Monday, June 3, 2019

Genetics of Endocrine and Neuroendocrine Neoplasias (PDQ®) 3/4 —Health Professional Version - National Cancer Institute

Genetics of Endocrine and Neuroendocrine Neoplasias (PDQ®)—Health Professional Version - National Cancer Institute

National Cancer Institute



Genetics of Endocrine and Neuroendocrine Neoplasias (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version



Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 4

Introduction

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 4 (MEN4) is a novel, rare syndrome with clinical features that overlap with the other MEN syndromes. The most common phenotype of the 19 established cases of MEN4 that have been described to date is primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT), followed by pituitary adenomas. MEN4 is caused by germline pathogenic variants in the tumor suppressor gene CDKN1B (12p13.1).[1] This syndrome was discovered initially in rats (MENX) [2] and later in humans (MEN4). The syndrome has the phenotype of being multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1)-like. The incidence of CDKN1B variants in patients with an MEN1-related phenotype is difficult to estimate, but it is likely to be in the range of 1.5% to 3.7%.[3-5] Pathogenic variants leading to the MEN4 phenotype are transmitted in an autosomal dominant fashion.

Clinical Diagnosis

PHPT due to parathyroid neoplasia affects approximately 80% of the reported cases of MEN4. PHPT occurs at a later age in MEN4 than in MEN1 (mean age ~56 y vs. ~25 y, respectively), with a female predominance.[6] There have been no reports of PHPT recurrence after surgical resection, which might indicate that PHPT in MEN4 represents an overall milder disease spectrum than in MEN1. Pituitary involvement in MEN4 is the second most common manifestation of the disease, affecting approximately 37% of the reported cases. Pituitary adenomas in MEN4 vary and include nonfunctional, somatotropinoma, prolactinoma, or corticotropinoma types. The age at diagnosis for these lesions also varies widely, from 30 years to 79 years. The youngest patient reported to have MEN4 presented at age 30 years with acromegaly.[2] Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have been rare, with only a few cases reported. These include duodenopancreatic or gastrointestinal NETs that could be nonfunctioning or hormonally active and may secrete several substances, including gastrin, insulin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, or vasoactive intestinal polypeptide. Although adrenal neoplasia is a frequent finding in MEN1, only one case of nonfunctional bilateral adrenal nodules has been reported in MEN4.[5] Skin manifestations that are commonly reported in MEN1, such as lipomas, angiofibromas, and collagenomas, have not been reported in MEN4. There is no known genotype -phenotype correlation.

Genetics, Inheritance, and Genetic Testing

The CDKN1B variant codes for p27Kip1 (commonly referred to as p27 or KIP1), a putative tumor suppressor gene that regulates cell cycle progression. Alterations in this gene lead to a greater decrease in expression of p27 protein, triggering uncontrolled cell cycle progression. Although the loss of one allele of p27 is a frequent event in many human cancers, the remaining allele is rarely mutated or lost by loss of heterozygosity in human cancers.[7] Somatic or germline pathogenic variants in CDKN1B have also been identified in patients with sporadic PHPT, small intestinal NETs, lymphoma, and breast cancer. These findings demonstrate a novel role for CDKN1B as a tumor susceptibility gene for other neoplasms.[8-10]
To date, only 19 cases having CDKN1B germline variants have been reported in the medical literature.[8] Thirteen pathogenic germline variants that have been frameshift, nonsense, or missense variants have been described.[11,12]
Index cases or individuals with MEN1-like features and negative results of MEN1 genetic testing are offered genetic counseling and testing for MEN4. Confirmation of an MEN4 diagnosis is only made with genetic testing for CDKN1B variants. In clinical practice, patients with asymptomatic or symptomatic PHPT who are also young (typically <30 y) and have multigland disease, parathyroid carcinoma, or atypical adenoma, or those with a family history or evidence of syndromic disease and negative for MEN1 or RET, are candidates for genetic testing for CDKN1B using accredited laboratories.[8] For those with proven disease, screening is also offered to a first-degree relative with or without MEN1 features. The identification of a germline CDKN1B variant should prompt periodic clinical biochemical screening for MEN4.

Surveillance

Surveillance of CDKN1B pathogenic variant carriers should be performed, though guidelines have yet to be established.[8,13] Currently, surveillance is primarily clinical and concentrates on evidence of growth hormone excess, with annual biochemical evaluation for insulin-like growth factor-1 and annual blood work for PHPT.[13] For known carriers, surveillance begins at adolescence. The role of imaging has not been established.

Interventions

For parathyroid and pituitary disease, the treatment is surgical, in accordance with treatment for other familial syndromes. (Refer to the MEN1 section of this summary for more information.)

Outcomes

A study of 293 MEN1 pathogenic variant–positive cases and 30 MEN1 pathogenic variant–negative cases, all with the MEN1 phenotype, showed that the pathogenic variant–negative cohort developed disease manifestations later in life, with improved life expectancy.[14] One of the limitations in applying this finding to MEN4 is that only 1 of these 30 MEN1-negative patients was CDKN1B positive.
References
  1. Marinoni I, Pellegata NS: p27kip1: a new multiple endocrine neoplasia gene? Neuroendocrinology 93 (1): 19-28, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Pellegata NS, Quintanilla-Martinez L, Siggelkow H, et al.: Germ-line mutations in p27Kip1 cause a multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome in rats and humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103 (42): 15558-63, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Georgitsi M, Raitila A, Karhu A, et al.: Germline CDKN1B/p27Kip1 mutation in multiple endocrine neoplasia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92 (8): 3321-5, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Agarwal SK, Mateo CM, Marx SJ: Rare germline mutations in cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor genes in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 and related states. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94 (5): 1826-34, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Molatore S, Marinoni I, Lee M, et al.: A novel germline CDKN1B mutation causing multiple endocrine tumors: clinical, genetic and functional characterization. Hum Mutat 31 (11): E1825-35, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Lee M, Pellegata NS: Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 4. Front Horm Res 41: 63-78, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Philipp-Staheli J, Payne SR, Kemp CJ: p27(Kip1): regulation and function of a haploinsufficient tumor suppressor and its misregulation in cancer. Exp Cell Res 264 (1): 148-68, 2001. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Alrezk R, Hannah-Shmouni F, Stratakis CA: MEN4 and CDKN1B mutations: the latest of the MEN syndromes. Endocr Relat Cancer 24 (10): T195-T208, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Malanga D, De Gisi S, Riccardi M, et al.: Functional characterization of a rare germline mutation in the gene encoding the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27Kip1 (CDKN1B) in a Spanish patient with multiple endocrine neoplasia-like phenotype. Eur J Endocrinol 166 (3): 551-60, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Occhi G, Regazzo D, Trivellin G, et al.: A novel mutation in the upstream open reading frame of the CDKN1B gene causes a MEN4 phenotype. PLoS Genet 9 (3): e1003350, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Georgitsi M: MEN-4 and other multiple endocrine neoplasias due to cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (p27(Kip1) and p18(INK4C)) mutations. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 24 (3): 425-37, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. Lee M, Pellegata NS: Multiple endocrine neoplasia syndromes associated with mutation of p27. J Endocrinol Invest 36 (9): 781-7, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Wasserman JD, Tomlinson GE, Druker H, et al.: Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia and Hyperparathyroid-Jaw Tumor Syndromes: Clinical Features, Genetics, and Surveillance Recommendations in Childhood. Clin Cancer Res 23 (13): e123-e132, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. de Laat JM, van der Luijt RB, Pieterman CR, et al.: MEN1 redefined, a clinical comparison of mutation-positive and mutation-negative patients. BMC Med 14 (1): 182, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]

