Takara Stanley1. 1. Pediatric Endocrine Unit, Program in Nutritional Metabolism, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. tstanley@partners.org
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) in childhood is challenging, in large part because of the lack of a true gold standard and the relatively poor performance of available diagnostic testing. This review discusses the recent literature on this topic. RECENT FINDINGS: Auxology and clinical judgment remain the foundation for the diagnosis of GHD. Provocative growth hormone testing is poorly reproducible, dependent on factors such as body composition and pubertal status, and further limited by significant variability among commercially available growth hormone assays. Measurement of insulin-like growth factor I and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 is not diagnostically useful in isolation but is helpful in combination with other diagnostic measures. Neuroimaging is also useful to inform diagnosis, as pituitary abnormalities suggest a higher likelihood of GHD persisting into adulthood. Although genetic testing is not routinely performed in the diagnosis of GHD at the present time, multiple recent reports raise the possibility that it may play a more important role in diagnosing GHD in the future. SUMMARY: Beyond physicians' integrated assessment of auxology, clinical presentation, and bone age, current tools to diagnose GHD are suboptimal. Recent literature emphasizes the need to reappraise our current practice and to consider new tools for diagnosis.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The diagnosis of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) in childhood is challenging, in large part because of the lack of a true gold standard and the relatively poor performance of available diagnostic testing. This review discusses the recent literature on this topic. RECENT FINDINGS: Auxology and clinical judgment remain the foundation for the diagnosis of GHD. Provocative growth hormone testing is poorly reproducible, dependent on factors such as body composition and pubertal status, and further limited by significant variability among commercially available growth hormone assays. Measurement of insulin-like growth factor I and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 is not diagnostically useful in isolation but is helpful in combination with other diagnostic measures. Neuroimaging is also useful to inform diagnosis, as pituitary abnormalities suggest a higher likelihood of GHD persisting into adulthood. Although genetic testing is not routinely performed in the diagnosis of GHD at the present time, multiple recent reports raise the possibility that it may play a more important role in diagnosing GHD in the future. SUMMARY: Beyond physicians' integrated assessment of auxology, clinical presentation, and bone age, current tools to diagnose GHD are suboptimal. Recent literature emphasizes the need to reappraise our current practice and to consider new tools for diagnosis.
Authors: Kyriaki S Alatzoglou; James P Turton; Daniel Kelberman; Peter E Clayton; Ameeta Mehta; Charles Buchanan; Simon Aylwin; Elisabeth C Crowne; Henrik T Christesen; Niels T Hertel; Peter J Trainer; Martin O Savage; Jamal Raza; Kausik Banerjee; Sunil K Sinha; Svetlana Ten; Talat Mushtaq; Raja Brauner; Timothy D Cheetham; Peter C Hindmarsh; Primus E Mullis; Mehul T Dattani Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: R G Rosenfeld; K Albertsson-Wikland; F Cassorla; S D Frasier; Y Hasegawa; R L Hintz; S Lafranchi; B Lippe; L Loriaux; S Melmed Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: E Ghigo; J Bellone; G Aimaretti; S Bellone; S Loche; M Cappa; E Bartolotta; F Dammacco; F Camanni Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: M Maghnie; C Strigazzi; C Tinelli; M Autelli; M Cisternino; S Loche; F Severi Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Tuan V Nguyen; Anne E Nelson; Christopher J Howe; Markus J Seibel; Robert C Baxter; David J Handelsman; Ray Kazlauskas; Ken K Ho Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Everlayny Fiorot Costalonga; Sonir R Antonini; Gil Guerra-Junior; Berenice Bilharinho Mendonca; Ivo J P Arnhold; Alexander A L Jorge Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2008-11-04 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Stephanie C Hsu; Sarah Bartz; Laura Pyle; Mary Fete; Shanlee Davis; Rebecca Ohman-Hanson; Timothy J Fete; Kathleen J Motil Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Ralph E Vatner; Andrzej Niemierko; Madhusmita Misra; Elizabeth A Weyman; Claire P Goebel; David H Ebb; Robin M Jones; Mary S Huang; Anita Mahajan; David R Grosshans; Arnold C Paulino; Takara Stanley; Shannon M MacDonald; Nancy J Tarbell; Torunn I Yock Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rushaid N A AlJurayyan; Nasir A M AlJurayyan; Hala G Omer; Sharifah D A Alissa; Hessah M N AlOtaibi; Reem A H AlKhalifah; Amir M I Babiker; Sarar Mohamed Journal: Sudan J Paediatr Date: 2017
Authors: E H Nielsen; J O Jørgensen; P Bjerre; M Andersen; C Andersen; U Feldt-Rasmussen; L Poulsgaard; L Ø Kristensen; J Astrup; J Jørgensen; P Laurberg Journal: Pituitary Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.107
Authors: Bryan Krastins; Amol Prakash; David A Sarracino; Dobrin Nedelkov; Eric E Niederkofler; Urban A Kiernan; Randall Nelson; Maryann S Vogelsang; Gouri Vadali; Alejandra Garces; Jennifer N Sutton; Scott Peterman; Gregory Byram; Bruno Darbouret; Joëlle R Pérusse; Nabil G Seidah; Benoit Coulombe; Johan Gobom; Erik Portelius; Josef Pannee; Kaj Blennow; Vathany Kulasingam; Lewis Couchman; Caje Moniz; Mary F Lopez Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 3.281