Eur J Endocrinol
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


DOI: 10.1530/eje.0.1400434
European Journal of Endocrinology, Vol 140, Issue 5, 434-437
Copyright © 1999 by European Society of Endocrinology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ciofu, A
Right arrow Articles by Schlumberger, M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ciofu, A
Right arrow Articles by Schlumberger, M

Clinical Studies

Catecholamine production in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

A Ciofu, E Baudin, P Chanson, AF Cailleux, E Comoy, JC Sabourin, M Ducreux, G Schaison, and M Schlumberger

Service de Medecine Nucleaire, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France.

OBJECTIVE: Amine precursor uptake and decarboxylation is a classical feature of gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Production of catecholamines was studied in GEP NET and non-NET patients. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was undertaken. METHODS: We studied catecholamine and metabolite secretion in 115 consecutive GEP NET patients and in 20 patients with non-NET. After specific extraction, vanilmandelic acid, homovanilic acid, catecholamines (norepinephrine, epinephrine, dopamine) and methoxylated derivates (metanephrine, normetanephrine, methoxytyramine) in urinary extracts were analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography. Results were indexed to the 24-h urinary creatinine levels. RESULTS: Among the 115 patients with NET, 9 (8%) had an increase of at least one urinary catecholamine or metabolite; in 7 out of the 9 the increase was slight being less than twice the upper value of the normal range. Elevated urinary dopamine (3 patients), methoxytyramine (6 patients), norepinephrine (2 patients) and normetanephrine (2 patients) were found. No increased urinary excretion of epinephrine nor metanephrine was observed. An adrenal mass existed in one of these nine patients but metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy was negative as was immunohistochemistry for epithelial markers. None of the 20 patients with non-NET demonstrated an increased excretion of catecholamine or metabolites. No relationships were found between catecholamine and metabolite excretions and patients' tumor and treatment characteristics. CONCLUSION: Production of catecholamines and metabolites is a rare event in GEP NET patients. Histological results, including positive immunohistochemistry for epithelial markers may help to diagnose GEP NET.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 European Society of Endocrinology.