Wael A Salameh1, Mildred M Redor-Goldman1, Nigel J Clarke1, Ruchi Mathur2, Ricardo Azziz3, Richard E Reitz1. 1. Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, San Juan Capistrano, California. 2. Department of Ob/Gyn and Center for Androgen Related Disorders, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California; Department of Medicine, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Ob/Gyn and Center for Androgen Related Disorders, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: President@GRU.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) determination of total (TT) and free (FT) testosterone is more specific than extraction chromatography-radioimmunoassay (RIA) for distinguishing women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) from controls and whether differing cutoff values should be used depending on the setting. DESIGN: Prospective case-control cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care center and reference laboratory. INTERVENTION(S): Blood sampling. PATIENT(S): One hundred patients with PCOS and 100 controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Circulating TT measured by RIA and LC-MS/MS and FT measured by equilibrium dialysis using RIA or LC-MS/MS-generated TT values. RESULT(S): T measurement by RIA and LC-MS/MS similarly differentiated patients with PCOS from controls; detection of PCOS was higher for FT for both methods. TT values demonstrated greater overlap between patients with PCOS and controls than did FT for both RIA (80% vs. 42% overlap) and LC-MS/MS (52% vs. 67% overlap). A lower cutoff value by LC-MS/MS was better suited for the study of patients seen in the clinical (referred) setting (35 and 4.0 ng/dL for TT and FT, respectively) than in the screening of a general population (50 and 5.0 ng/dL for TT and FT, respectively). CONCLUSION(S): Extraction chromatography-RIA and LC-MS/MS measurements of T have similar performance for differentiating patients with PCOS from healthy controls; LC-MS/MS may be preferable given its relative ease of automation. Compared with FT, measurement of TT has relatively limited value for distinguishing PCOS from normal. Finally, different cutoff values should be considered depending on the clinical/investigative setting, with higher values being used in the study of biased (e.g., clinical or referred) populations.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) determination of total (TT) and free (FT) testosterone is more specific than extraction chromatography-radioimmunoassay (RIA) for distinguishing women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) from controls and whether differing cutoff values should be used depending on the setting. DESIGN: Prospective case-control cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care center and reference laboratory. INTERVENTION(S): Blood sampling. PATIENT(S): One hundred patients with PCOS and 100 controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Circulating TT measured by RIA and LC-MS/MS and FT measured by equilibrium dialysis using RIA or LC-MS/MS-generated TT values. RESULT(S): T measurement by RIA and LC-MS/MS similarly differentiated patients with PCOS from controls; detection of PCOS was higher for FT for both methods. TT values demonstrated greater overlap between patients with PCOS and controls than did FT for both RIA (80% vs. 42% overlap) and LC-MS/MS (52% vs. 67% overlap). A lower cutoff value by LC-MS/MS was better suited for the study of patients seen in the clinical (referred) setting (35 and 4.0 ng/dL for TT and FT, respectively) than in the screening of a general population (50 and 5.0 ng/dL for TT and FT, respectively). CONCLUSION(S): Extraction chromatography-RIA and LC-MS/MS measurements of T have similar performance for differentiating patients with PCOS from healthy controls; LC-MS/MS may be preferable given its relative ease of automation. Compared with FT, measurement of TT has relatively limited value for distinguishing PCOS from normal. Finally, different cutoff values should be considered depending on the clinical/investigative setting, with higher values being used in the study of biased (e.g., clinical or referred) populations.
Authors: Christina Wang; Don H Catlin; Laurence M Demers; Borislav Starcevic; Ronald S Swerdloff Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Marion L Cawood; Helen P Field; Clive G Ford; Scott Gillingwater; Andrew Kicman; David Cowan; Julian H Barth Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2005-06-16 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: E S Knochenhauer; T J Key; M Kahsar-Miller; W Waggoner; L R Boots; R Azziz Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Eleftherios P Diamandis; Frank Z Stanczyk; Sarah Wheeler; Anu Mathew; Martin Stengelin; Galina Nikolenko; Eli N Glezer; Marshall D Brown; Yingye Zheng; Yen-Hao Chen; Hsiao-Li Wu; Ricardo Azziz Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: D H Abbott; B H Rayome; D A Dumesic; K C Lewis; A K Edwards; K Wallen; M E Wilson; S E Appt; J E Levine Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: M Geoffrey Hayes; Margrit Urbanek; David A Ehrmann; Loren L Armstrong; Ji Young Lee; Ryan Sisk; Tugce Karaderi; Thomas M Barber; Mark I McCarthy; Stephen Franks; Cecilia M Lindgren; Corrine K Welt; Evanthia Diamanti-Kandarakis; Dimitrios Panidis; Mark O Goodarzi; Ricardo Azziz; Yi Zhang; Roland G James; Michael Olivier; Ahmed H Kissebah; Elisabet Stener-Victorin; Richard S Legro; Andrea Dunaif Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 14.919