| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Endocrinology and Metabolism |
1 Hormonology Laboratory, A. Béclère Hospital, 92141 Clamart, France.
2 Hormonology Laboratory, Lyon Sud Hospital, 69495 Lyon, France.
3 Biochemistry and Hormonology Laboratory, Tenon Hospital, 75020 Paris, France.
4 Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Angers Hospital, 49003 Angers, France.
5 Biochemistry Laboratory, Versailles Hospital, 78150 Le Chesnay, France.
6 CERBA Laboratory, 95066 Cergy Pontoise, France.
7 Nuclear Medicine Laboratory, Timone Hospital, 13385 Marseille, France.
8 Unit of Hormonal Biochemistry, St Louis Hospital, 75010 Paris, France.
aAddress correspondence to this author at: Unit of Hormonal Biochemistry, St Louis Hospital, Assistance-Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 1 avenue Claude Vellefaux 75010 Paris, France. Fax 33-1-42-49-42-80; e-mail philippe.boudou{at}sls.ap-hop-paris.fr.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Methods: We measured serum testosterone in 50 men, 55 women, and 11 children with use of eight nonisotopic immunoassays, two isotopic immunoassays, and isotope-dilution gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (ID/GC-MS).
Results: Compared with ID/GC-MS, 7 of the 10 immunoassays tested overestimated testosterone concentrations in samples from women; mean immunoassay results were 46% above those obtained by ID/GC-MS. The immunoassays underestimated testosterone concentrations in samples from men, giving mean results 12% below those obtained by ID/GC-MS. In women, at concentrations of 0.6–7.2 nmol/L, 3 of the 10 immunoassays gave positive mean differences >2.0 nmol/L (range, -0.7 to 3.3 nmol/L) compared with ID/GC-MS; in men at concentrations of 8.2–58 nmol/L, 3 of the 10 immunoassays tested gave mean differences >4.0 nmol/L (range, -4.8 to 2.6 nmol/L).
Conclusion: None of the immunoassays tested was sufficiently reliable for the investigation of sera from children and women, in whom very low (0.17 nmol/L) and low (<1.7 nmol/L) testosterone concentrations are expected.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In children, the circulating testosterone concentration is determined principally for the diagnosis, treatment, and gender assignment of newborns or young infants with ambiguous genitalia (15). The testosterone concentration can be used to determine pubertal stage in association with physical examination and gonadotropin determination and in the follow-up of children with precocious (16)(17)(18)(19) or delayed puberty (20)(21).
In all of these situations, a highly sensitive and very accurate testosterone assay is required. Traditional testosterone immunoassays with tritiated testosterone involve extraction and chromatography before testing to eliminate proteins (e.g., binding globulins) and structurally related molecules, which may interfere with the results of the immunoassay (22). These procedures are mostly carried out in referral laboratories. Most of the conventional testosterone assays developed to date are based on iodinated, labeled testosterone and on manual or partially automated procedures, and they are performed with or without serum extraction. In the last 10 years, automated analyzers have become available in the field of endocrinology. Immunoassays based on competition are performed on nonextracted samples with use of nonisotopic labeled testosterone. These analyzers are easy to use, with short cycle times, and are widely used in clinical laboratories. We evaluated the accuracy of these testosterone assays by screening 116 serum samples from men, women, and children with eight direct nonisotopic and two direct isotopic immunoassays (RIA). The testosterone concentrations obtained in each immunoassay were compared with a reference method based on isotope-dilution gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (ID/GC-MS) (23)(24).
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
All investigations conformed to the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration.
immunologic methods
The study began simultaneously in all laboratories in 2001 (our data reflect the performance of the methods at the time of the exercise). Ten manufacturers agreed to participate in the evaluation, providing assay reagents and, when necessary, installing analyzers. The study included eight automated multianalyte analyzers: Architect i2000 (Abbott Laboratories), ACS-180, Immuno-1 (Bayer Diagnostics), Vidas (Bio-Mérieux), Immulite 2000 (Diagnostics Products Corp.), Vitros Eci (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics), AutoDelfia (Perkin-Elmer), and Elecsys 2010 (Roche-Boehringer-Mannheim). We also tested two direct isotopic immunoassays (RIA): Immunotech (Beckman-Coulter), the most commonly used in France (according to data assessed by the French National Interlaboratory Quality Standard Control), and Coat-A-Count DPC (Dade Behring), one of the most frequently referenced assays in the literature [see Refs. (26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)]. The main analytical characteristics of these immunoassays are summarized in Table 1
.
|
Samples were assayed either singly for nonisotopic methods according to the manufacturer’s instructions or in duplicate for isotopic and ID/GC-MS methods. The mean testosterone concentration was considered for comparison when isotopic and ID/GC-MS methods were compared. All samples were assayed in each of the laboratories, using assay reagents from the same lot.
id/gc-ms method
Internal standard.
Labeled testosterone ([3,4-13C2]testosterone; Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, Gif sur Yvette, France) was used as the internal standard. The purity and 13C enrichment of this standard were confirmed by ID/GC-MS and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (33).
Sample preparation.
