help button home button The Oncologist
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Click here to read this article as a CME course

First Published Online July 10, 2008
The Oncologist, Vol. 13, No. 7, 779-793, July 2008; doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0043
© 2008 AlphaMed Press

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
theoncologist.2008-0043v1
13/7/779    most recent
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Adler, J. T.
Right arrow Articles by Sidhu, S. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Adler, J. T.
Right arrow Articles by Sidhu, S. B.

Endocrinology

Pheochromocytoma: Current Approaches and Future Directions

Joel T. Adlera,*, Goswin Y. Meyer-Rochowb,c,*, Herbert Chena, Diana E. Bennc, Bruce G. Robinsonc,d, Rebecca S. Sippela, Stan B. Sidhub,c

aSection of Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA; bEndocrine Surgical Unit, University of Sydney, cCancer Genetics, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, and dDepartment of Endocrinology, University of Sydney, Royal North Shore Hospital, New South Wales, Australia

Key Words. Pheochromocytoma • Management • Familial pheochromocytoma • Adrenal gland

Correspondence: Rebecca Sippel, M.D., H4/755 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA. Telephone: 608-263-1387; Fax: 608-263-7652; e-mail: sippel{at}surgery.wisc.edu

Received February 21, 2008; accepted for publication June 3, 2008; first published online in THE ONCOLOGIST Express on July 10, 2008.

Disclosure: H.C. has received honoraria from Novartis. The content of this article has been reviewed by independent peer reviewers to ensure that it is balanced, objective, and free from commercial bias. No financial relationships relevant to the content of this article have been disclosed by the authors, planners, independent peer reviewers, or staff managers.


   Learning Objectives
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 
After completing this course, the reader should be able to:

  1. Use current practice methods in the diagnosis of pheochromocytomas.
  2. Employ current practice methods in the treatment of pheochromocytomas.
  3. Evaluate the current molecular research that contributes to the treatment of pheochromocytomas.

This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 
Pheochromocytomas are rare catecholamine-secreting tumors that arise from chromaffin tissue within the adrenal medulla and extra-adrenal sites. Because of the excess secretion of hormones, these tumors often cause debilitating symptoms and a poor quality of life. While medical management plays a significant role in the treatment of pheochromocytoma patients, surgical excision remains the only cure. Improved medical management and surgical techniques and an increased understanding of hereditary disease have improved the outcome of pheochromocytoma patients with benign disease; however, the outcome of patients with malignant disease remains poor. In this review, we discuss the presentation, diagnosis, management, and future directions in the management of this disease.


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 
First described in 1886 by Fränkel, pheochromocytomas are rare catecholamine-secreting tumors derived from the chromaffin cells of the embryonic neural crest [1, 2]. These tumors can occur anywhere that sympathetic nervous tissue is found. While most pheochromocytomas arise in the adrenal medulla, there are also extra-adrenal pheochromocytomas (paragangliomas) of the abdomen, pelvis, thorax, and neck. Although these tumors are similar in origin, the clinical manifestation, prognosis, and management differ. The incidence of pheochromocytoma is <0.5% in patients with hypertensive symptoms [3] and can be as high as 4% in patients with adrenal incidentalomas [4]. Referrals for pheochromocytoma have been reported to be increasing, likely as a result of improved detection [5].

Because of excess secretion of the hormones epinephrine, norepinephrine, dopamine, and others, patients with pheochromocytoma often experience debilitating symptoms and have a poor quality of life. Treatment for benign and malignant disease is surgical resection, while chemotherapeutic options for malignant disease remain poor. Recent advances in diagnostic imaging, pharmacologic treatment, surgical technique, and molecular profiling have contributed to a better understanding of the natural history of this disease. This review summarizes the presentation, diagnosis, surgical intervention, postoperative management, and future directions in the treatment of benign and malignant pheochromocytomas.


   CLINICAL PRESENTATION
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 
Health care providers frequently learn that pheochromocytoma is the "tumor of tens:" 10% are extra-adrenal, 10% are bilateral, 10% are malignant, 10% are found in asymptomatic patients, and 10% are hereditary [6]. The recent description of mutations of the succinate dehydrogenase gene (SDH) has demonstrated a much stronger hereditary component than formerly thought [7]. Currently, up to 24% of pheochromocytomas may have a genetic predisposition [8, 9].

