed, and accepted as a screening antigen for malignancies [3,4,15,20,27,28]. The melanoma antigen used in this study has not been so far characterised.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 1970 Field and Caspary developed the macrophage-mobility-test (MEM-test) to demonstrate a macro phage slowing factor (MSF) which was liberated by lympho cytes of tumor patients after contact with a basic myelin protein termed encephalitogenic factor (EF). Macrophage slowing factor (MSF) leads to a reduction of macrophage mobility in the electrical field of the cytopherometer [3,4,7,12,20,28]. Although this test system was technically difficult and required a lot of experience to obtain reproducible results, several studies verified that it is possible to carry out very sensitive in vitro tumor diagnostics [7.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several centres (using EF, CaBP or the KCI extracts as "antigens") confirmed the results of MEM (Pritchard et al, 1972(Pritchard et al, , 1973Preece & Light, 1974;Field, 1976;Irmscher et al, 1975;Klausch et al, 1975;Meyer-Rienecker et al, 1975;Jenssen et al, 1976a,b;Nowak et al, 1976;Klausch et al, 1977;Light & Preece, 1977;Muller et al, 1977;Gunther et al, 1978), MOD-MEM (Pritchard et al, 1976) and EMT (Jenssen & Shenton, 1975;Lampert et al, 1977;Shenton et al, 1977;Douwes et al, 1978;Dyson & Corbett, 1978;Tautz et al, 1978;Ritter & Oehme, 1978;Kreienberg et al, 1979;B6gelspacher et al, 1980), though the procedures have not gained universal recognition (see also Bagshawe, 1973;leading article in Nature, 1973;editorial in Lancet, 1976;Bagshawe, 1977;Moore & Lajtha, 1977;Moore, 1978).…”
mentioning
confidence: 69%