Tom Fiers1, Frederick Wu2, Paolo Moghetti3,4, Dirk Vanderschueren5, Bruno Lapauw6, Jean-Marc Kaufman5. 1. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 2. Andrology Research Unit, Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 4. Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy. 5. Clinical and Experimental Endocrinology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 6. Department of Endocrinology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
Context: Assessment of free testosterone (FT) might help evaluate androgen status in patients with borderline total testosterone (T) and/or altered sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels. However, the validity of different methods to measure FT is debatable. Methods: Serum from 183 women and 146 men was analyzed using equilibrium dialysis (ED), with FT directly measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. FT calculation was re-evaluated for the mass action law-based equation according to Vermeulen (cFT-V), empirical equations according to Ly (cFT-L), and a proposed calculation based on a multistep, dynamic, allosteric model according to Zakharov (cFT-Z). Results: FT level analyzed by ED [median,13 pmol/L (1.2% of T) in women; 248 pmol/L (1.5% of T) in men] was strongly inversely correlated to SHBG level, significantly to albumin level in women, and only weakly to SHBG level in men. The median [percentile (p) range, 2.5 to 97.5] ratios of calculated FT (cFT) over ED-FT (from European Male Aging Study samples) were 1.19 (0.9 to 1.47), 1.00 (0.69 to 1.42), and 2.05 (1.26 to 3.26) for cFT-V, cFT-L, and cFT-Z, respectively. The ratio for cFT-V was not significantly affected by SHBG, T, or albumin levels (ρ range, 0.17 to -0.01); ratios for cFT-L and cFT-Z were affected (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively) and strongly correlated with SHBG levels (ρ = 0.72 and 0.75, respectively). Rank correlations between cFT% and ED-FT% (for men) were 0.62, 0.74, and 0.89 for cFT-Z, cFT-L, and cFT-V, respectively. Conclusion: FT results by direct ED confirm prior FT data from indirect ED and ultrafiltration methodologies. Calculations have inherent limitations, with clinically important differences among evaluated equations: cFT-V, although overestimating FT level, appears the most robust approximation, largely independent of SHBG, albumin, and T levels.
Context: Assessment of free testosterone (FT) might help evaluate androgen status in patients with borderline total testosterone (T) and/or altered sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels. However, the validity of different methods to measure FT is debatable. Methods: Serum from 183 women and 146 men was analyzed using equilibrium dialysis (ED), with FT directly measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. FT calculation was re-evaluated for the mass action law-based equation according to Vermeulen (cFT-V), empirical equations according to Ly (cFT-L), and a proposed calculation based on a multistep, dynamic, allosteric model according to Zakharov (cFT-Z). Results: FT level analyzed by ED [median,13 pmol/L (1.2% of T) in women; 248 pmol/L (1.5% of T) in men] was strongly inversely correlated to SHBG level, significantly to albumin level in women, and only weakly to SHBG level in men. The median [percentile (p) range, 2.5 to 97.5] ratios of calculated FT (cFT) over ED-FT (from European Male Aging Study samples) were 1.19 (0.9 to 1.47), 1.00 (0.69 to 1.42), and 2.05 (1.26 to 3.26) for cFT-V, cFT-L, and cFT-Z, respectively. The ratio for cFT-V was not significantly affected by SHBG, T, or albumin levels (ρ range, 0.17 to -0.01); ratios for cFT-L and cFT-Z were affected (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively) and strongly correlated with SHBG levels (ρ = 0.72 and 0.75, respectively). Rank correlations between cFT% and ED-FT% (for men) were 0.62, 0.74, and 0.89 for cFT-Z, cFT-L, and cFT-V, respectively. Conclusion: FT results by direct ED confirm prior FT data from indirect ED and ultrafiltration methodologies. Calculations have inherent limitations, with clinically important differences among evaluated equations: cFT-V, although overestimating FT level, appears the most robust approximation, largely independent of SHBG, albumin, and T levels.
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: Rene F Chun; Albert Shieh; Carter Gottlieb; Vahe Yacoubian; Jeffrey Wang; Martin Hewison; John S Adams Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 6.055
Authors: Stine A Holmboe; Ravi Jasuja; Brian Lawney; Lærke Priskorn; Niels Joergensen; Allan Linneberg; Tina Kold Jensen; Niels Erik Skakkebæk; Anders Juul; Anna-Maria Andersson Journal: Endocr Connect Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 3.335
Authors: A M Isidori; A Aversa; A Calogero; A Ferlin; S Francavilla; F Lanfranco; R Pivonello; V Rochira; G Corona; M Maggi Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 5.467