Phillip E Patton1, Jeong Y Lim2, Lee R Hickok3, L Michael Kettel4, Janine M Larson5, K Y Francis Pau6. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: pattonp@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. 3. Pacific Northwest Fertility, Seattle, Washington. 4. San Diego Fertility Center, San Diego, California. 5. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. 6. Endocrine Technology and Support Core, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Beaverton, Oregon.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the precision of progesterone measurements obtained with the use of immunoassays and of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). DESIGN: Comparative study. SETTING: Academic, private practice, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) research centers. PATIENT(S): A total of 189 human serum samples were collected during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and early pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. INTERVENTION(S): Serum progesterone pools (n = 10; 0.2-4 ng/mL) were sent to four laboratory centers that used four different automated immunoassay analyzers. Progesterone was measured by immunoassay in triplicate at three separate time points (n = 9 per pool) and by LC-MS/MS in triplicate once (n = 3 per pool). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Inter- and intraassay coefficients of variation (CVs) of progesterone measurements were compared for each analyzer and LC-MS/MS. RESULT(S): Progesterone measurements by immunoassay were highly correlated with those by LC-MS/MS. Only two analyzers had intraassay CVs <10% at all three experimental time points, and only two analyzers had an interassay CV <10%. Mean progesterone levels by the analyzers were different across multiple progesterone pools. CONCLUSION(S): Our results indicate that progesterone threshold measurements used for IVF clinical decisions should be interpreted cautiously and based on laboratory- and method-specific data. A validated progesterone standard incorporated into daily immunoassays could improve medical decision accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the precision of progesterone measurements obtained with the use of immunoassays and of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). DESIGN: Comparative study. SETTING: Academic, private practice, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) research centers. PATIENT(S): A total of 189 human serum samples were collected during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and early pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. INTERVENTION(S): Serum progesterone pools (n = 10; 0.2-4 ng/mL) were sent to four laboratory centers that used four different automated immunoassay analyzers. Progesterone was measured by immunoassay in triplicate at three separate time points (n = 9 per pool) and by LC-MS/MS in triplicate once (n = 3 per pool). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Inter- and intraassay coefficients of variation (CVs) of progesterone measurements were compared for each analyzer and LC-MS/MS. RESULT(S): Progesterone measurements by immunoassay were highly correlated with those by LC-MS/MS. Only two analyzers had intraassay CVs <10% at all three experimental time points, and only two analyzers had an interassay CV <10%. Mean progesterone levels by the analyzers were different across multiple progesterone pools. CONCLUSION(S): Our results indicate that progesterone threshold measurements used for IVF clinical decisions should be interpreted cautiously and based on laboratory- and method-specific data. A validated progesterone standard incorporated into daily immunoassays could improve medical decision accuracy.
Authors: Tatiana R Panaino; Joyce B da Silva; Maria Augusta T de Lima; Paloma Lira; Patricia C Arêas; Ana Cristina A Mancebo; Marcelo M de Souza; Roberto A Antunes; Maria do Carmo B de Souza Journal: JBRA Assist Reprod Date: 2017-02-01
Authors: Barbara Lawrenz; Junard Sibal; Nicolas Garrido; Emmanuel Abu; Alliza Jean; Laura Melado; Human M Fatemi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ellen Anckaert; Alexander Jank; Julia Petzold; Felix Rohsmann; Rhonda Paris; Martin Renggli; Kathrin Schönfeld; Johan Schiettecatte; Monika Kriner Journal: Pract Lab Med Date: 2021-03-13
Authors: N P Polyzos; E Anckaert; P Drakopoulos; H Tournaye; J Schiettecatte; H Donner; G Bobba; G Miles; W D J Verhagen-Kamerbeek; E Bosch Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 4.256