4.4 Article

Clinical and genetic characteristics of a large monocentric series of patients affected by thyroid hormone (Th) resistance and suggestions for differential diagnosis in patients without mutation of Th receptor β

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 81, 期 6, 页码 921-928

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cen.12556

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Pisa [Fondi d'Ateneo]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThe syndrome of resistance to thyroid hormone (RTH) is caused by a mutation of TH receptor (TR) in 80% of cases. Patients without mutation (non-TR-RTH) may have a biochemical pattern that is difficult to differentiate from that of pituitary TSH-secreting adenoma (TSHoma). Herein, we report a large monocentric series of RTH focusing on patients with non-TR-RTH, to evaluate possible clinical or biochemical parameters able to distinguish them from TSHoma. Design and patientsWe retrospectively reviewed the data of 99 consecutive patients with inappropriate TSH secretion (IST) syndrome referred to our Department between 1983 and 2011, identifying 68 patients with RTH and 31 patients with TSHomas. MeasurementsPatient records were reviewed for the main clinical, biochemical and imaging characteristics. ResultsOf our 68 patients with RTH, 16 (235%) did not show a TR mutation and did not have affected family members. Of these 16 patients, three developed a TSHoma, during follow-up. To distinguish non-TR-RTH from TSHoma, we identified appropriate cut-off values for the main biochemical parameters that demonstrated the greatest sensitivity and specificity (T3 suppression test, -subunit/TSH molar ratio, -subunit assay and TRH test) and we calculated the probability for each patient to develop a TSHoma. ConclusionsThe application of the identified cut-offs could become a very useful tool in the challenging differential diagnosis between sporadic non-TR-RTH and TSHoma. It would then be possible to select the patients at higher risk of developing a TSHoma and therefore needing a closer follow-up.

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

4.4
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