Cited by 503Adrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesMetabolism and Genetic Disorders

A Comparison of Biochemical Tests for Pheochromocytoma: Measurement of Fractionated Plasma Metanephrines Compared with the Combination of 24-Hour Urinary Metanephrines and Catecholamines

Sawka, Anna M., Jaeschke, Roman, Singh, Ravinder J., Young, William F.·2003·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

We compared the diagnostic efficacy of fractionated plasma metanephrine measurements to measurements of 24-h urinary total metanephrines and catecholamines in outpatients tested for pheochromocytoma at Mayo Clinic Rochester from January 1, 1999, until November 27, 2000. Catecholaminesecreting tumors were histologically proven. The sensitivity of fractionated plasma metanephrines was 97% (30 of 31 patients), compared with a sensitivity of 90% (28 of 31) for urinary total metanephrines and catecholamines (P = 0.63). The specificity of fractionated plasma metanephrines was 85% (221 of 261), compared with 98% (257 of 261; P < 0.001) for urinary measurements. The likelihood ratios for positive tests were 6.3 (95% confidence interval, 4.7 to 8.5) for fractionated plasma metanephrines and 58.9 (95% confidence interval, 22.1 to 156.9) for urinary total metanephrines and catecholamines. An adrenal pheochromocytoma was missed by urinary testing in two patients with familial syndromes and one asymptomatic patient with an incidentally discovered adrenal mass. An extra-adrenal paraganglioma was missed by plasma testing in one patient. In conclusion, measurements of 24-h urinary total metanephrines and catecholamines yield fewer false-positive results, an attribute preferred for testing low-risk patients, but fractionated plasma metanephrine measurements may be preferred in high-risk patients with familial endocrine syndromes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/jc.2002-021251

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sawka, A. M., Jaeschke, R., Singh, R. J., & Young, W. F.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (CA)
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2003-02
Volume
88
Issue
2
Pages
553-558
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W1979170245
Cited by
503
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 22
FWCI
25.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Mayo Clinic
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Adrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Metabolism and Genetic Disorders
Keywords
pheochromocytoma, catecholamines, sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, paraganglioma, adrenal incidentaloma, false positives
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adrenal Gland Neoplasms, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Catecholamines, Child, Female, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Male, Metanephrine, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Paraganglioma, Pheochromocytoma, Sensitivity and Specificity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review