A review of the management of positive biochemical screening for phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma: a salutary tale

Biochemical Assessment of Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma

Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL) require prompt consideration and efficient diagnosis and treatment to minimize associated morbidity and mortality. Once considered, appropriate biochemical testing is key to diagnosis. Advances in understanding catecholamine metabolism have clarified why measurements of the O-methylated catecholamine metabolites rather than the catecholamines themselves are important for effective diagnosis. These metabolites, normetanephrine and metanephrine, produced respectively from norepinephrine and epinephrine, can be measured in plasma or urine, with choice according to available methods or presentation of patients. For patients with signs and symptoms of catecholamine excess, either test will invariably establish the diagnosis, whereas the plasma test provides higher sensitivity than urinary metanephrines for patients screened due to an incidentaloma or genetic predisposition, particularly for small tumors or in patients with an asymptomatic presentation. Additional measurements of plasma methoxytyramine can be important for some tumors, such as paragangliomas, and for surveillance of patients at risk of metastatic disease. Avoidance of false-positive test results is best achieved by plasma measurements with appropriate reference intervals and preanalytical precautions, including sampling blood in the fully supine position. Follow-up of positive results, including optimization of preanalytics for repeat tests or whether to proceed directly to anatomic imaging or confirmatory clonidine tests, depends on the test results, which can also suggest likely size, adrenal vs extra-adrenal location, underlying biology, or even metastatic involvement of a suspected tumor. Modern biochemical testing now makes diagnosis of PPGL relatively simple. Integration of artificial intelligence into the process should make it possible to fine-tune these advances.

Case report of a phantom pheochromocytoma

Plasma free metanephrines or urinary fractionated metanephrines are the biochemical tests of choice for the diagnosis of pheochromocytoma as they have greater sensitivity and specificity than catecholamines for pheochromocytoma detection. This case highlights the preanalytical factors which can influence metanephrine measurement and cause a false positive result. It describes a patient with a high pre-test probability of pheochromocytoma due to hypertension and a past medical history of adrenalectomy for a purported pheochromocytoma in her home country. When biochemical screening revealed grossly elevated urine normetanephrine in the presence of a previously identified right adrenal lesion, there was high clinical suspicion of a pheochromocytoma. However, functional imaging did not support this view which prompted additional testing with plasma metanephrines. Results for plasma and urine metanephrines were discordant and preanalytical drug interference was suspected. Patient medications were reviewed and sulfasalazine, an anti-inflammatory drug was identified as the most likely analytical interferent. Urinary fractionated metanephrines were re-analysed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and all metanephrines were within their reference intervals. This case illustrates how method-specific analytical drug interference prompted unnecessary expensive imaging, heightened patient anxiety and resulted in lengthy investigations for what turned out to be a phantom pheochromocytoma.

The challenge of improving the diagnostic yield from metanephrine testing in suspected phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma

Background

Plasma-free metanephrines (PFM) or urinary fractionated metanephrines (UFM) are the preferred biochemical tests for the diagnosis of phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL). Borderline increased results should be followed up to either exclude or confirm diagnosis.

Methods

We extracted all PFM and UFM results reported by our laboratory over a six-month period from the laboratory information system. We categorized patients with borderline increased results according to whether follow-up testing had been performed as suggested in the initial laboratory report. Questionnaires were then sent to all requesting doctors and medical notes reviewed where available.

Results

Two hundred and four patients with borderline increased PFM or UFM were identified. Sixty-five (38.5%) of 169 patients with borderline increased PFM had a repeat test out of which 36 were normal and 29 did not normalize. Of 35 patients with borderline increased UFM, 17 (48.6%) had subsequent PFM measurement, out of which 15 were normal. Questionnaires were returned to 106 (52%) patients. Of these, the most frequent indication for testing was hypertension ( n = 50); 15 patients had an incidental adrenal mass and two of these patients were diagnosed with a phaeochromocytoma.

Conclusion

Only 38% of patients with borderline increased PFM had a repeat PFM measurement. This was not significantly higher when compared with the 28% in a previous audit that we reported in 2010 ( P = 0.10). Forty-nine per cent of patients with a borderline increased UFM had a repeat UFM or PFM measurement. There remains a substantial possibility of missed detection of PPGL.

Hypertension: The role of biochemistry in the diagnosis and management

Hypertension is defined as a persistently elevated blood pressure ≥140/90mmHg. It is an important treatable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, with a high prevalence in the general population. The most common cause, essential hypertension, is a widespread disease - however, secondary hypertension is under investigated and under diagnosed. Collectively, hypertension is referred to as a "silent killer" - frequently it displays no overt symptomatology. It is a leading risk factor for death and disability globally, with >40% of persons aged over 25 having hypertension. A vast spectrum of conditions result in hypertension spanning essential through resistant, to patients with an overt endocrine cause. A significant number of patients with hypertension have multiple cardiovascular risk factors at the time of presentation. Both routine and specialised biochemical investigations are paramount for the evaluation of these patients and their subsequent management. Biochemical testing serves to identify those hypertensive individuals who are at higher risk on the basis of evidence of dysglycaemia, dyslipidaemia, renal impairment, or target organ damage and to exclude identifiable causes of hypertension. The main target of biochemical testing is the identification of patients with a specific and treatable aetiology of hypertension. Information gleaned from biochemical investigation is used to risk stratify patients and tailor the type and intensity of subsequent management and treatment. We review the approach to the biochemical investigation of patients presenting with hypertension and propose a diagnostic algorithm for work-up.

Evaluating the optimum rest period prior to blood collection for fractionated plasma free metanephrines analysis

Introduction

The high diagnostic accuracy of plasma metanephrines (PMets) in the diagnosis of Phaeochromocytoma/Paraganglioma (PPGL) is well established. Considerable controversy exists regarding optimum sampling conditions for PMets. The use of reference intervals that do not compromise diagnostic sensitivity is recommended. However, the optimum rest period prior to sampling has yet to be clearly established. The aim of this study was to evaluate PMets concentrations in paired blood samples collected following 30 and 40 min seated-rest prior to sampling, in patients in whom it was clinically reasonable to suspect that PPGL may be present.

Design and Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional study design was used. PMets results from paired blood samples collected after 30 and 40 min seated-rest between January 2009 and June 2015 were recorded. Results were interpreted using reference intervals established in subjects seated and supine.

Results

A total of 410 patient results were eligible for analysis. There was no statistical difference between plasma normetanephrine (NMN) or metanephrine (MN) concentrations in samples collected following 30 and 40 min seated-rest in subjects with PPGL (n=11), post-resection of PPGL (n=20) or in whom PPGL was excluded (n=379). Using reference intervals established in the seated position, diagnostic sensitivity was 100% at 30 min and 90.9% at 40 min. Diagnostic specificity was approximately 95% at both time points. When supine reference intervals were used, diagnostic sensitivity was 100% and diagnostic specificity was reduced by ≈22% at both time points.

Conclusion

Based on these data, we recommend at most 30 min continuous rest prior to sampling for PMets measurement.