We added 1–10 ng of labeled testosterone ([3,4-13C2]testosterone) to 1.0 mL of serum from men or to 2.0 mL of serum from women and children. The samples were mixed and incubated for 15 min at 37 °C. The sample volume and the amount of internal standard were adjusted according to the testosterone concentration measured previously by extraction-partition celite chromatography/RIA (25) to obtain a ratio of unlabeled/labeled testosterone between 0.5 and 1.0. Samples were mixed, incubated for 15 min at 37 °C, and extracted with 5 mL of diethyl ether by rapid vortex-mixing for 2 min. After centrifugation (15 min at 3000g) and freezing of the aqueous layer, the organic layer was decanted, evaporated to dryness under nitrogen at 45 °C, and extracted. The extract was dissolved in 200 µL of 50 mL/L ethyl acetate in isooctane and purified on a column (6 mm internal diameter) containing 0.45g of ethylene-glycol-impregnated celite (Prolabo). After the reconstituted extract was loaded on the column, the column was washed with 8 mL of isooctane, and the eluent was discarded. Then testosterone was then eluted with 3 mL of 150 mL/L ethyl acetate in isooctane. The solvent was evaporated under nitrogen (45 °C), and the dry residue was dissolved in 50 µL of heptafluorobutyric anhydride and 200 µL of anhydrous acetonitrile. The resulting solution was incubated for 30 min at 37 °C (derivatization). The solvent was evaporated under nitrogen, the residue was dissolved in 20 µL of hexane, and 2–4 µL of the solution was injected into the ID/GC-MS instrument.
Testosterone was quantified by monitoring the mass/charge (m/z) ions corresponding to the derivatives molecular ions of unlabeled (m/z = 680) and [3,4-13C2]testosterone (m/z = 682) internal standard. The calibration curve was obtained from the peak-area ratios of the m/z 680/682 ions from three solutions containing 0.0, 2.5, and 5.0 ng of unlabeled testosterone amounts and 5.0 ng of labeled testosterone, corresponding to unlabeled/labeled testosterone concentration ratios of 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0. We corrected for the overlap between the unlabeled testosterone peak area at 682 and the labeled testosterone peak area at mass 680 on calibration curves and for samples, as described previously (34)(35). Testosterone calibrators and patients’ samples were analyzed in duplicate, and the mean value was used for data analysis.
A plot from the weighted Deming regression analysis, performed in samples from women, between extraction-partition celite chromatography/RIA and ID/GC-MS is presented in Fig. 1
. Five samples were discrepant between the two methods concerned. The results obtained with extraction-partition celite chromatography/RIA vs those obtained with ID/GC-MS for these five samples were 3.12 vs 2.54, 2.77 vs 2.11, 3.29 vs 2.52, 3.12 vs 2.49, and 2.94 vs 2.05 nmol/L.
|
ID/GC-MS procedure.
ID/GC-MS analysis was performed with a Carlo Erba chromatograph coupled to a quadrupole mass spectrometer (QMD 1000; Thermofinnigan France) system equipped with a 30-m fused-silica capillary column (DB5; 0.32 mm i.d.; 0.25 mm film thickness; J&W Scientific) with helium as the carrier gas (flow rate, 1.2 mL/min). We injected of 2–4 µL of sample into the apparatus at 275 °C, using a mobile needle injector. Column temperature was maintained at 220 °C for 13 min and was then increased to 265 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min. The ion source was operated in the electron impact mode with 70 eV electron energy, and the photomultiplier was set to 700 V. Molecular ions of the derivatives of testosterone (m/z 680) and [13C]testosterone (m/z 682) were monitored.
Analytical characteristics of ID/GC-MS.
The detection limit was <0.15 nmol/L (calculated on the basis of a signal-to-noise ratio >6). Chromatograms from a child (testosterone concentration, 0.17 nmol/L) and a woman samples (testosterone concentration, 0.80 nmol/L) are depicted in Fig. 2
. The interrun CVs were 15% at a mean concentration of 0.20 nmol/L (n = 8), 3.9% at a mean concentration of 0.74 nmol/L (n = 7), 3.6% at a mean concentration of 2.67 nmol/L (n = 6), 2.8% at a mean concentration of 17.59 nmol/L (n = 14), and 2.1% at a mean concentration of 36.65 nmol/L (n = 19). The accuracy was determined by a dilution test and by calculating analytical recoveries of added testosterone to serum aliquots from two pools. All of these specimens were analyzed in triplicate. The dilution test (1.9–34 nmol/L) yielded the following linear regression equation: y (experimental values) = 0.997x (expected values) - 0.113 nmol/L (r2 = 0.9997). The recoveries (%) of testosterone added to aliquots from two serum pools (0.346 and at 1.250 nmol/L, respectively) are shown in Table 2
.
|
|
statistical analysis
The testosterone concentrations measured by each assay and ID/GC-MS for samples from men and women were compared with use of the nonparametric Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test. The weighted Deming regression analysis (reference method as the x values, and the assay tested as the y values) was performed using samples taken from men (n = 50) and women (n = 55) separately (36). Bland–Altman analysis (37), based on evaluation of the difference between the methods (testosterone concentration measured by assay tested - testosterone concentration measured by ID/GC-MS) against their mean [(testosterone concentration measured by ID/GC-MS + testosterone concentration measured by assay tested)/2] was used to assess the between-assay difference. The limits of agreement (estimated by the mean difference ± 2 SD of the differences) and the percentages of outliers were also calculated. The ratio method (result from assay tested/result from ID/GC-MS vs result from ID/GC-MS) (38) was performed to assess the distribution of the values obtained by each assay compared with ID/GC-MS and the magnitude of the discrepancy.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
).
