4.6 Article

Defining hyperandrogenism in polycystic ovary syndrome: measurement of testosterone and androstenedione by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and analysis by receiver operator characteristic plots

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 162, 期 3, 页码 611-615

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-09-0741

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Hyperandrogenism is one of the diagnostic criteria for the polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) despite no agreed definition of hyperandrogenism. In part, this is due to the quality of testosterone immunoassays. We have developed liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methods for analysing testosterone and androstenedione (Ad) to study their reference ranges and diagnostic utility in PCOS. Design, setting and subjects: A consecutive series of 122 women attending a reproductive medicine clinic. Methods: Blood samples were taken during the early follicular phase for measurement of LH, FSH, oestradiol, Ad, testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG). Retrospective case note analysis was used to determine the clinical features and ultrasound findings. Results: The incidence of PCOS was 13.9%. The reference interval for testosterone was <1.8 nmol/l and for Ad was 1.4-7.4 nmol/l. There were significant differences in total testosterone (P=0.001), Ad (P<0.05) and free androgen index (FAI; P<0.0001) between the women with and without PCOS. Diagnostic performance using receiver operator characteristic plots showed area under the curve (AUC) for FAI 0.81, testosterone 0.75 and Ad 0.66. The AUC for the LH: FSH ratio was 0.72. Conclusions: Our analysis of a consecutive series of women attending a reproductive clinic has provided an appropriate series on which to construct reference ranges for key androgens in women. Secondly, it has allowed us to conclude that early follicular serum testosterone measured using tandem mass spectrometry, FAI and the LH: FSH ratio are valuable laboratory tests in the diagnosis of PCOS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据