INTRODUCTION: The most widely used method for measuring free testosterone (FT) is by analog immunoassay (aFT); however, this assay has been criticized as unreliable based on laboratory studies in small groups of men. Calculated FT (cFT), derived from total testosterone (TT) and sex-hormone binding globulin (SHBG) values has been recommended in its place. There are limited data comparing aFT and cFT in clinical populations. AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare aFT with cFT in a population of ambulatory men in a clinical setting. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for 100 randomly selected men in a urology practice, yielding 140 test results complete for TT, aFT, and SHBG. Calculated FT was determined via an online calculator. Comparisons were made with Pearson rank coefficients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pearson rank correlation between aFT and cFT. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 52.3 +/- 14.3 years (range 24-80). Mean TT was 443.0 +/- 208.3 ng/dL (range 110-1276). Mean aFT was 1.22 +/- 0.54 ng/dL (range 0.24-3.8) and mean cFT 9.4 +/- 4.5 ng/dL (range 1.8-27.8). Mean SHBG was 34.2 +/- 19.5 nmol/L (range 9-127). A strong correlation was observed for aFT and cFT (r = 0.88, P < 0.0001), particularly at low concentrations. Significant correlations were also noted between aFT and TT (r = 0.73, P < 0.0001), and between cFT and TT (r = 0.82, P < 0.0001). Numerical values for aFT were approximately one-eighth of the values obtained for cFT. Neither aFT nor cFT correlated with SHBG. CONCLUSIONS: A strong correlation was observed between aFT and cFT in this clinical population of ambulatory men. Different sets of reference values must be applied for each of these tests.
INTRODUCTION: The most widely used method for measuring free testosterone (FT) is by analog immunoassay (aFT); however, this assay has been criticized as unreliable based on laboratory studies in small groups of men. Calculated FT (cFT), derived from total testosterone (TT) and sex-hormone binding globulin (SHBG) values has been recommended in its place. There are limited data comparing aFT and cFT in clinical populations. AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare aFT with cFT in a population of ambulatory men in a clinical setting. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for 100 randomly selected men in a urology practice, yielding 140 test results complete for TT, aFT, and SHBG. Calculated FT was determined via an online calculator. Comparisons were made with Pearson rank coefficients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pearson rank correlation between aFT and cFT. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 52.3 +/- 14.3 years (range 24-80). Mean TT was 443.0 +/- 208.3 ng/dL (range 110-1276). Mean aFT was 1.22 +/- 0.54 ng/dL (range 0.24-3.8) and mean cFT 9.4 +/- 4.5 ng/dL (range 1.8-27.8). Mean SHBG was 34.2 +/- 19.5 nmol/L (range 9-127). A strong correlation was observed for aFT and cFT (r = 0.88, P < 0.0001), particularly at low concentrations. Significant correlations were also noted between aFT and TT (r = 0.73, P < 0.0001), and between cFT and TT (r = 0.82, P < 0.0001). Numerical values for aFT were approximately one-eighth of the values obtained for cFT. Neither aFT nor cFT correlated with SHBG. CONCLUSIONS: A strong correlation was observed between aFT and cFT in this clinical population of ambulatory men. Different sets of reference values must be applied for each of these tests.
Authors: L Antonio; D Vanderschueren; N Narinx; K David; J Walravens; P Vermeersch; F Claessens; T Fiers; B Lapauw Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 9.207
Authors: Christoph A von Klot; Markus A Kuczyk; Alena Boeker; Christoph Reuter; Florian Imkamp; Thomas R W Herrmann; Hossein Tezval; Mario W Kramer; Sven Perner; Axel S Merseburger Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Martina Kollmann; Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch; Elisabeth Lerchbaum; Uwe Lang; Sereina A Herzog; Christian Trummer; Anna Scheuchenegger; Daniela Ulrich; Philipp Klaritsch Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Anna L Goldman; Shalender Bhasin; Frederick C W Wu; Meenakshi Krishna; Alvin M Matsumoto; Ravi Jasuja Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 25.261