|
The testosterone values [median, mean, SD, and concentration range (nmol/L)]obtained by ID/GC-MS and immunoassays tested samples from women and men and the results of the statistical analysis of the data are shown in Table 4
. The range, median, mean, and SD were highly dispersed among immunoassays in both adult groups, and differences compared with ID/GC-MS were large. All of the methods but Vidas and Vitros Eci in women and Architect i2000, Immuno-1, and Coat-A-Count DPC in men showed significantly different median testosterone values compared with ID/GC-MS. It should be stated that this statistical analysis compared the differences between medians and did not address the scatter of the results between each immunoassay and ID/GC-MS. Equations from the weighted Deming regression analysis, performed in women and men separately, are presented in Table 5
, and the plots are presented in Fig. 1
of the Data Supplement accompanying the online version of this article athttp://www.clinchem.org/content/vol49/issue8/.
|
|
For samples from men, the slopes and intercepts ranged from 0.79 (Immulite 2000) to 1.10 (Immuno-1) and from -3.02 nmol/L (Elecsys 2010) to 1.98 nmol/L (AutoDelfia), respectively. All of the immunoassays but AutoDelfia (r = 0.86) were well correlated with ID/GC-MS (r = 0.92–0.97), although the agreement between testosterone concentrations measured by each immunoassay and ID/GC-MS was not as good as the line of best fit (y = x; Fig. 1
in the online Data Supplement). Some immunoassays (Vidas, Immulite 2000, Vitros ECi, Elecsys 2010, and RIA Immunotech) clearly underestimated testosterone concentrations over the concentration range. In the samples from women, all of the immunoassays were less well correlated with ID/GC-MS [r values ranged from of 0.57 (Immulite 2000) to 0.89 (Coat-A-Count DPC)]. The slopes and intercepts ranged from 0.85 (Elecsys 2010) to 3.28 (AutoDelfia) and from -2.01 nmol/L (AutoDelfia) to 0.53 nmol/L (ACS-180), respectively. We observed a marked discrepancy and a wide dispersion of the results [according to the line of best fit (y = x); Fig. 1
in the online Data Supplement] for testosterone concentrations measured by the Immulite 2000 and AutoDelfia.
Using Bland–Altman analysis, we calculated mean differences and 2 SD of the differences for samples from men and women; the results are shown in Table 4
. In samples from men, mean differences ranged from -4.79 nmol/L (Elecsys 2010) to 2.55 nmol/L (ACS-180). Compared with ID/GC-MS, 70% of the immunoassays tested underestimated testosterone concentrations. The highest magnitudes of disagreement were observed for the Vidas, Elecsys 2010, and RIA Immunotech (negative mean differences >4 nmol/L). In samples from women, the mean differences ranged from -0.69 nmol/L (Elecsys 2010) to 3.29 nmol/L (Immulite 2000). Compared with ID/GC-MS, 70% of the immunoassays tested overestimated testosterone concentrations. The highest magnitudes of disagreement were for the Immulite 2000, AutoDelfia, and ACS-180 (positive mean differences >2 nmol/L). When the limits of agreement, as calculated by the Bland–Altman analysis (mean difference ± 2 SD of the differences), were applied, 8 of 10 immunoassays and 5 of 10 immunoassays gave percentages of values higher than the 5% usually defined as the value that should be found outside the mean difference ± 2 SD of the differences (Table 4
) for samples from men and women, respectively.
The results for samples from men and women analyzed by the ratio method were clearly separated and are shown in Fig. 3
. The ACS-180 and AutoDelfia displayed a positive bias over the female and male testosterone concentration ranges tested. Conversely, Elecsys 2010 was the sole method that clearly underestimated testosterone concentrations over the female and male concentration ranges tested. The Immulite 2000 and RIA Immunotech overestimated results in the female concentration range tested and displayed a negative bias over the male concentration range tested, whereas the Architect i2000, Immuno-1, and Coat-A-Count DPC overestimated testosterone in the female concentration range and displayed results evenly distributed close to a ratio of 1.0 for male testosterone concentrations. The results for the female testosterone concentration range tested were widely dispersed, particularly for AutoDelfia and Immulite 2000.
