Literature DB >> 19897672

Low sensitivity of glucagon provocative testing for diagnosis of pheochromocytoma.

Jacques W M Lenders1, Karel Pacak, Thanh-Truc Huynh, Yehonatan Sharabi, Massimo Mannelli, Gennady Bratslavsky, David S Goldstein, Stefan R Bornstein, Graeme Eisenhofer.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Pheochromocytomas can usually be confirmed or excluded using currently available biochemical tests of catecholamine excess. Follow-up tests are, nevertheless, often required to distinguish false-positive from true-positive results. The glucagon stimulation test represents one such test; its diagnostic utility is, however, unclear.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the diagnostic power of the glucagon test to exclude or confirm pheochromocytoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
SUBJECTS: Glucagon stimulation tests were carried out at three specialist referral centers in 64 patients with pheochromocytoma, 38 patients in whom the tumor was excluded, and in a reference group of 36 healthy volunteers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Plasma concentrations of norepinephrine and epinephrine were measured before and after glucagon administration. Several absolute and relative test criteria were used for calculating diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. Expression of the glucagon receptor was examined in pheochromocytoma tumor tissue from a subset of patients.
RESULTS: Larger than 3-fold increases in plasma norepinephrine after glucagon strongly predicted the presence of a pheochromocytoma (100% specificity and positive predictive value). However, irrespective of the various criteria examined, glucagon-provoked increases in plasma catecholamines revealed the presence of the tumor in less than 50% of affected patients. Diagnostic sensitivity was particularly low in patients with pheochromocytomas due to von Hippel-Lindau syndrome. Tumors from these patients showed no significant expression of the glucagon receptor.
CONCLUSION: The glucagon stimulation test offers insufficient diagnostic sensitivity for reliable exclusion or confirmation of pheochromocytoma. Because of this and the risk of hypertensive complications, the test should be abandoned in routine clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19897672      PMCID: PMC2805477          DOI: 10.1210/jc.2009-1850

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab        ISSN: 0021-972X            Impact factor:   5.958


  25 in total

1.  Characterization of the glucagon receptor in a pheochromocytoma.

Authors:  G S Levey; S R Weiss; E Ruiz
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  1975-04       Impact factor: 5.958

2.  Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: which test is best?

Authors:  Jacques W M Lenders; Karel Pacak; McClellan M Walther; W Marston Linehan; Massimo Mannelli; Peter Friberg; Harry R Keiser; David S Goldstein; Graeme Eisenhofer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-03-20       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Responses to glucagon in hypertensive patients with and without pheochromocytoma.

Authors:  E F Sebel; R D Hull; M Kleerekoper; G S Stokes
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  1974-06       Impact factor: 2.378

4.  Histamine and glucagon tests in diagnosis of pheochromocytoma.

Authors:  S G Sheps; F T Maher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1968-09-23       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Glucagon provocative test for pheochromocytoma.

Authors:  A M Lawrence
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1967-06       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Circulating and urinary catecholamines in pheochromocytoma. Diagnostic and pathophysiologic implications.

Authors:  E L Bravo; R C Tarazi; R W Gifford; B H Stewart
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1979-09-27       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  [Merits of the assay of plasma catecholamines in a glucagon test to diagnosis of pheochromocytoma (author's transl)].

Authors:  C Bernheim; P Jaillon; B Graisely; M Cloarec; J Debray; G Cheymol
Journal:  Nouv Presse Med       Date:  1978-02-18

8.  Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: how to distinguish true- from false-positive test results.

Authors:  Graeme Eisenhofer; David S Goldstein; McClellan M Walther; Peter Friberg; Jacques W M Lenders; Harry R Keiser; Karel Pacak
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 5.958

9.  Pheochromocytoma: state-of-the-art and future prospects.

Authors:  Emmanuel L Bravo; Rodrigo Tagle
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 19.871

10.  Evaluation of Endocrine Tests. C: glucagon and clonidine test in phaeochromocytoma.

Authors:  P H Bisschop; E P M Corssmit; S J Baas; M J Serlie; E Endert; W M Wiersinga; E Fliers
Journal:  Neth J Med       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.422

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: diagnosis, genetics, management, and treatment.

Authors:  Victoria L Martucci; Karel Pacak
Journal:  Curr Probl Cancer       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 3.187

2.  Phaeochromocytoma: a catecholamine and oxidative stress disorder.

Authors:  K Pacak
Journal:  Endocr Regul       Date:  2011-04

3.  Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma.

Authors:  Vitaly Kantorovich; Karel Pacak
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.453

Review 4.  Metabologenomics of Phaeochromocytoma and Paraganglioma: An Integrated Approach for Personalised Biochemical and Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Graeme Eisenhofer; Barbara Klink; Susan Richter; Jacques Wm Lenders; Mercedes Robledo
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2017-04

5.  Multidisciplinary practice guidelines for the diagnosis, genetic counseling and treatment of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas.

Authors:  R Garcia-Carbonero; F Matute Teresa; E Mercader-Cidoncha; M Mitjavila-Casanovas; M Robledo; I Tena; C Alvarez-Escola; M Arístegui; M R Bella-Cueto; C Ferrer-Albiach; F A Hanzu
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 3.405

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.