Familial Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma Syndrome

Introduction

Paragangliomas (PGLs) and pheochromocytomas (PHEOs) are rare tumors arising from chromaffin cells, which have the ability to synthesize, store, and secrete catecholamines and neuropeptides. Individuals may present with secondary hypertension. In 2004, the World Health Organization characterized adrenal gland tumors as PHEOs.[1] The term paraganglioma is reserved for non-adrenal (or extra-adrenal) neoplasms and may arise in various sites from the paraganglia along the parasympathetic nerves or the sympathetic trunk. PGLs may be found in the head and neck region, abdomen, or pelvis. Only those arising from sympathetic neural chains have secretory capacity. PGLs found in the skull base or head and neck region typically arise in the glomus cells, near the carotid body, along the vagal nerve or jugular fosse, and are usually from parasympathetic paraganglia and therefore rarely secrete catecholamines.[2,3] The most recognizable tumors are found at the carotid body. PGLs below the neck are most commonly located in the upper mediastinum or the urinary bladder.[3] The reported incidence of these tumors in the general population is variable because they may be asymptomatic but ranges from 1 in 30,000 to 1 in 100,000 individuals.[3] One autopsy study found a much greater incidence of 1 in 2,000 individuals, suggesting a high frequency of occult tumors.[4] PGLs have an equal sex distribution and can occur at any age but have the highest incidence between the ages of 40 and 50 years.[5,6]

Clinical Description

PGLs and PHEOs may occur sporadically, as a manifestation of a hereditary syndrome, or as the sole tumor in one of several hereditary PGL/PHEO syndromes.
PGLs and PHEOs are typically slow-growing tumors, and some may be present for many years before coming to clinical attention. Conversely, a minority of these tumors may be malignant and present with a more aggressive clinical course. PGL and PHEO malignancy is defined by the presence of metastases at sites distant from the primary tumor in nonchromaffin tissue. Common sites of metastases include bone, liver, and lungs.[1]
There are no reliable molecular, immunohistochemical, or genetic predictors to distinguish benign and malignant tumors,[7] although some studies have shown a higher malignancy rate in SDHB carriers [8] and in individuals with larger tumors.[9] Some experts view local invasion into surrounding tissue as an additional marker of malignancy.[10,11] Others have disagreed with this classification because locally invasive tumors tend to follow a more indolent course than tumors with distant metastatic involvement.[12] Consequently, estimation of the rate of malignancy in PGLs is difficult; rates ranging from 5% to 20% have been reported.[13-16]

Clinical Diagnosis of PGL and PHEO

A PGL may cause a variety of symptoms depending on the location of the tumor and whether the tumor has secretory capacity. PGLs of the head and neck are rarely associated with elevated catecholamines. Secretory PGLs and PHEOs may cause hypertension, headache, tachycardia, sweating, and flushing. Typically, nonsecretory tumors are painless, coming to attention only when growth of the lesion into surrounding structures causes a mass effect. Patients with a head or neck PGL may present with an enlarging lateral neck mass, hoarseness, Horner syndrome, pulsatile tinnitus, dizziness, facial droop, or blurred vision.[1]
Patients with clinically apparent catecholamine excess generally undergo biochemical testing to evaluate the secretory capacity of the tumor(s).[17] This evaluation is best performed by measuring urine and/or plasma fractionated metanephrines (normetanephrine and metanephrine), which yields a higher sensitivity and specificity than directly measuring catecholamines (norepinephrine, dopamine, and epinephrine).[18-20] For patients whose plasma metanephrines levels are measured, blood is collected after an intravenous catheter has been inserted and the patient has been in a supine position for 15 to 20 minutes.[21] Additionally, the patient should not have food or caffeinated beverages, smoke cigarettes, or engage in strenuous physical activity in the 8 to 12 hours before the blood draw.[21]
Imaging of PGLs is the mainstay of diagnosis; the initial evaluation includes computed tomography (CT) of the neck and chest. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) also has utility for the head and neck. PGLs typically appear homogeneous with intense enhancement after administration of intravenous contrast. MRI may also be used to distinguish the tumor from adjacent vascular and skeletal structures. On T2-weighted images, a tumor that is larger than 2 cm is likely to display a classic "salt and pepper" appearance, a reflection of scattered areas of signal void mingled with areas of high signal intensity from increased vascularity.[22]
Nuclear imaging, particularly somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) in combination with anatomic imaging, may be useful for localization and determination of the extent of disease (multifocality vs. distant metastatic deposits).[23] Benign tumors are reported to be more sensitive to SRS than iodine I 123-metaiodobenzylguanidine (123I-MIBG) imaging. Sensitivity is highest for the head and neck region compared with abdomen PGLs or PHEOs (91% vs. 40% and 42%, respectively).[24] SRS has been reported to be superior to MIBG in detecting metastatic tumors (95% vs. 23%, respectively).[24] 123I-MIBG, however, is highly sensitive for PHEO [24] and positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) is very specific for PGLs. Functional imaging for PGLs and/or PHEOs with fluorine F 18-dihydroxyphenylalanine (18F-DOPA), 18F-fluorodopamine, or PET-CT may be particularly helpful in localizing head and neck tumors. Data suggest that the selection of PET tracer utilized for tumor localization should be centered on the patient’s genetic status, on the basis of the metabolic activity of the various tumors.[8] It has been suggested that patients with SDHx and VHL pathogenic variants are more likely to have higher 18F-fludeoxyglucose activity, which is related to gene activation in response to hypoxia.[8,25] Some SDHBtumors only weakly concentrate 18F-DOPA, and patients with SDHx pathogenic variants may have false-negative results with such scans. Gallium Ga 68-DOTATATE PET-CT shows promise as a potential imaging modality for determining the extent of disease in patients with metastatic involvement.[26] Tumors with VHL pathogenic variants may likewise be missed with MIBG scans.[8]
Imaging of PHEOs usually consists of a dedicated CT of the adrenal gland. When biochemical screening in an individual who has or is at risk of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN2) suggests PHEO, localization studies, such as MRI or CT, can be performed.[27] Confirmation of the diagnosis can be made using iodine I 131-MIBG scintigraphy or PET imaging.[27-30]