|
We investigated the ability of the immunoassays tested to adequately distinguish between hypo- and normogonadal men, using 9 of the 50 samples from men with testosterone concentrations of 8.33–11.97 nmol/L as measured by ID/GC-MS (lower limit of the reference interval for this method was 10.40 nmol/L). When measured by ACS-180 (8.58–18.59 nmol/L) and AutoDelfia (7.63–15.43 nmol/L), 78% and 56%, respectively, of these samples were above the lower limit of the reference interval for ID/GC-MS. When the lower limits defined for the ACS-180 and AutoDelfia (8.40 and 8.70 nmol/L, respectively; Table 1
) were used, 100% and 89%, respectively, of the hypogonadal men were classified as normogonadal. In addition, we evaluated whether the immunoassays tested could clearly distinguished women with testosterone concentrations within the reference interval for women from women with abnormal testosterone concentrations. The results of the 55 samples from women group measured by ID/GC-MS were as follows (testosterone concentrations >2.55 nmol/L, the upper limit of our ID/GC-MS method, were considered as abnormal): testosterone <2.06 nmol/L, n = 25; testosterone between 2.06 and 2.55 nmol/L, n = 17; and testosterone >2.55 nmol/L, n = 13. On the basis of these criteria, for the 42 samples with testosterone concentrations below the upper limit of the reference interval by ID/GC-MS, the immunoassays yielded abnormal results for 85.7% (Immulite 2000), 81.0% (AutoDelfia), 73.8% (ACS-180), 64.3% (Architect i2000), 40.5% (RIA Immunotech), 37.5% (Coat-A-Count DPC), 33.0% (Immuno-1), 19.0% (Vitros ECi), 14.0% (Vida), and 7.0% (Elecsys 2010) of the samples. When we analyzed the data using the upper limit of the reference interval for each immunoassay, the percentage of samples with abnormal testosterone concentrations remained comparable to those observed when we applied ID/GC-MS upper limit. This was also true for the Immulite 2000 (48%), AutoDelfia (69%), and Vidas (12.5%) assays, whose upper limits were higher than that of the ID/GC-MS method. Of the 13 samples in which ID/GC-MS measured abnormal testosterone concentrations, the immunoassays yielded results within the ID/GC-MS reference interval for 85.0% (Elecsys 2010), 54.0% (Vitros ECi), 38.5% (Vidas), 23.0% (RIA Immunotech), 23.0% (Immuno-1), 8.0% (Coat-A-Count DPC), 0.0% (ACS-180), 0.0% (Architect i2000), 0.0% (AutoDelfia), and 0.0% (Immulite 2000) of the samples. In addition, when the upper limits of the Vidas assay were used to analyze these 13 samples, the percentage of women with abnormal testosterone concentrations increased from 38.5% to 69.0%.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Procedures based on nonisotopically labeled analytes adapted for use in automated analyzers are now available and are widely used in routine clinical laboratories (44)(45). Some of these methods were tested recently in studies evaluating the performance of automated nonisotopic immunoassays against that of a direct RIA (29)(30)(32)(46) or against the performance of other nonisotopic automated immunoassays (47)(48). Most of these studies found acceptable concordance between nonisotopic immunoassays, although the results were poorer for women (29). These initial analyses were encouraging, although, as shown by Ognibene et al. (47), there are still unanswered questions concerning the extent of agreement between the various tests. Indeed, two of the three nonisotopic immunoassays tested by Ognibene et al. on samples from the entire adult population gave highly scattered results in the low concentration end of the dynamic range (ACS-180) or revealed discrepancies attributable to marked underestimation (Immulite 2000) with respect to ID/GC-MS. The Architect i2000 seems to be the only analyzer showing concordance with ID/GC-MS in the lower end of the range (47). Similar observations were made previously for the ACS-180 by Fitzgerald and Herold (28), who clearly demonstrated that this method gave concordant results primarily with samples from men and not with samples from women. This sex-specific effect was particularly marked at low testosterone concentrations, for which ACS-180 gave values higher than those obtained by ID/GC-MS, as reported by Jockenhövel et al. (49). Wheeler et al.(29), using serum pools with testosterone concentrations established by ID/GC-MS, demonstrated that the ACS-180 significantly overestimated testosterone concentrations in both female and male ranges.
Our study provides a broad view of the potential of most of the available automated nonisotopic and isotopic testosterone immunoassays to measure testosterone concentrations with accuracy in various groups of individuals reflecting the wide range of testosterone concentrations encountered in clinical practice. In samples from males, the median testosterone concentrations obtained by all immunoassays but the Architect i2000, Immuno-1, and Coat-A-Count DPC differed significantly from those obtained by ID/GC-MS (Table 4
). This preliminary analysis did not provide information about the scatter of the results between each immunoassay and ID/GC-MS. The equation of the weighted Deming regression analysis showed that all immunoassays but the AutoDelfia were quite well correlated with ID/GC-MS. The slopes were evenly distributed close to 1.0, with 7–10% variation (excepted for the Immulite 2000), and intercepts were highly dispersed.
For some immunoassays, the agreement with ID/GC-MS was not so good, as shown by the line of best fit for these assays (Fig. 1
in the online Data Supplement). Plots clearly showed that the Vitros Eci, Vidas, Elecsys 2010, and RIA Immunotech underestimated testosterone concentrations over the concentration ranges tested. In contrast, the ACS-180 overestimated testosterone concentrations in the same range (Fig. 1
in the online Data Supplement). The Bland–Altman analysis showed that the highest magnitudes of disagreement (mean difference >4 nmol/L) were observed with the Vidas, Elecsys 2010, and RIA Immunotech. The ratio method confirmed that these three assays and the Vitros Eci clearly underestimated testosterone concentrations over the male concentration range (Fig. 3
). We have analyzed the results obtained for samples from men with testosterone concentrations around the cutoff for hypogonadal status. Two methods, ACS-180 and AutoDelfia, overestimated testosterone values in this part of the concentration range and did not clearly separated normo- from hypogonadal individuals. It could be assumed that this observation could interfere with the capacity of these immunoassays to adequately distinguish men with low-normal testosterone concentrations from hypogonadal and/or androgen-blocked men. This could be directly addressed by investigating such individuals and studying their follow-up under treatment.
