HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) An erratum has been published All Versions of this Article: EJE-09-0172v1 161/1/131    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Procopiou, M. Articles by Grossman, A. B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Procopiou, M. Articles by Grossman, A. B

Evaluation of an enzyme immunoassay for plasma-free metanephrines in the diagnosis of catecholamine-secreting tumors

Department of Endocrinology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London EC1A 7BE, UK¹ Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Royal London Hospital, 4th Floor Pathology and Pharmacy Building, 80 Newark Street, London E1 2ES, UK

(Correspondence should be addressed to A B Grossman; Email: a.b.grossman{at}qmul.ac.uk)

^* (M Procopiou is now at Hôpital de la Providence, Faubourg de l'Hôpital 81, CH-2001 Neuchâtel, Switzerland)

Objective: To define the test characteristics of an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for plasma-free metanephrines (metanephrine and normetanephrine) in the diagnosis of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma.

Design: Prospective observational design from a single University Hospital. Twenty-four hour urine for catecholamines and plasma for free metanephrines were collected from patients with a clinical suspicion of pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma. Patient records were reviewed for clinical data, follow-up, imaging and laboratory results to establish or exclude the diagnosis of pheochromocytoma.

Patients and methods: Out of 178 consecutive patients, 10 had a paraganglioma and 12 had a pheochromocytoma: 156 were finally judged not to harbour active tumors and were therefore considered as controls. The main outcome measure was the diagnosis or exclusion of paraganglioma or pheochromocytoma and test characteristics of plasma-free metanephrines measured by EIA.

Results: Urinary epinephrine had a sensitivity of 45.5% and norepinephrine a sensitivity of 75% (98.8% specificity) for the diagnosis of pheochromocytoma. Plasma-free metanephrine and normetanephrine both had a sensitivity of 66.7% and a specificity of 100%, but when combined (either positive) they demonstrated a 91.7% sensitivity with a preserved specificity of 100%. For the diagnosis of paraganglioma, urinary norepinephrine gave slightly better results than plasma-free metanephrines, but combined testing was of no additional value.

Conclusions: Plasma-free metanephrines measured by EIA have better diagnostic test characteristics than urinary catecholamines in the diagnosis of pheochromocytoma. The EIA offers a simple and effective measurement of plasma-free metanephrines.