Genetics, Inheritance, and Genetic Testing

A significant proportion of individuals presenting with apparently sporadic PHEO or PGL are carriers of germline pathogenic variants. Up to 33% of patients with apparently sporadic PHEO, and up to 40% of patients with apparently sporadic PGLs, actually have a recognizable germline pathogenic variant in one of the known PGL/PHEO susceptibility genes.[14,31-35] One study found that in individuals with a single tumor and a negative family history, the likelihood of an inherited pathogenic variant was 11.6%,[14] whereas other groups detected pathogenic variants in 41% of such patients.[35,36] In a retrospective review of 55 patients younger than 21 years who had PGL/PHEO and were referred to the National Cancer Institute, 80% of patients had a germline pathogenic variant.[37] (Refer to the Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma section in the PDQ summary on Unusual Cancers of Childhood Treatment for more information about PGL/PHEO in children.) For example, even among carriers of SDHB pathogenic variants, there is low penetrance and delayed onset of disease, which may further obscure the hereditary nature of the disease.[38] As such, all patients with PHEO or PGL, even those with apparently sporadic tumors, may be considered for genetic testing because of the high frequency of pathogenic variants associated with these conditions.[39]
PGLs and PHEOs can be seen as part of several well-described tumor susceptibility syndromes including von Hippel-Lindau (VHL), MEN2, neurofibromatosis type 1, Carney-Stratakis syndrome, and familial paraganglioma (FPGL) syndrome. FPGL is most commonly caused by pathogenic variants in one of the following four genes: SDHA, SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD (collectively referred to as SDHx). The SDHx proteins form part of the succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) complex, which is located on the inner mitochondrial membrane and plays a critical role in cellular energy metabolism.[40] Pathogenic variants in SDHB are most common, followed by SDHD and rarely SDHC and SDHA. More recently, pathogenic variants in the SDHAF2 (also called SDH5), TMEM127, and MAX genes have been described in FPGL/PHEO,[41-44] but these variants are rare. The mechanism of tumor formation has remained elusive. One study suggests that SDHx-associated tumors display a hypermethylator phenotype that is associated with downregulation of important genes involved in the differentiation of neuroendocrine tissues.[45]
The inheritance pattern of FPGL depends on the gene involved. While most families show traditional autosomal dominant inheritance, those with pathogenic variants in SDHAF2 and SDHD show almost exclusive paternal transmission of the phenotype. In other words, while the pathogenic variant can be passed down from mother or father, tumors will develop only if the pathogenic variant is inherited from the father.[46,47] In cases of FPGL not caused by SDHD or SDHAF2 pathogenic variants, first-degree relatives (FDRs) of an affectedindividual have a 50% chance of carrying the pathogenic variant and are at increased risk of developing PGLs. Because the family history can appear negative in families with lower penetrance pathogenic variants, it is important to offer genetic testing to all unaffectedFDRs once the pathogenic variant in the family has been identified.
Genetic testing for hereditary PHEO and PGL syndromes is largely based on published algorithms,[39] whereby testing is performed stepwise on the basis of factors such as tumor type and location, age at diagnosis, family history, and presence of malignancy.[14,48,49] This approach has allowed for cost-effective, targeted testing on the basis of clinical features. Within the last several years, however, next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has led to a dramatic decrease in the cost of genetic testing, and testing for pathogenic variants in 10 to 30 genes for the same cost of testing two or three genes is now possible. These tests may be more appropriate for individuals and families who have an atypical presentation or overlapping clinical features. If the cost associated with multigene testing panels continues to decrease, the testing algorithms may soon be obsolete for PGL and PHEO. A 2013 series analyzed 85 PGL and PHEO samples using an NGS panel test for the ten known PGL susceptibility genes; the NGS assay and analysis showed a sensitivity of 98.7%.[50] Screening through a multigene panel moderately increases the detection rate. In a small series of 87 patients with PHEO, 25.3% of individuals (22 of 87) were found to have germline pathogenic variants on a screening panel that included ten PGL/PHEO-associated genes; 11.7% had germline pathogenic variants in VHL, 6.8% in RET, 2.3% in SDHD, 2.3% in MAX, 1.1% in SDHB, and 1.1% in TMEM127.[51] Apparently sporadic tumors were present in 74.7% of patients (65 of 87).