In samples from women, the mean testosterone concentrations measured by all immunoassays but the Vidas and Vitros Eci differed significantly from those measured by ID/GC-MS (Table 4
). In addition, the equation obtained by weighted Deming regression analysis showed that all methods were less well correlated with ID/GC-MS (Table 5
). Slopes were clearly >1.0 (excepted for Elecsys 2010) and were widely dispersed. Intercepts were also dispersed. The results obtained by all immunoassays did not clearly agree with ID/GC-MS, as shown by the lines of best fit (Fig. 1
in the online Data Supplement). The Immulite 2000, Architect i2000, AutoDelfia, and ACS-180 markedly overestimated testosterone concentrations. The Immulite 2000 gave the worst results in terms of bias, with dispersion of the results over the entire concentration range, and in term of the correlation coefficient obtained (Fig. 1
of the online Data Supplement and Table 5
). The Bland–Altman analysis showed that the highest magnitudes of disagreement (mean difference >2 nmol/L) were for the Immulite 2000, AutoDelfia, and ACS-180 (Table 4
). The plots from the ratio method showed a marked overestimation of testosterone concentrations with a high degree of scattering for the Immulite 2000, AutoDelfia, and to a lesser extent, Immuno-1 (Fig. 3
). These observations could be reinforcing by the imprecision of these methods (particularly the Immulite 2000; Table 1
). In a clinical situation, most if not all the immunoassays tested were unable to adequately distinguish females with testosterone concentrations within the reference interval for women from females with abnormal testosterone concentrations. The Elecsys 2010 may adversely affect clinical decision-making by giving testosterone results within the reference interval for women diagnosed with abnormal testosterone values and hirsutism.
There are several possible reasons for the lack of agreement between the results obtained with the immunoassays tested and ID/GC-MS for human samples. The first is the so-called matrix effect: immunoassays were performed, as recommended by the manufacturers, with no extraction steps. Thus, certain compounds present in serum, such as lipids and proteins, specifically binding globulins [e.g., sex-hormone-binding globulin (SHBG)], may interfere with the immunoassay. This effect has been observed in isotopic immunoassays (26)(50)(51), although the authors of another study obtained conflicting results (52). In a more recent study, Boots et al.(31) also reported such an effect. A similar effect has also been observed in nonisotopic assays (29). The interference involved in the matrix effect may contribute to the divergence of the results obtained by ID/GC-MS and immunoassays and may account for the marked overestimation of testosterone concentrations observed with the ACS-180 and, to a lesser extent, with the Immuno-1 over the entire range of testosterone concentrations (Fig. 3
). This discrepancy is consistent with high blank values. It may also account for the marked underestimation of testosterone concentrations observed with the Elecsys 2010 and, to a lesser extent, with the Vidas and Vitros Eci, probably resulting from excessive correction of the matrix effect. The addition of steroid-releasing agents is unlikely to increase the accuracy of these three immunoassays (ACS-180, AutoDelfia, and Elecsys 2010).
Another possible reasons for the lack of agreement between the results obtained with the immunoassays tested and ID/GC-MS for human samples is the cross-reactivity of the antibody. The immunoassay protocols included the use of specific polyclonal (ACS-180, Immuno-1, Vidas, Immulite 2000, AutoDelfia, RIA Immunotech, and Coat-A-Count DPC) or monoclonal (Architect i2000, Vitros Eci, and Elecsys 2010) antibodies (Table 1
), but the antibodies did not seem sufficient to increase the specificity of the immunoassay. Indeed, direct immunoassays display cross-reactivity with structurally related steroids (53) or therapeutic agents that also interact with SHBG in the serum (54). Interactions have also been observed between steroid tracers, the corresponding antibodies, and SHBG. Thus, the binding of other nontritiated tracers to serum proteins may be a source of interference in some direct steroid immunoassays, depending on their affinity for SHBG and the antibody used (50)(55). Together, these factors led to overestimation of steroid concentrations.
Other possible reasons for the lack of agreement between the results obtained with the immunoassays tested and ID/GC-MS for human samples include the limit of detection and functional sensitivity, which are particularly important for the determination of low (<1.7 nmol/L) and very low (0.17 nmol/L) testosterone concentrations (1)(22). Testosterone concentrations were determined in male and female infants (age range, 2–12 years; n = 11); in all but two samples, the testosterone concentration was <0.15 nmol/L, the limit of detection of our ID/GC-MS. We observed a high degree of variability among immunoassays, as shown in Table 3
. The failure of the Elecsys 2010 to detect low testosterone concentrations contradicts the analytical characteristics provided by the manufacturer in the package insert (Tables 1
and 3
). When we considered the expected ranges of values in both female adults and in female and male infants (Table 3
), we observed discrepancies between these values and the potential of the assay to detect testosterone at low or very low concentrations. This was true for both the Architect i2000 and Elecsys 2010, for which the expected values in infants were unrelated to the analytical characteristics of these assays, including functional sensitivity (0.48 nmol/L for Architect and 0.42 nmol/L for Elecsys 2010; Tables 1
and 3
). It was also true for the lower limit of the range of values for samples from women, especially for the Immulite 2000, ACS-180, Elecsys 2010, and Coat-A-Count DPC. Unfortunately, this question is still in debate for the Immuno-1, Vidas, Vitros Eci, AutoDelfia, and RIA Immunotech because of the absence of defined values. It is unlikely that these immunoassays could achieve these very low expected values with respect to their relatively high imprecision in the low end of the testosterone range (Table 1
).
