Cited by 203Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlHormonal and reproductive studiesAdrenal Hormones and Disorders

Immunoassays for Testosterone in Women: Better than a Guess?

Herold, David A, Fitzgerald, Robert L·2003·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Recent developments in the field of mass spectrometry have provided the accuracy and sensitivity to evaluate very-low-abundance steroids such as testosterone in female and pediatric patients. In this issue of Clinical Chemistry, Taieb et al. (1) present the most comprehensive evaluation of automated testosterone immunoassays to date. They compared 10 commercially available immunoassays with isotope-dilution gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (ID-GC/MS) and reached the inescapable conclusion that testosterone immunoassay results for specimens from females are inaccurate. Similar data have been reported for individual testosterone immunoassays previously (2), but Taieb et al. (1) are the first to show that for every commercially available testosterone assay studied, the values are in error—by a factor of 2 on average and in some cases by a factor of almost 5. Are assays that miss target values by 200–500% meaningful? Guessing would be more accurate and additionally could provide cheaper and faster testosterone results for females—without even having to draw the patient’s blood. By limiting all guesses to a narrow range, e.g., 2.04–2.44 nmol/L, the results would rarely be off by more than a factor of 3. Using a random number generator, we generated values close to the average female concentration measured by Taieb et al. (they were kind enough to share their data with us as an aid to writing this editorial). A Bland–Altman plot for guessed values vs ID-GC/MS values had a mean difference for the 55 female samples of 0 nmol/L with a SD of the differences of 1.2 nmol/L. This SD compares favorably with those presented by Taieb et al. (1) in Table 4. Although not intended to be a statistically rigorous proof that random numbers are better than measuring female testosterone values with immunoassays, guessing appears to be nearly as good as most commercially available immunoassays and clearly superior to some! Because medical test decisions are not made in a vacuum, a patient’s appearance and presenting complaints would give the person guessing the serum testosterone concentration important information. Women with rapidly evolving signs and symptoms of viralization will have dramatically increased testosterone [>10.4 nmol/L (300 ng/dL)] (3), whereas women with late-onset 21-hydroxylase deficiency have moderately increased testosterone [∼4.2 nmol/L (∼120 ng/dL)] (4). Using this information while making an educated guess should give dramatically improved results. This would make educated guessing the better choice with the added benefits of rapid turnaround time and very low cost. What are the implications of the results of the study by Taieb et al. (1) for epidemiologic research? A recent study by Dorgan et al. (5) designed to address this issue concluded “that although absolute concentrations may differ for some hormones, RIA and mass spectrometry can yield similar estimates of between subject differences in serum concentrations of most steroid sex hormones commonly measured in population studies”. The testosterone assay that Dorgan et al. were comparing with MS included an extraction and column purification. Many people believe that liquid-liquid extraction combined with column purification before RIA analysis provides accurate results for testosterone in specimens from females. However, we have previously demonstrated that RIAs that include extraction and column purification steps do not agree well with ID-GC/MS (6). An important limitation in the study by Dorgan et al. (5) is that for female specimens they tested only sample pools (low, mid, and high). Determining how the assay would work on individual patient samples is not possible when pooled samples are used. This is a critical flaw, because clinicians are concerned about the concentration of testosterone in an individual; in contrast, when pooled samples are analyzed, any cross-reacting substances in an individual sample are diluted in the rest of the pool. In Fig. 1 of their report, Taieb et al. (1) show that there is a wide degree of scatter when an extraction chromatography RIA is compared with ID-GC/MS for individual specimens. Although it does appear that extraction chromatography RIA is slightly more accurate than commercially available testosterone immunoassays, until an extraction chromatography RIA has been properly validated, results from epidemiologic studies based on these methodologies are also suspect. How can assays that are grossly inaccurate gain approval for use in diagnosis and treatment of endocrine abnormalities? Several factors warrant consideration. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration approval process for a new diagnostic assay when there is an existing, approved diagnostic assay consists of demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate assay in a premarket notification 510(k) process. For testosterone, one of the predicate devices that is acceptable for demonstrating substantial equivalence is the Chiron ACS-180 testos

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1373/49.8.1250

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herold, D. A., & Fitzgerald, R. L.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Herold, David A
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2003-08-01
Volume
49
Issue
8
Pages
1250-1251
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2044855260
Cited by
203
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hormonal and reproductive studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Adrenal Hormones and Disorders
Keywords
testosterone, women, viralization, hyperandrogenism, clinical decision-making, assay comparison, pediatric patients, Bland-Altman agreement, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, 17-hydroxypregnenolone
MeSH terms
Autoanalysis, Female, Humans, Immunoassay, Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Radioisotope Dilution Technique, Testosterone

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review