Genotype-Phenotype Correlations

In FPGL/PHEO, the type and location of tumors, age at onset, and lifetime penetrance vary depending on the genetic variant. While these correlations can help guide genetic testing and screening decisions, caution must be used given the high degree of variability seen in this condition. FPGL/PHEO syndromes are among the rare inherited diseases in which genomic imprinting occurs. For example, the SDHD pathogenic variant is normally not activated when inherited from the mother, and the risk of FPGL/PHEO syndromes is not increased. However, the pathogenic variant is turned on when the gene is inherited from the father, and the risk is increased.
SDHD pathogenic variants are mainly associated with an increased risk of parasympathetic PGLs. These are more commonly multifocal and located in the head and neck, while tumors in SDHB carriers are more often located in the abdomen.[52,53] Multiple series showed a risk of 71% for a head and neck tumor in SDHD carriers, as opposed to a 27% to 29% risk in SDHB carriers.[16,52] The lifetime risk for any PGL in any location in SDHDcarriers was estimated to be as high as 77% by age 50 years in one series [52] and 90% by age 70 years in a second series.[53] A review of more than 1,700 cases reported in the literature provided similar estimates, suggesting a lifetime penetrance of 86%.[54] The rate of malignancy in SDHD carriers is lower than 5%.[54]
Pathogenic variants in the SDHB gene are associated with sympathetic PGLs, although PHEO and parasympathetic PGLs also have been described. SDHB PGLs are more commonly located in the abdomen and mediastinum than in the head and neck. A review of 1,700 cases suggested a lifetime penetrance of 77%.[54] However, many early studies examining penetrance were subject to ascertainment bias due to sampling of highly suggestive individuals affected at young ages, with limited inclusion of asymptomatic pathogenic variant carriers. Family-based and population-based studies have found lower penetrance estimates, ranging from 9% to 35% by age 50 years.[38,55-58] Other studies have estimated lifetime penetrance to be 42% to 50%.[58,59] There is some evidence that the penetrance in SDHB carriers may be lower in females than in males.[59] The rate of malignancy is higher with SDHB than with the other SDH genes, with up to one-third of patients having malignant tumors in most series.[52,53] Pathogenic variants in SDHB have also been associated with several other tumors and malignancies, including gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), renal cell carcinoma, and papillary thyroid cancer.[52,53]
SDHC pathogenic variants are rare, accounting for an estimated 0.5% of all PGLs.[54] In one series of 153 patients with multiple PGLs or a single PGL diagnosed before age 40 years, three (2%) had an SDHC pathogenic variant.[32] Another series of 121 index cases from a head and neck PGL registry showed a pathogenic variant rate of 4% (5 of 121).[60] SDHCpathogenic variants most commonly cause head and neck PGLs but have been seen in a small number of patients with abdominal PGLs.[14,61] Pathogenic variants in SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD can also cause Carney-Stratakis syndrome, which is characterized by the dyad of PGLs and GISTs.[62]
Pathogenic variants in SDHA, SDHAF2, MAX, and TMEM127 have also been described; collectively, they account for less than 2% to 3% of all cases. Although biallelic pathogenic variants in SDHA have long been known to cause the autosomal recessive condition inherited juvenile encephalopathy/Leigh syndrome,[63] it was not until recently that monoallelic pathogenic variants were linked to an increased risk of developing PGL. One series showed a 7.6% incidence of SDHA pathogenic variants in a cohort of 393 patients with PGL in the Netherlands.[64] Tumors most commonly develop in the head and neck, followed by the adrenal glands and abdomen (extra-adrenal).[65,66] In the same series from the Netherlands,[64] the estimated penetrance for non-index pathogenic variant carriers was 10% by age 70 years. Initially, pathogenic variants in SDHAF2 were described only in head and neck PGLs.[44] The MAX gene was first described as a PHEO susceptibility gene in 2011 through exome sequencing of three unrelated cases.[41] Three different germline pathogenic variants were identified, and a follow-up series of 59 cases by the same group identified an additional five variants. The MAX protein plays a key role in the development and progression of neural crest cell tumors.[67] The TMEM127 gene is located on chromosome 2q11.2 and encodes a transmembrane protein known to be a negative regulator of mTOR, which regulates multiple cellular processes. A review of 23 patients with TMEM127 pathogenic variants showed that 96% (22 of 23) had a PHEO and 9% (2 of 23) had a PGL.[54]
A study of an additional 58 patients from the European-American-Asian Pheochromocytoma-Paraganglioma Registry Study Group more than doubles the number of previously reported carriers of the rare predisposition genes SDHA (n = 29), SDHAF2 (n = 1), MAX (n = 8), and TMEM127 (n = 20).[68] The study identified malignant disease in 12% of SDHA pathogenic variant carriers and 10% of TMEM127 carriers, which is significantly higher than previous estimates. Extra-adrenal tumors were common in the cohort (48%), particularly in SDHA carriers (79%) who had an overrepresentation of head and neck tumors (44%). However, no GIST tumors were identified in SDHA carriers in this cohort, compared with frequent reports in previously identified cohorts. SDHA-related tumors occurred in patients as young as 8 years. Tumors associated with MAX pathogenic variants were almost all in the adrenal glands, and frequently bilateral. Overall, penetrance of developing a PGL/PHEO by age 40 years was estimated to be 73% for MAX pathogenic variant carriers, 41% for TMEM127 carriers, and 39% for SDHA carriers. Penetrance was also calculated for pathogenic variant–positive relatives and was significantly lower for these individuals (13%) compared with index patients for SDHA carriers, but not significantly different for MAX or TMEM127 probands and nonprobands. It is important to remember that these relatively small studies are prone to selection and ascertainment biases, as mentioned above. For example, only 22% of family members from this cohort had cascade screening, which affects penetrance calculations. Additionally, the high rates of metastatic disease could represent ascertainment bias of a tertiary care center, and the lack of GIST tumors could be because this was a PGL/PHEO-specific registry, and therefore might not capture the full spectrum of related tumors.[69]

Surveillance

Patients with an identified germline pathogenic variant in one of the SDH genes are at a significantly increased risk of developing PGLs, PHEOs, renal tumors, and GISTs. PHEOs and PGLs typically have a slow growth pattern, but unchecked growth can lead to mass effect and, ultimately, neurologic compromise. Further, although most of these tumors are benign, some may undergo malignant transformation. As such, periodic screening for interval development of a tumor is of critical importance because early detection and removal can minimize risk to the patient. Although limited studies have been performed to delineate the ideal protocol, total-body MRI has been proposed as a reasonable method for screening because of its high sensitivity and minimal radiation exposure.[39,70] In one study, 37 carriers of SDHx pathogenic variants underwent annual biochemical testing and annual or biennial whole-body MRI beginning at age 10 years.[71] This screening protocol identified six tumors in five patients. The sensitivity of MRI was 87.5%, and the specificity was 94.7%. The sensitivity of biochemical testing was significantly lower at 37.5%, with a specificity similar to MRI at 94.9%.[71] A retrospective study of 157 patients evaluated a rapid contrast-enhanced angio-MRI protocol for the detection of head and neck paragangliomas in carriers of SDH pathogenic variants.[72] This protocol had a high sensitivity and specificity of 88.7% and 93.7%, respectively.
Although the optimal imaging protocol for surveillance in carriers of SDH pathogenic variants remains unclear, annual biochemical testing and clinical surveillance may be considered. Biochemical testing can be performed by measuring plasma-free metanephrines/catecholamines or 24-hour urinary excretion of fractionated catecholamines (including methoxytyramine, a dopamine metabolite, if available). Clinical surveillance may include physical examination and blood pressure measurement. Clinical surveillance and biochemical testing may begin between ages 5 years and 10 years, or 10 years earlier than the earliest age at diagnosis in the family.[73,74]
Level of evidence: 4

