Jacqueline Jonklaas1, Anpalakan Sathasivam2, Hong Wang3, Jianghong Gu4, Kenneth D Burman5, Steven J Soldin4. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. Electronic address: jonklaaj@georgetown.edu. 2. Division of Endocrinology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA; Section of Endocrinology Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA. 3. Medstar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD, USA. 4. Department of Laboratory Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 5. Section of Endocrinology Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the performance of tandem mass spectrometry versus immunoassay for measuring thyroid hormones in a diverse group of inpatients and outpatients. METHODS: Thyroxine (T4), triiodothyronine (T3), free thyroxine (FT4), and free triiodothyronine (FT3) were measured by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry and immunoassay in 100 patients and the two assays were compared. RESULTS: T4 and T3 values measured by the two different assays correlated well with each other (r=0.91-0.95). However, the correlation was less good at the extremes (r=0.51-0.75). FT4 and FT3 concentrations measured by the two assays correlated less well with each other (r=0.75 and 0.50 respectively). The studied analytes had poor inverse correlation with the log-transformed TSH values (r=-0.22-0.51) in the population as a whole. The strongest correlations were seen in the groups of outpatients (r=-0.25-0.61). The weakest degree of correlation was noted in the inpatient group, with many correlations actually being positive. CONCLUSION: The worst between-assay correlation was demonstrated at low and high hormone concentrations, in the very concentration ranges where accurate assay performance is typically most clinically important. Based on the lesser susceptibility of mass spectrometry to interferences from conditions such as binding protein abnormalities, we speculate that mass spectrometry better reflects the clinical situation. In this mixed population of inpatients and outpatients, we also note failure of assays to conform to the anticipated inverse linear relationship between thyroid hormones and log-transformed TSH.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the performance of tandem mass spectrometry versus immunoassay for measuring thyroid hormones in a diverse group of inpatients and outpatients. METHODS:Thyroxine (T4), triiodothyronine (T3), free thyroxine (FT4), and freetriiodothyronine (FT3) were measured by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry and immunoassay in 100 patients and the two assays were compared. RESULTS: T4 and T3 values measured by the two different assays correlated well with each other (r=0.91-0.95). However, the correlation was less good at the extremes (r=0.51-0.75). FT4 and FT3 concentrations measured by the two assays correlated less well with each other (r=0.75 and 0.50 respectively). The studied analytes had poor inverse correlation with the log-transformed TSH values (r=-0.22-0.51) in the population as a whole. The strongest correlations were seen in the groups of outpatients (r=-0.25-0.61). The weakest degree of correlation was noted in the inpatient group, with many correlations actually being positive. CONCLUSION: The worst between-assay correlation was demonstrated at low and high hormone concentrations, in the very concentration ranges where accurate assay performance is typically most clinically important. Based on the lesser susceptibility of mass spectrometry to interferences from conditions such as binding protein abnormalities, we speculate that mass spectrometry better reflects the clinical situation. In this mixed population of inpatients and outpatients, we also note failure of assays to conform to the anticipated inverse linear relationship between thyroid hormones and log-transformed TSH.
Authors: Bernard W Steele; Edward Wang; George G Klee; Linda M Thienpont; Steven J Soldin; Lori J Sokoll; William E Winter; Susan A Fuhrman; Ronald J Elin Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: C A Spencer; J S LoPresti; A Patel; R B Guttler; A Eigen; D Shen; D Gray; J T Nicoloff Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1990-02 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Richard H Lee; Carole A Spencer; Jorge H Mestman; Erin A Miller; Ivana Petrovic; Lewis E Braverman; T Murphy Goodwin Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-12-27 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Bingfang Yue; Alan L Rockwood; Tanya Sandrock; Sonia L La'ulu; Mark M Kushnir; A Wayne Meikle Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Kerry J Welsh; Brian R Stolze; Xiaolin Yu; Trisha R Podsiadlo; Lisa S Kim; Steven J Soldin Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: Suramya Waidyanatha; Brenda L Fletcher; Reshan A Fernando; Michelle C Cora; Melanie A Rehder Silinski Journal: Anal Lett Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Faisal Alshammari; Sultan Alhazaa; Abdullah Althemery; Fahad Alsabaan; Abdulelah AlGosaibi; Manal Alshammari; Ali Aldabies; Mohammad Alfifi Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2019-10-31
Authors: Rudolf Hoermann; John E M Midgley; Rolf Larisch; Johannes W Dietrich Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 5.555