Metabolism of formestane in humans: Identification of urinary biomarkers for antidoping analysis

Abstract

Graphical abstract Figure. No Caption available. HighlightsFormestane is a substance prohibited in sports by WADA.There are differences on formestane metabolism depending on the administration route.Metabolic ratios allow to discriminate the foremestane administration route.Applying metabolic ratio may avoid unnecessary IRMS confirmation analyses. Abstract Formestane (4‐hydroxyandrost‐4‐ene‐3,17‐dione, 4OH‐AED) is an aromatase inhibitor prohibited in sports. In recent years, it has been demonstrated that it can also originate endogenously by the hydroxylation in C4 position of androstenedione. Thus, the use of isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) is mandatory according to the World Antidoping Agency (WADA) to discriminate endogenous from synthetic origin. In a previous work and after oral administrations of formestane (4OH‐AED), the ratio between the main formestane metabolite (4&agr;‐hydroxyepiandrosterone; 4OH‐EA) and formestane parent compound could help to identify the endogenous origin, avoiding unnecessary and costly IRMS confirmations. In the present work, we investigated whether the same criteria could also be applied after transdermal applications. Six volunteers were transdermally treated once with formestane. Urine samples were collected for 120 h postadministration and analyzed by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC–MS and GC–MS/MS). Formestane and its major metabolites were monitored. The kinetic profile of formestane and its main metabolites was found different between oral and transdermal application. A shift on the excretion of the metabolites compared to formestane itself that can be observed after the oral administration, is absent after the transdermal one. This makes that a simple criteria cannot be applied to differentiate the endogenous from the synthetic origin based on metabolic ratios. The ratio between 4‐hydroxyepiandrosterone and 4‐hydroxyandrosterone (4OH‐A) can be used to differentiate the route of administration. Ratios higher than one (4OH‐EA/4OH‐A > 1) are diagnostic of an oral administration. This allows to correctly interpret the 4OH‐EA/4OH‐AED ratio as proposed in our previous investigation. The results of this work demonstrate that the use of appropriate biomarkers (metabolic ratios) helps to reach correct conclusions without using complex and costly instrumentation approaches.