Interventions

Preoperative management

Medical management is the bridge to surgical resection of PGLs/PHEOs. Preoperative medical therapy is not essential for patients without evidence of catecholamine hypersecretion, although some advocate its use regardless of the results of hormonal testing.[21] The aim of pharmacologic therapy is to control hypertension for at least 10 to 14 days before surgery.[75] Management is aimed at preventing catecholamine-induced complications, even in patients who may not present with preoperative hypertension, to avoid intraoperative hypertensive crisis, cardiac arrhythmias, pulmonary edema, and cardiac ischemia. Failure to adequately block the catecholamine excess can dramatically increase the risk of perioperative mortality from hypertensive crisis and lethal arrhythmias and cause hypotensive crisis after tumor removal.[76,77]
In the absence of a randomized controlled trial comparing the various regimens, there is no universally recommended approach. The alpha-adrenoreceptor blocker phenoxybenzamine (Dibenzyline) is most frequently used to control blood pressure and expand the blood volume.[21] Other alpha-blocking drugs have also been used with success, including prazosin, terazosin, or doxazosin; these drugs are more specific alpha-1 adrenergic competitive antagonists and have a shorter half-life than phenoxybenzamine.[78,79] The noncompetitive binding of phenoxybenzamine to the alpha receptors, coupled with its longer half-life, may result in a sustained effect of the drug, with some patients experiencing postoperative hypotension.[21,80] One study found that patients treated with sustained-release doxazosin had more stable perioperative hemodynamic changes and a shorter time interval to preoperative blood pressure control than did patients who received phenoxybenzamine.[80]
Once the alpha blockade is initiated, expansion of the blood volume is often necessary, as these patients are typically volume contracted.[81,82] In addition to the vasodilatory effects from alpha blockade, volume expansion may be achieved by consuming a high-sodium diet and high fluid intake or a preoperative saline infusion. A clinical manifestation of adequate blockade is the symptom of nasal stuffiness or lightheadedness.
Calcium channel blockers such as nicardipine or nifedipine also have been employed to control the hypertension preoperatively.[83] A calcium channel blocker may be used in conjunction with alpha and beta blockade for refractory hypertension or used alone as a second-line agent for patients with intolerable side effects from alpha blockade.[21]
Consideration of preoperative imaging is warranted if a pathogenic variant has been identified, as it may alter the surgical plan and approach.[37] (Refer to the Clinical Diagnosis of PGL and PHEO section of this summary for more information about imaging modalities.)

