BACKGROUND: Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and tandem LC-MS (LC-MS/MS) are increasingly used in toxicology laboratories as a complementary method to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detection (LC-UV) for comprehensive drug screening (CDS). This study was designed to characterize the sensitivity and specificity of three LC-MS(/MS) vendor-supplied methods for targeted CDS and identify the current limitations associated with the use of these technologies. METHODS: Five methods for broad spectrum CDS, including LC-UV (REMEDi), full scan GC-MS, LC-MS (ZQ-Mass Detector with MassLynx-software), LC-QTRAP-MS/MS (3200-QTRAP with Cliquid-software) and LC-LIT-MS/MS (LXQ Linear Ion Trap with ToxID-software) were evaluated based on their ability to detect drugs in 48 patient urine samples. RESULTS: The tandem MS methods identified 15% more drugs than the single stage MS or LC-UV methods. Use of two broad spectrum screening methods identified more drugs than any single system alone. False negatives and false positives generated by the LC-MS(/MS) software programs were identified upon manual review of the raw data. CONCLUSIONS: The LC-MS/MS methods detected a broader menu of drugs; however, it is essential to establish manual data review criteria for all LC-MS(/MS) drug screening methods. Use of an EI-GC-MS and ESI-LC-MS/MS combination for targeted CDS may be optimal due to the complementary nature of the chromatographic and ionization techniques. Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and tandem LC-MS (LC-MS/MS) are increasingly used in toxicology laboratories as a complementary method to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography-ultraviolet detection (LC-UV) for comprehensive drug screening (CDS). This study was designed to characterize the sensitivity and specificity of three LC-MS(/MS) vendor-supplied methods for targeted CDS and identify the current limitations associated with the use of these technologies. METHODS: Five methods for broad spectrum CDS, including LC-UV (REMEDi), full scan GC-MS, LC-MS (ZQ-Mass Detector with MassLynx-software), LC-QTRAP-MS/MS (3200-QTRAP with Cliquid-software) and LC-LIT-MS/MS (LXQ Linear Ion Trap with ToxID-software) were evaluated based on their ability to detect drugs in 48 patient urine samples. RESULTS: The tandem MS methods identified 15% more drugs than the single stage MS or LC-UV methods. Use of two broad spectrum screening methods identified more drugs than any single system alone. False negatives and false positives generated by the LC-MS(/MS) software programs were identified upon manual review of the raw data. CONCLUSIONS: The LC-MS/MS methods detected a broader menu of drugs; however, it is essential to establish manual data review criteria for all LC-MS(/MS) drug screening methods. Use of an EI-GC-MS and ESI-LC-MS/MS combination for targeted CDS may be optimal due to the complementary nature of the chromatographic and ionization techniques. Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors: C Baumann; M A Cintora; M Eichler; E Lifante; M Cooke; A Przyborowska; J M Halket Journal: Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Merja Gergov; Wolfgang Weinmann; Jussi Meriluoto; Jouko Uusitalo; Ilkka Ojanperä Journal: Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: Michael L Smith; Shawn P Vorce; Justin M Holler; Eric Shimomura; Joe Magluilo; Aaron J Jacobs; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: J Anal Toxicol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Herbert Oberacher; Marion Pavlic; Kathrin Libiseller; Birthe Schubert; Michael Sulyok; Rainer Schuhmacher; Edina Csaszar; Harald C Köfeler Journal: J Mass Spectrom Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 1.982
Authors: Alvin C Bronstein; Daniel A Spyker; Louis R Cantilena; Jody Green; Barry H Rumack; Stuart E Heard Journal: Clin Toxicol (Phila) Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.467
Authors: Tobias Kind; John K Meissen; Dawei Yang; Fernando Nocito; Arpana Vaniya; Yu-Shen Cheng; Jean S Vandergheynst; Oliver Fiehn Journal: J Chromatogr A Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 4.759
Authors: Tobias Kind; Hiroshi Tsugawa; Tomas Cajka; Yan Ma; Zijuan Lai; Sajjan S Mehta; Gert Wohlgemuth; Dinesh Kumar Barupal; Megan R Showalter; Masanori Arita; Oliver Fiehn Journal: Mass Spectrom Rev Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 10.946