4.6 Article

Limited value for urinary 5-HIAA excretion as prognostic marker in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 175, 期 5, 页码 361-366

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-16-0392

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novartis
  2. Ipsen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine if urinary 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) excretion is of prognostic value for overall survival (OS) in patients with a gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumour (NET) and to compare the prognostic value with patient characteristics, ENETS/WHO grading, ENETS TNM staging and biomarkers. Design and methods: Data was collected from patients with a gastrointestinal NET or a NET with gastrointestinal metastases and available 5-HIAA excretion in 24-h urine samples. Laboratory results were stratified for urinary 5-HIAA and chromogranin A (CgA): <2x upper limit of normal (ULN), 2-10x ULN, or > 10x ULN. For neuron-specific enolase (NSE), this was the reference range or > 1x ULN. OS was compared using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests, and hazard ratios were calculated using Cox regression for univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: A total of 371 patients were included, 46.6% female with a mean age of 59.9 years. OS was shortest in patients with urinary 5-HIAA excretion > 10x ULN vs reference range (median 83 months vs 141 months, P = 0.002). In univariate analysis, urinary 5-HIAA excretion >10x ULN was a negative predictor (HR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.09-2.39). However, in multivariate analysis, only age (HR 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.08), grade 3 disease (HR 5.09, 95% CI: 2.20-11.79), NSE >1x ULN (HR 2.36, 95% CI: 1.34-4.14) and CgA >10x ULN (HR 3.61, 95% CI: 1.56-8.34) remained as the predictors. Conclusion: Urinary 5-HIAA excretion >10x ULN is a negative predictor for OS. However, when added to other biomarkers and grading, it is no longer a predictor for OS. Therefore, it should only be determined to assess carcinoid syndrome and not for prognostic value.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据