Surgery

Surgical resection is the treatment of choice for PGL and PHEO. Both open resection and laparoscopic approaches are safe, but if feasible, laparoscopic removal is preferred.[73,84] Open resection is commonly recommended for large tumors (>6 cm–7 cm) because of the increased risk of technical difficulty within the confined space of laparoscopy. Means of exposure and approach are based on the anatomic location of the tumor. Direct access to the adrenal and para-aortic region can be achieved with the posterior approach. It is direct, safe, and efficient.[85] Adequate exposure of the complete tumor is important for complete removal. Robotic assistance can be utilized in select cases because it offers a three-dimensional, magnified view of the anatomy.[86] The efficacy and safety of posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy is established, but ongoing studies are examining the relevance of this approach in familial syndromes (refer to NCT02618694).
PGLs are commonly located in the para-aortic retroperitoneal sympathetic chain above the aortic bifurcation, below the takeoff of the inferior mesenteric artery (organ of Zuckerkandl), or near the dome of the bladder.[87,88] Malignant PGLs have a dense fibrous capsule that may be adherent to surrounding vascularity, which can make complete resection difficult.[88] Regional lymph nodes may be involved with malignant tumors, and if suspected preoperatively or noted intraoperatively, a regional lymphadenectomy may be performed.
Genetic testing is best performed before the initial surgery to inform the risk of recurrent or contralateral disease and to guide the extent of resection (e.g., whether to preserve the cortex) because synchronous or metachronous bilateral disease is quite common in hereditary PHEO. Preoperative knowledge of a germline pathogenic variant significantly affects variables associated with a cortical-sparing adrenalectomy. Preserving the cortex is important in patients with a known pathogenic variant because they are at risk of developing a contralateral tumor. Cortical sparing reduces the possibility of future adrenal insufficiency with contralateral adrenalectomy. This consideration must be weighed against the high risk of malignancy in SDHB carriers. In one study cohort of 108 patients, 33% of patients with a germline pathogenic variant did not have a family history of an inherited syndrome, and 36% of the patients with SDHB germline pathogenic variants had no family history and no previous history of PGL/PHEO on presentation.[89] In one retrospective series that spanned nearly 50 years, 15 of the 49 patients (30%) who presented with a unilateral PHEO and underwent unilateral total adrenalectomy developed PHEO in the contralateral gland at a median of 8.2 years (range, 1–20 y) after initial diagnosis.[90] Of the 15 patients who developed PHEO in the contralateral gland, 8 had MEN2A, 2 had MEN2B, 2 had VHL, and 1 had familial PHEO. The risk of developing a contralateral tumor increased over time, with 25% of patients developing tumors after a median of 6 years and 43% after a median of 32 years. Cortical-sparing surgery is an attractive option because it minimizes the risk of adrenal insufficiency and the need for lifelong steroid supplementation. In large series of patients, cortical-sparing surgery has a 3% to 7% recurrence rate after cortical preservation versus a 2% to 3% recurrence rate after total resection (recurrence in the adrenal bed).[90,91] The frequency of steroid dependence in both studies was lower in patients who underwent cortical-sparing techniques than in patients who did not (57% compared with 86%). One of 39 patients (3%) developed adrenal insufficiency after a cortical-sparing procedure; 5 of 25 patients (20%) developed adrenal insufficiency after total adrenalectomy.[90] These study authors recommend cortical-sparing surgery as a viable option for patients with hereditary PHEO, including patients who initially present with seemingly unilateral disease.
Level of evidence: 5
References
  1. DeLellis RA, Lloyd RV, Heitz PU, et al., eds.: Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Endocrine Organs. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 2004. World Health Organization classification of tumours, vol. 8.
  2. Offergeld C, Brase C, Yaremchuk S, et al.: Head and neck paragangliomas: clinical and molecular genetic classification. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 67 (Suppl 1): 19-28, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Raygada M, Pasini B, Stratakis CA: Hereditary paragangliomas. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 70: 99-106, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. McNeil AR, Blok BH, Koelmeyer TD, et al.: Phaeochromocytomas discovered during coronial autopsies in Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland. Aust N Z J Med 30 (6): 648-52, 2000. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. O'Riordain DS, Young WF Jr, Grant CS, et al.: Clinical spectrum and outcome of functional extraadrenal paraganglioma. World J Surg 20 (7): 916-21; discussion 922, 1996. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Erickson D, Kudva YC, Ebersold MJ, et al.: Benign paragangliomas: clinical presentation and treatment outcomes in 236 patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86 (11): 5210-6, 2001. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Jovanovic R, Kostadinova-Kunovska S, Bogoeva B, et al.: Histological features, Ki-67 and Bcl-2 immunohistochemical expression and their correlation with the aggressiveness of pheochromocytomas. Prilozi 33 (2): 23-40, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Taïeb D, Neumann H, Rubello D, et al.: Modern nuclear imaging for paragangliomas: beyond SPECT. J Nucl Med 53 (2): 264-74, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Eisenhofer G, Lenders JW, Siegert G, et al.: Plasma methoxytyramine: a novel biomarker of metastatic pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma in relation to established risk factors of tumour size, location and SDHB mutation status. Eur J Cancer 48 (11): 1739-49, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Eisenhofer G, Bornstein SR, Brouwers FM, et al.: Malignant pheochromocytoma: current status and initiatives for future progress. Endocr Relat Cancer 11 (3): 423-36, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Zarnegar R, Kebebew E, Duh QY, et al.: Malignant pheochromocytoma. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 15 (3): 555-71, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. Medeiros LJ, Wolf BC, Balogh K, et al.: Adrenal pheochromocytoma: a clinicopathologic review of 60 cases. Hum Pathol 16 (6): 580-9, 1985. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Walz MK, Alesina PF, Wenger FA, et al.: Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic treatment of pheochromocytomas and retroperitoneal paragangliomas: results of 161 tumors in 126 patients. World J Surg 30 (5): 899-908, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. Mannelli M, Castellano M, Schiavi F, et al.: Clinically guided genetic screening in a large cohort of italian patients with pheochromocytomas and/or functional or nonfunctional paragangliomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94 (5): 1541-7, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  15. Lee JH, Barich F, Karnell LH, et al.: National Cancer Data Base report on malignant paragangliomas of the head and neck. Cancer 94 (3): 730-7, 2002. [PUBMED Abstract]
  16. Niemeijer ND, Rijken JA, Eijkelenkamp K, et al.: The phenotype of SDHB germline mutation carriers: a nationwide study. Eur J Endocrinol 177 (2): 115-125, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  17. Grossman A, Pacak K, Sawka A, et al.: Biochemical diagnosis and localization of pheochromocytoma: can we reach a consensus? Ann N Y Acad Sci 1073: 332-47, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  18. Lenders JW, Pacak K, Walther MM, et al.: Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: which test is best? JAMA 287 (11): 1427-34, 2002. [PUBMED Abstract]
  19. Eisenhofer G, Lenders JW, Linehan WM, et al.: Plasma normetanephrine and metanephrine for detecting pheochromocytoma in von Hippel-Lindau disease and multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. N Engl J Med 340 (24): 1872-9, 1999. [PUBMED Abstract]
