Comparison of eight routine unpublished LC-MS/MS methods for the simultaneous measurement of testosterone and androstenedione in serum

Rahel M Büttler, Frans Martens, Mariëtte T Ackermans, Andrew S Davison, Antonius E van Herwaarden, Linda Kortz, Johannes G Krabbe, Eef G W Lentjes, Charlotte Syme, Rachel Webster, Marinus A Blankenstein, Annemieke C Heijboer

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND: Liquid-chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) has become the method of choice in steroid hormone measurement. However, little information on the mutual agreement of LC-MS/MS methods is available. We compared eight routine unpublished LC-MS/MS methods for the simultaneous measurement of testosterone and androstenedione.

    METHODS: Sixty random serum samples from male and female volunteers were analysed in duplicate by eight routine LC-MS/MS methods. We performed Passing-Bablok regression analyses and calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients to assess the agreement of the methods investigated with one published method known to be accurate. Intra-assay CV of each method was calculated from duplicate results, recoveries for each method were calculated from six spiked samples. Furthermore, a CV between the investigated methods was calculated.

    RESULTS: The concentrations ranged from 0.05-1.26nmol/L, 6.15-24.44nmol/L and 0.15-4.78nmol/L for testosterone in females, testosterone in males and androstenedione, respectively. The intra-assay CVs were between 3.7-16.0%, 0.9-5.2% and 1.2-9.5% for testosterone in females, testosterone in males and androstenedione, respectively. The slopes of the regression lines ranged between 0.90-1.25, 0.87-1.24 and 0.94-1.31 for testosterone concentrations in females, all testosterone values and androstenedione, respectively. Inter-method CVs were 24%, 14% and 29% for testosterone for concentrations in females and males and androstenedione, respectively. These compare unfavourably to the variation found earlier in published methods.

    CONCLUSION: Although most routine LC-MS/MS methods investigated here showed a reasonable agreement, some of the assays showed a high variation. The observed differences in standardization should be taken into account when applying reference values, or should, preferably, be solved.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)112-118
    Number of pages7
    JournalClinica Chimica Acta
    Volume454
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 8 Jan 2016

    Keywords

    • LC–MS/MS
    • Testosterone
    • Androstenedione
    • Androgens
    • Steroid hormones
    • Method comparison

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of eight routine unpublished LC-MS/MS methods for the simultaneous measurement of testosterone and androstenedione in serum'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this