Otherwise, in females, the upper limits of the testosterone concentrations were comparable for all assays but the Immulite 2000 (4.16 nmol/L), AutoDelfia (3.70 nmol/L), and Vidas (3.12 nmol/L). However, when the main analytical characteristics and performances of each assay in the female range were considered, it should be stated that two groups of immunoassays, compared with ID/GC-MS, could be defined. One group of methods, including the Immulite 2000, ACS-180, AutoDelfia, Architect i2000, RIA Immunotech, Coat-A-Count DPC, and Immuno-1, was characterized mainly (to different degrees) by results that differed significantly from those obtained by ID/GC-MS, a high magnitude of disagreement, wide scatter of the data, and a considerable percentage of individuals with abnormal testosterone concentrations when compared with the upper limit of the ID/GC-MS method. The second group of methods, including the Vitros Eci and Vidas, was characterized by results that were not significantly different from those obtained by ID/GC-MS, lower dispersion of the data, and lower percentages of individuals with abnormal testosterone concentrations when compared with the upper limit of the ID/GC-MS method. However, for high or very high percentages of individuals with abnormal testosterone concentrations as measured by ID/GC-MS, the results obtained by the Vitros Eci, Vidas, and Elecsys 2010 were within the reference interval. This tendency was not improved when corrected by the upper limit of each respective testosterone assay. Overall our results did not allow us to define a strategy or algorithm for each assay to assess how automated nonisotopic testosterone immunoassay methods can and should be used to evaluate female patients in clinical practice.
In conclusion, none of the immunoassays tested was reliable enough for the investigation of the very low and low testosterone concentrations (0.17–1.7 nmol/L) expected in sera from children and women. These assays are therefore unlikely to be useful for diagnosis, follow-up of sexual differentiation, or general use in pediatric surveys. In addition, we consider two of these assays (ACS-180 and AutoDelfia) questionable at the low limit of testosterone concentrations in men. This observation should be confirmed.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
-Hydroxyprogesterone, 4-androstenedione, and testosterone profiled by routine stable isotope dilution/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in plasma of children. Pediatr Res 1995;38:76-80.[Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:
|
|
 |
|
  P. M. Cawthon, K. E. Ensrud, G. A. Laughlin, J. A. Cauley, T.-T. L. Dam, E. Barrett-Connor, H. A. Fink, A. R. Hoffman, E. Lau, N. E. Lane, et al. Sex Hormones and Frailty in Older Men: The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., October 1, 2009; 94(10): 3806 - 3815. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. S. LeBlanc, C. M. Nielson, L. M. Marshall, J. A. Lapidus, E. Barrett-Connor, K. E. Ensrud, A. R. Hoffman, G. Laughlin, C. Ohlsson, E. S. Orwoll, et al. The Effects of Serum Testosterone, Estradiol, and Sex Hormone Binding Globulin Levels on Fracture Risk in Older Men J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., September 1, 2009; 94(9): 3337 - 3346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. B. Yeap, Z. Hyde, O. P. Almeida, P. E. Norman, S. A. P. Chubb, K. Jamrozik, L. Flicker, and G. J. Hankey Lower Testosterone Levels Predict Incident Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack in Older Men J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 2009; 94(7): 2353 - 2359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Swingler, A. Awala, and U. Gordon Hirsutism in young women Obstet Gynaecol (Lond), April 1, 2009; 11(2): 101 - 107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Sartorius, L. P Ly, K. Sikaris, R. McLachlan, and D. J Handelsman Predictive accuracy and sources of variability in calculated free testosterone estimates Ann Clin Biochem, March 1, 2009; 46(2): 137 - 143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. M. Kushnir, T. Naessen, D. Kirilovas, A. Chaika, J. Nosenko, I. Mogilevkina, A. L. Rockwood, K. Carlstrom, and J. Bergquist Steroid Profiles in Ovarian Follicular Fluid from Regularly Menstruating Women and Women after Ovarian Stimulation Clin. Chem., March 1, 2009; 55(3): 519 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Wang, E. Nieschlag, R. Swerdloff, H. M. Behre, W. J. Hellstrom, L. J. Gooren, J. M. Kaufman, J.-J. Legros, B. Lunenfeld, A. Morales, et al. Investigation, Treatment, and Monitoring of Late-Onset Hypogonadism in Males: ISA, ISSAM, EAU, EAA, and ASA Recommendations J Androl, January 1, 2009; 30(1): 1 - 9. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C Wang, E Nieschlag, R Swerdloff, H M Behre, W J Hellstrom, L J Gooren, J M Kaufman, J-J Legros, B Lunenfeld, A Morales, et al. Investigation, treatment and monitoring of late-onset hypogonadism in males: ISA, ISSAM, EAU, EAA and ASA recommendations Eur. J. Endocrinol., November 1, 2008; 159(5): 507 - 514. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Shiraishi, P. W. N. Lee, A. Leung, V. H. H. Goh, R. S. Swerdloff, and C. Wang Simultaneous Measurement of Serum Testosterone and Dihydrotestosterone by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Clin. Chem., November 1, 2008; 54(11): 1855 - 1863. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M. Thienpont, K. Van Uytfanghe, S. Blincko, C. S. Ramsay, H. Xie, R. C. Doss, B. G. Keevil, L. J. Owen, A. L. Rockwood, M. M. Kushnir, et al. State-of-the-Art of Serum Testosterone Measurement by Isotope Dilution-Liquid Chromatography- Tandem Mass Spectrometry Clin. Chem., August 1, 2008; 54(8): 1290 - 1297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Hancock, R. A Still, A. M Fielding, J. F Doran, and J. W Stephens A rare cause of Cushing's syndrome demonstrates analytical discrepancies between the Roche E170 and Bayer Centaur testosterone assays Ann Clin Biochem, May 1, 2008; 45(3): 328 - 330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Martin, R. J. Chang, D. A. Ehrmann, L. Ibanez, R. A. Lobo, R. L. Rosenfield, J. Shapiro, V. M. Montori, and B. A. Swiglo Evaluation and Treatment of Hirsutism in Premenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., April 1, 2008; 93(4): 1105 - 1120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Swerdloff and C. Wang Free Testosterone Measurement by the Analog Displacement Direct Assay: Old Concerns and New Evidence Clin. Chem., March 1, 2008; 54(3): 458 - 460. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. B. Araujo, G. R. Esche, V. Kupelian, A. B. O'Donnell, T. G. Travison, R. E. Williams, R. V. Clark, and J. B. McKinlay Prevalence of Symptomatic Androgen Deficiency in Men J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., November 1, 2007; 92(11): 4241 - 4247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Z. Stanczyk, J. S. Lee, and R. J. Santen Standardization of Steroid Hormone Assays: Why, How, and When? Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., September 1, 2007; 16(9): 1713 - 1719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Y. Takahashi, P. Votruba, M. Abu-Rub, K. Mielke, and J. D. Veldhuis Age Attenuates Testosterone Secretion Driven by Amplitude-Varying Pulses of Recombinant Human Luteinizing Hormone during Acute Gonadotrope Inhibition in Healthy Men J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., September 1, 2007; 92(9): 3626 - 3632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Wang, P. Christenson, and R. Swerdloff Clinical Relevance of Racial and Ethnic Differences in Sex Steroids J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 2007; 92(7): 2433 - 2435. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. L. Nielsen, C. Hagen, K. Wraae, K. Brixen, P. H. Petersen, E. Haug, R. Larsen, and M. Andersen Visceral and Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Assessed by Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Relation to Circulating Androgens, Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin, and Luteinizing Hormone in Young Men J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 2007; 92(7): 2696 - 2705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. B Yeap, O. P Almeida, Z. Hyde, P. E Norman, S A P. Chubb, K. Jamrozik, and L. Flicker In men older than 70 years, total testosterone remains stable while free testosterone declines with age. The Health in Men Study Eur. J. Endocrinol., May 1, 2007; 156(5): 585 - 594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Rosner, R. J. Auchus, R. Azziz, P. M. Sluss, and H. Raff Utility, Limitations, and Pitfalls in Measuring Testosterone: An Endocrine Society Position Statement J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., February 1, 2007; 92(2): 405 - 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Orwoll, L. C. Lambert, L. M. Marshall, J. Blank, E. Barrett-Connor, J. Cauley, K. Ensrud, S. R. Cummings, and for the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study Group Endogenous testosterone levels, physical performance, and fall risk in older men. Arch Intern Med, October 23, 2006; 166(19): 2124 - 2131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Bergada, C. Milani, P. Bedecarras, L. Andreone, M. G. Ropelato, S. Gottlieb, C. Bergada, S. Campo, and R. A. Rey Time Course of the Serum Gonadotropin Surge, Inhibins, and Anti-Mullerian Hormone in Normal Newborn Males during the First Month of Life J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., October 1, 2006; 91(10): 4092 - 4098. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Lee, B. Ettinger, F. Z. Stanczyk, E. Vittinghoff, V. Hanes, J. A. Cauley, W. Chandler, J. Settlage, M. S. Beattie, E. Folkerd, et al. Comparison of Methods to Measure Low Serum Estradiol Levels in Postmenopausal Women J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., October 1, 2006; 91(10): 3791 - 3797. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. E. Wierman, R. Basson, S. R. Davis, S. Khosla, K. K. Miller, W. Rosner, and N. Santoro Androgen Therapy in Women: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., October 1, 2006; 91(10): 3697 - 3710. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. de Ronde, Y. T. van der Schouw, H. A.P. Pols, L. J.G. Gooren, M. Muller, D. E. Grobbee, and F. H. de Jong Calculation of Bioavailable and Free Testosterone in Men: A Comparison of 5 Published Algorithms Clin. Chem., September 1, 2006; 52(9): 1777 - 1784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Handelsman The Rationale for Banning Human Chorionic Gonadotropin and Estrogen Blockers in Sport J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., May 1, 2006; 91(5): 1646 - 1653. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Munzer, C. J. Rosen, S.M. Harman, K. M. Pabst, C. St. Clair, J. D. Sorkin, and M. R. Blackman Effects of GH and/or sex steroids on circulating IGF-I and IGFBPs in healthy, aged women and men Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, May 1, 2006; 290(5): E1006 - E1013. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Orwoll, L. C. Lambert, L. M. Marshall, K. Phipps, J. Blank, E. Barrett-Connor, J. Cauley, K. Ensrud, S. Cummings, and for the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study Group Testosterone and Estradiol among Older Men J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., April 1, 2006; 91(4): 1336 - 1344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Kushnir, A. L. Rockwood, W. L. Roberts, E. G. Pattison, A. M. Bunker, R. L. Fitzgerald, and A. W. Meikle Performance Characteristics of a Novel Tandem Mass Spectrometry Assay For Serum Testosterone Clin. Chem., January 1, 2006; 52(1): 120 - 128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. L. Rosenfield Hirsutism N. Engl. J. Med., December 15, 2005; 353(24): 2578 - 2588. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Sikaris, R. I. McLachlan, R. Kazlauskas, D. de Kretser, C. A. Holden, and D. J. Handelsman Reproductive Hormone Reference Intervals for Healthy Fertile Young Men: Evaluation of Automated Platform Assays J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., November 1, 2005; 90(11): 5928 - 5936. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. Cawood, H. P. Field, C. G. Ford, S. Gillingwater, A. Kicman, D. Cowan, and J. H. Barth Testosterone Measurement by Isotope-Dilution Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Validation of a Method for Routine Clinical Practice Clin. Chem., August 1, 2005; 51(8): 1472 - 1479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. B. Becker, A. P. Arnold, K. J. Berkley, J. D. Blaustein, L. A. Eckel, E. Hampson, J. P. Herman, S. Marts, W. Sadee, M. Steiner, et al. Strategies and Methods for Research on Sex Differences in Brain and Behavior Endocrinology, April 1, 2005; 146(4): 1650 - 1673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. P Ly and D. J Handelsman Empirical estimation of free testosterone from testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin immunoassays Eur. J. Endocrinol., March 1, 2005; 152(3): 471 - 478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. M. van Anders and E. Hampson Waist-to-Hip Ratio Is Positively Associated With Bioavailable Testosterone but Negatively Associated With Sexual Desire in Healthy Premenopausal Women Psychosom Med, March 1, 2005; 67(2): 246 - 250. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. I. McLachlan and C. A. Allan Defining the Prevalence and Incidence of Androgen Deficiency in Aging Men: Where Are the Goal Posts? J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., December 1, 2004; 89(12): 5916 - 5919. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Bassindale, D. A. Cowan, S. Dale, A. J. Hutt, A. R. Leeds, M. J. Wheeler, and A. T. Kicman Effects of Oral Administration of Androstenedione on Plasma Androgens in Young Women Using Hormonal Contraception J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., December 1, 2004; 89(12): 6030 - 6038. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Z. Stanczyk Extraction/Chromatographic Testosterone RIA Can Be Used as the "Gold Standard" for Determining the Reliability of Direct Testosterone Immunoassay Measurements Clin. Chem., November 1, 2004; 50(11): 2219 - 2220. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Herold and R. L. Fitzgerald Drs. Herold and Fitzgerald respond: Clin. Chem., November 1, 2004; 50(11): 2220 - 2221. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Van Uytfanghe, D. Stockl, J. M. Kaufman, T. Fiers, H. A. Ross, A. P. De Leenheer, and L. M. Thienpont Evaluation of a Candidate Reference Measurement Procedure for Serum Free Testosterone Based on Ultrafiltration and Isotope Dilution-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Clin. Chem., November 1, 2004; 50(11): 2101 - 2110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Adams, A. E. Taylor, W. F. Crowley Jr., and J. E. Hall Polycystic Ovarian Morphology with Regular Ovulatory Cycles: Insights into the Pathophysiology of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., September 1, 2004; 89(9): 4343 - 4350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L.M. Rivera-Woll, M. Papalia, S.R. Davis, and H.G. Burger Androgen insufficiency in women: diagnostic and therapeutic implications Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2004; 10(5): 421 - 432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.-H. Stenman Standardization of Assays for Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Clin. Chem., May 1, 2004; 50(5): 798 - 800. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Z. Stanczyk Reliability of Extraction/Chromatography RIAs Clin. Chem., April 1, 2004; 50(4): 778 - 778. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Herold and R. L. Fitzgerald Reliability of Extraction/Chromatography RIAs: Response Clin. Chem., April 1, 2004; 50(4): 778 - 778. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Torjesen, L. Sandnes, and P. Boudou Serum Testosterone in Women as Measured by an Automated Immunoassay and a RIA * Dr. Boudou responds for the authors of the article cited above: Clin. Chem., March 1, 2004; 50(3): 678 - 679. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Matsumoto and W. J. Bremner Serum Testosterone Assays--Accuracy Matters J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., February 1, 2004; 89(2): 520 - 524. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Wang, D. H. Catlin, L. M. Demers, B. Starcevic, and R. S. Swerdloff Measurement of Total Serum Testosterone in Adult Men: Comparison of Current Laboratory Methods Versus Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., February 1, 2004; 89(2): 534 - 543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
) and men (n = 50; •) obtained by 10 immunoassays and ID/GC-MS method as evaluated by the ratio method (