  20. Sawka AM, Jaeschke R, Singh RJ, et al.: A comparison of biochemical tests for pheochromocytoma: measurement of fractionated plasma metanephrines compared with the combination of 24-hour urinary metanephrines and catecholamines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88 (2): 553-8, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]
  21. Chen H, Sippel RS, O'Dorisio MS, et al.: The North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus guideline for the diagnosis and management of neuroendocrine tumors: pheochromocytoma, paraganglioma, and medullary thyroid cancer. Pancreas 39 (6): 775-83, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  22. Olsen WL, Dillon WP, Kelly WM, et al.: MR imaging of paragangliomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 148 (1): 201-4, 1987. [PUBMED Abstract]
  23. Gimenez-Roqueplo AP, Dahia PL, Robledo M: An update on the genetics of paraganglioma, pheochromocytoma, and associated hereditary syndromes. Horm Metab Res 44 (5): 328-33, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  24. Michałowska I, Ćwikła JB, Pęczkowska M, et al.: Usefulness of Somatostatin Receptor Scintigraphy (Tc-[HYNIC, Tyr3]-Octreotide) and 123I-Metaiodobenzylguanidine Scintigraphy in Patients with SDHx Gene-Related Pheochromocytomas and Paragangliomas Detected by Computed Tomography. Neuroendocrinology 101 (4): 321-30, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  25. Span PN, Rao JU, Oude Ophuis SB, et al.: Overexpression of the natural antisense hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha transcript is associated with malignant pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma. Endocr Relat Cancer 18 (3): 323-31, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  26. Janssen I, Blanchet EM, Adams K, et al.: Superiority of [68Ga]-DOTATATE PET/CT to Other Functional Imaging Modalities in the Localization of SDHB-Associated Metastatic Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma. Clin Cancer Res 21 (17): 3888-95, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  27. Pacak K, Eisenhofer G, Ahlman H, et al.: Pheochromocytoma: recommendations for clinical practice from the First International Symposium. October 2005. Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab 3 (2): 92-102, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  28. Lips CJ, Landsvater RM, Höppener JW, et al.: Clinical screening as compared with DNA analysis in families with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2A. N Engl J Med 331 (13): 828-35, 1994. [PUBMED Abstract]
  29. van der Harst E, de Herder WW, Bruining HA, et al.: [(123)I]metaiodobenzylguanidine and [(111)In]octreotide uptake in begnign and malignant pheochromocytomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86 (2): 685-93, 2001. [PUBMED Abstract]
  30. Pacak K, Linehan WM, Eisenhofer G, et al.: Recent advances in genetics, diagnosis, localization, and treatment of pheochromocytoma. Ann Intern Med 134 (4): 315-29, 2001. [PUBMED Abstract]
  31. Jafri M, Whitworth J, Rattenberry E, et al.: Evaluation of SDHB, SDHD and VHL gene susceptibility testing in the assessment of individuals with non-syndromic phaeochromocytoma, paraganglioma and head and neck paraganglioma. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 78 (6): 898-906, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  32. Pęczkowska M, Kowalska A, Sygut J, et al.: Testing new susceptibility genes in the cohort of apparently sporadic phaeochromocytoma/paraganglioma patients with clinical characteristics of hereditary syndromes. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 79 (6): 817-23, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  33. Karasek D, Frysak Z, Pacak K: Genetic testing for pheochromocytoma. Curr Hypertens Rep 12 (6): 456-64, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  34. Neumann HP, Bausch B, McWhinney SR, et al.: Germ-line mutations in nonsyndromic pheochromocytoma. N Engl J Med 346 (19): 1459-66, 2002. [PUBMED Abstract]
  35. Fishbein L, Merrill S, Fraker DL, et al.: Inherited mutations in pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: why all patients should be offered genetic testing. Ann Surg Oncol 20 (5): 1444-50, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  36. Bacca A, Sellari Franceschini S, Carrara D, et al.: Sporadic or familial head neck paragangliomas enrolled in a single center: clinical presentation and genotype/phenotype correlations. Head Neck 35 (1): 23-7, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  37. Babic B, Patel D, Aufforth R, et al.: Pediatric patients with pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma should have routine preoperative genetic testing for common susceptibility genes in addition to imaging to detect extra-adrenal and metastatic tumors. Surgery 161 (1): 220-227, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  38. Rijken JA, Niemeijer ND, Corssmit EP, et al.: Low penetrance of paraganglioma and pheochromocytoma in an extended kindred with a germline SDHB exon 3 deletion. Clin Genet 89 (1): 128-32, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  39. Lenders JW, Duh QY, Eisenhofer G, et al.: Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99 (6): 1915-42, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  40. Hussain I, Husain Q, Baredes S, et al.: Molecular genetics of paragangliomas of the skull base and head and neck region: implications for medical and surgical management. J Neurosurg 120 (2): 321-30, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  41. Comino-Méndez I, Gracia-Aznárez FJ, Schiavi F, et al.: Exome sequencing identifies MAX mutations as a cause of hereditary pheochromocytoma. Nat Genet 43 (7): 663-7, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  42. Neumann HP, Sullivan M, Winter A, et al.: Germline mutations of the TMEM127 gene in patients with paraganglioma of head and neck and extraadrenal abdominal sites. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96 (8): E1279-82, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  43. Burnichon N, Lepoutre-Lussey C, Laffaire J, et al.: A novel TMEM127 mutation in a patient with familial bilateral pheochromocytoma. Eur J Endocrinol 164 (1): 141-5, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  44. Bayley JP, Kunst HP, Cascon A, et al.: SDHAF2 mutations in familial and sporadic paraganglioma and phaeochromocytoma. Lancet Oncol 11 (4): 366-72, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  45. Letouzé E, Martinelli C, Loriot C, et al.: SDH mutations establish a hypermethylator phenotype in paraganglioma. Cancer Cell 23 (6): 739-52, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  46. van der Mey AG, Maaswinkel-Mooy PD, Cornelisse CJ, et al.: Genomic imprinting in hereditary glomus tumours: evidence for new genetic theory. Lancet 2 (8675): 1291-4, 1989. [PUBMED Abstract]
  47. Baysal BE: Mitochondrial complex II and genomic imprinting in inheritance of paraganglioma tumors. Biochim Biophys Acta 1827 (5): 573-7, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  48. Amar L, Bertherat J, Baudin E, et al.: Genetic testing in pheochromocytoma or functional paraganglioma. J Clin Oncol 23 (34): 8812-8, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  49. Neumann HP, Erlic Z, Boedeker CC, et al.: Clinical predictors for germline mutations in head and neck paraganglioma patients: cost reduction strategy in genetic diagnostic process as fall-out. Cancer Res 69 (8): 3650-6, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  50. Rattenberry E, Vialard L, Yeung A, et al.: A comprehensive next generation sequencing-based genetic testing strategy to improve diagnosis of inherited pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98 (7): E1248-56, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  51. Sbardella E, Cranston T, Isidori AM, et al.: Routine genetic screening with a multi-gene panel in patients with pheochromocytomas. Endocrine 59 (1): 175-182, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  52. Neumann HP, Pawlu C, Peczkowska M, et al.: Distinct clinical features of paraganglioma syndromes associated with SDHB and SDHD gene mutations. JAMA 292 (8): 943-51, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  53. Ricketts CJ, Forman JR, Rattenberry E, et al.: Tumor risks and genotype-phenotype-proteotype analysis in 358 patients with germline mutations in SDHB and SDHD. Hum Mutat 31 (1): 41-51, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  54. Welander J, Söderkvist P, Gimm O: Genetics and clinical characteristics of hereditary pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Endocr Relat Cancer 18 (6): R253-76, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  55. Schiavi F, Milne RL, Anda E, et al.: Are we overestimating the penetrance of mutations in SDHB? Hum Mutat 31 (6): 761-2, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  56. Solis DC, Burnichon N, Timmers HJ, et al.: Penetrance and clinical consequences of a gross SDHB deletion in a large family. Clin Genet 75 (4): 354-63, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  57. Hes FJ, Weiss MM, Woortman SA, et al.: Low penetrance of a SDHB mutation in a large Dutch paraganglioma family. BMC Med Genet 11: 92, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  58. Rijken JA, Niemeijer ND, Jonker MA, et al.: The penetrance of paraganglioma and pheochromocytoma in SDHB germline mutation carriers. Clin Genet 93 (1): 60-66, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  59. Jochmanova I, Wolf KI, King KS, et al.: SDHB-related pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma penetrance and genotype-phenotype correlations. