Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 35Growth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 28 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Diagnosis of GH Deficiency as a Late Effect of Radiotherapy in Survivors of Childhood Cancers

Open access

Abstract

Background: Limited guidance exists for selecting a laboratory method for diagnosing GH deficiency (GHD) when it occurs as a late effect of radiotherapy in childhood cancer survivors (CCSs). Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus for studies evaluating GHD that used IGF-1 or IGF-binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) measurements compared with GH dynamic testing. Results: We included 15 studies [IGF-1 (8 studies) and IGFBP-3 (7 studies)] enrolling 477 patients. Comparator tests varied widely. Overall, both IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 had suboptimal diagnostic accuracy but were strongly correlated. The use of both tests simultaneously in the same cohort did not improve the diagnostic accuracy. Despite high variability in the testing protocols, dynamic tests remained the most accurate for appropriately identifying patients with GHD. The insulin tolerance test (ITT) appears to be the most accepted reference test when used alone or in combination with arginine; however, standardized testing strategies among practice groups are absent. GHRH and arginine stimulation performed almost similarly to the ITT; however, in one study GHRH with arginine stimulation had 66% sensitivity and 88% specificity compared with the ITT. Insufficient data were available to assess the accuracy of serial GH testing (nocturnal or over 24 hours). Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of various dynamic tests for GHD in CCSs appears to follow the same patterns as those in non-CCSs. Interpreting GHRH stimulation is a challenge given the primarily hypothalamic dysfunction in CCSs. IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 perform poorly in this population.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

This systematic review found that dynamic GH testing remains the most accurate approach for diagnosing GH deficiency (GHD) in childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) after radiotherapy, with the insulin tolerance test (ITT) as the most accepted reference. IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 performed poorly in this population, and evidence was limited by high variability and the absence of a gold standard.

Key findings

  • Across 15 studies and 477 patients (56% male, n = 266), dynamic tests remained most accurate for identifying GHD; the ITT was the most commonly used reference test. GHRH with arginine stimulation had 66% sensitivity and 88% specificity compared with the ITT in one study.
  • IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 had suboptimal diagnostic accuracy: IGF-1 sensitivity varied from 47% to 66% and specificity from 77% to 100%; IGFBP-3 had a low sensitivity of 20%. Using both tests simultaneously did not improve diagnostic accuracy.
  • Insufficient data were available to assess serial GH testing (nocturnal or 24-hour profiles). The quality of evidence was moderate, and meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity could not be performed because studies lacked a single common comparator.

Methods

  • Systematic review following Cochrane Collaboration standards and PRISMA reporting; searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from each database’s inception to 1 March 2016, plus reference screening and taskforce input.
  • Included cohort studies and case series evaluating diagnostic accuracy of provocative, dynamic, or static GH testing compared with reference standard tests, with at least 10 patients undergoing any kind of GH testing.
  • From 211 citations, 177 full-text studies were reviewed, and 15 studies were included. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate, used a standardized Web-based form for data collection, assessed risk of bias with QUADAS-2, and evaluated quality of evidence with GRADE.

Limitations

  • Stated: included studies span four decades and represent varied testing and clinical consensuses, leading to variability in reporting results and outcomes; there is no gold standard for diagnosing GHD, and calculating diagnostic accuracies from available primary data was not possible.
  • Stated: the cohorts could not be combined and index tests could not be compared due to high interstudy variability in testing strategies, cutoff levels, and comparator tests; quality of evidence was moderate because of small sample size and inability to aggregate data.
  • Evident from the text: 5 studies did not report age at diagnosis, 3 did not report age at GHD evaluation, and 2 did not report sex proportions; none of the provocative tests evaluated were tested for reproducibility over time.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/jc.2018-01204

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 20 Not checked · 41 Own results and interpretations

30 more claims

Create a free account to see all 61 claims and to verify the 27 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 11
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 20

Create a free account to see these claims.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

5 of 5

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 35

Metadata

Authors
Sfeir, J. G., Kittah, N. E. N., Tamhane, S. U., Jasim, S., Chemaitilly, W., Cohen, L. E., & Murad, M. H.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Murad, M Hassan
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2018-06-29
Volume
103
Issue
8
Pages
2785-2793
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W2811100230
Cited by
35
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Novo Nordisk
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Growth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Pituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Keywords
growth hormone deficiency, childhood cancer survivors, late radiation effects, insulin-like growth factor I, IGFBP-3, insulin tolerance test, GHRH stimulation, arginine stimulation, diagnostic accuracy, hypothalamic dysfunction
MeSH terms
Cancer Survivors, Adult, Child, Diagnostic Techniques, Endocrine, Growth Disorders, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Radiation Injuries, Radiotherapy, Reproducibility of Results, Age of Onset, Human Growth Hormone

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.