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143 (8): 1421-1435, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  60. Schiavi F, Boedeker CC, Bausch B, et al.: Predictors and prevalence of paraganglioma syndrome associated with mutations of the SDHC gene. JAMA 294 (16): 2057-63, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  61. Peczkowska M, Cascon A, Prejbisz A, et al.: Extra-adrenal and adrenal pheochromocytomas associated with a germline SDHC mutation. Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab 4 (2): 111-5, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  62. Pasini B, McWhinney SR, Bei T, et al.: Clinical and molecular genetics of patients with the Carney-Stratakis syndrome and germline mutations of the genes coding for the succinate dehydrogenase subunits SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD. Eur J Hum Genet 16 (1): 79-88, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  63. Horváth R, Abicht A, Holinski-Feder E, et al.: Leigh syndrome caused by mutations in the flavoprotein (Fp) subunit of succinate dehydrogenase (SDHA). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 77 (1): 74-6, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  64. van der Tuin K, Mensenkamp AR, Tops CMJ, et al.: Clinical Aspects of SDHA-Related Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma: A Nationwide Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 103 (2): 438-445, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  65. Burnichon N, Brière JJ, Libé R, et al.: SDHA is a tumor suppressor gene causing paraganglioma. Hum Mol Genet 19 (15): 3011-20, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  66. Korpershoek E, Favier J, Gaal J, et al.: SDHA immunohistochemistry detects germline SDHA gene mutations in apparently sporadic paragangliomas and pheochromocytomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96 (9): E1472-6, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  67. Grandori C, Cowley SM, James LP, et al.: The Myc/Max/Mad network and the transcriptional control of cell behavior. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 16: 653-99, 2000. [PUBMED Abstract]
  68. Bausch B, Schiavi F, Ni Y, et al.: Clinical Characterization of the Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma Susceptibility Genes SDHA, TMEM127, MAX, and SDHAF2 for Gene-Informed Prevention. JAMA Oncol 3 (9): 1204-1212, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  69. Fishbein L, Nathanson KL: Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma Susceptibility Genes: Estimating the Associated Risk of Disease. JAMA Oncol 3 (9): 1212-1213, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  70. Schiffman JD: No child left behind in SDHB testing for paragangliomas and pheochromocytomas. J Clin Oncol 29 (31): 4070-2, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  71. Jasperson KW, Kohlmann W, Gammon A, et al.: Role of rapid sequence whole-body MRI screening in SDH-associated hereditary paraganglioma families. Fam Cancer 13 (2): 257-65, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  72. Gravel G, Niccoli P, Rohmer V, et al.: The value of a rapid contrast-enhanced angio-MRI protocol in the detection of head and neck paragangliomas in SDHx mutations carriers: a retrospective study on behalf of the PGL.EVA investigators. Eur Radiol 26 (6): 1696-704, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  73. Timmers HJ, Gimenez-Roqueplo AP, Mannelli M, et al.: Clinical aspects of SDHx-related pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Endocr Relat Cancer 16 (2): 391-400, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  74. Lefebvre M, Foulkes WD: Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma syndromes: genetics and management update. Curr Oncol 21 (1): e8-e17, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  75. Pacak K: Preoperative management of the pheochromocytoma patient. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92 (11): 4069-79, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  76. GRAHAM JB: Pheochromocytoma and hypertension; an analysis of 207 cases. Int Abstr Surg 92 (2): 105-21, 1951. [PUBMED Abstract]
  77. Goldstein RE, O'Neill JA Jr, Holcomb GW 3rd, et al.: Clinical experience over 48 years with pheochromocytoma. Ann Surg 229 (6): 755-64; discussion 764-6, 1999. [PUBMED Abstract]
  78. Miura Y, Yoshinaga K: Doxazosin: a newly developed, selective alpha 1-inhibitor in the management of patients with pheochromocytoma. Am Heart J 116 (6 Pt 2): 1785-9, 1988. [PUBMED Abstract]
  79. Prys-Roberts C, Farndon JR: Efficacy and safety of doxazosin for perioperative management of patients with pheochromocytoma. World J Surg 26 (8): 1037-42, 2002. [PUBMED Abstract]
  80. Zhu Y, He HC, Su TW, et al.: Selective α1-adrenoceptor antagonist (controlled release tablets) in preoperative management of pheochromocytoma. Endocrine 38 (2): 254-9, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  81. Ross EJ, Prichard BN, Kaufman L, et al.: Preoperative and operative management of patients with phaeochromocytoma. Br Med J 1 (5534): 191-8, 1967. [PUBMED Abstract]
  82. Hack HA: The perioperative management of children with phaeochromocytoma. Paediatr Anaesth 10 (5): 463-76, 2000. [PUBMED Abstract]
  83. Proye C, Thevenin D, Cecat P, et al.: Exclusive use of calcium channel blockers in preoperative and intraoperative control of pheochromocytomas: hemodynamics and free catecholamine assays in ten consecutive patients. Surgery 106 (6): 1149-54, 1989. [PUBMED Abstract]
  84. Vargas HI, Kavoussi LR, Bartlett DL, et al.: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a new standard of care. Urology 49 (5): 673-8, 1997. [PUBMED Abstract]
  85. Perrier ND, Kennamer DL, Bao R, et al.: Posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy: preferred technique for removal of benign tumors and isolated metastases. Ann Surg 248 (4): 666-74, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  86. Dickson PV, Jimenez C, Chisholm GB, et al.: Posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy: a contemporary American experience. J Am Coll Surg 212 (4): 659-65; discussion 665-7, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  87. Ober WB: Emil Zuckerkandl and his delightful little organ. Pathol Annu 18 Pt 1: 103-19, 1983. [PUBMED Abstract]
  88. Mundschenk J, Lehnert H: Malignant pheochromocytoma. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 106 (5): 373-6, 1998. [PUBMED Abstract]
  89. Nockel P, El Lakis M, Gaitanidis A, et al.: Preoperative genetic testing in pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas influences the surgical approach and the extent of adrenal surgery. Surgery 163 (1): 191-196, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  90. Grubbs EG, Rich TA, Ng C, et al.: Long-term outcomes of surgical treatment for hereditary pheochromocytoma. J Am Coll Surg 216 (2): 280-9, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  91. Castinetti F, Qi XP, Walz MK, et al.: Outcomes of adrenal-sparing surgery or total adrenalectomy in phaeochromocytoma associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2: an international retrospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 15 (6): 648-55, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)