"Classic" Presentation
The classic triad of pheochromocytoma presentation is episodic headache, sweating, and palpitations [10, 11]. Persistent hypertension is frequently considered part of the presentation. As to be expected, these symptoms are not always present and certainly do not always constitute a diagnosis. In a retrospective study, blood pressure anomalies were associated with the discovery of pheochromocytoma in 51% of cases, while headaches and palpitations were found in 24% of patients [12]. While pheochromocytoma is frequently considered in cases of persistent hypertension, it accounts for <0.5% of these cases [3, 13]. Pheochromocytoma is typically found with a diverse set of symptoms, which may include anxiety, chest and abdominal pain, visual blurring, papilledema, nausea and vomiting, orthostatic hypotension, transitory electrocardiographic changes, and psychiatric disorders (Table 1) [14–16].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Signs and symptoms of pheochromocytoma

 
Occasionally, patients have normotensive, or "asymptomatic," pheochromocytomas, which are frequently discovered incidentally. The prevalence of an asymptomatic pheochromocytoma is estimated to be 21% [17], and retrospective studies have shown no difference in demographic, radiographic, and pathologic characteristics in sporadic tumors [18, 19]. The reasons for this are unknown, but some have proposed that the cardiovascular system becomes desensitized to circulating catecholamines [18]. Patients with a genetic predisposition to pheochromocytoma tend to be younger, have smaller tumors, and are more likely to be normotensive [13].

The Adrenal Incidentaloma
With widespread application of abdominal imaging, an increasing number of adrenal masses are being found incidentally. In a Mayo Clinic study, 3.4% of all abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans performed over a 5-year period revealed an adrenal mass. Once all other known causes of the masses were excluded, 0.4% of all scans revealed adrenal incidentalomas >1 cm in size [19]. Autopsy studies have shown an adrenal mass prevalence of approximately 8% [20]. These data suggest that adrenal masses are a relatively common phenomenon. In an attempt to characterize how many of these are pheochromocytomas, a large retrospective series from Italy found that 4.2% of all adrenal incidentalomas were pheochromocytomas [4].

An adrenal mass in a patient with a history of cancer presents a diagnostic challenge [21, 22]. It is becoming increasingly recognized that these lesions are not always metastases and must be thoroughly evaluated [23]. In a series of 81 patients with a history of malignancy and without known hereditary causes, five (6.7%) patients had sporadic pheochromocytomas [24]. After excluding patients with hereditary syndromes, another retrospective series found that one in four isolated adrenal lesions in patients with a history of cancer was a pheochromocytoma [25]. We agree with others and encourage a thorough evaluation of all patients with an isolated adrenal mass [26, 27].

Familial Pheochromocytoma
Prior to 2000, it was generally accepted that 10% of pheochromocytomas were associated with familial syndromes; however, it is now recognized that the frequency of germline mutations in apparently sporadic presentations is as high as 15%–24% [8, 28, 29–32]. Familial pheochromocytomas are often multifocal or bilateral and generally present at an earlier age than sporadic pheochromocytoma [33, 34]. Germline mutations in six genes have been associated with familial pheochromocytoma, namely, the von Hippel-Lindau gene (VHL), which causes von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) syndrome, the RET gene, leading to multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN-2), the neurofibromatosis type 1 gene (NF1), associated with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) disease, and the genes encoding subunits B and D (and also rarely C) of mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase (SDHB, SDHD, and SDHC), which are associated with familial paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Features of familial syndromes associated with pheochromocytoma [8, 9, 34, 49, 50, 57, 60, 164, 165]

 

VHL Syndrome
VHL syndrome is characterized by the development of retinal and central nervous system (CNS) hemangioblastomas, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, pheochromocytoma, pancreatic and renal cysts, endolymphatic sac tumors, and papillary cystadenoma of the epididymis or broad ligament [35–38]. VHL germline mutations are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Ninety percent of gene carriers will express one or more of the clinical manifestations of the syndrome by 60 years of age [39] and 7%–18% will develop pheochromocytomas at a mean age of 30 years (range, 5–54) [8, 40–42]. From 3% to 11% of patients presenting with an apparently sporadic pheochromocytoma will have a VHL germline mutation [8, 43, 44]. VHL-associated pheochromocytomas frequently occur as synchronous or metachronous bilateral adrenal lesions but can also be extra-adrenal in location, and frequently secrete norepinephrine but generally do not produce epinephrine [41, 45]. Long-term morbidity and mortality are usually related to complications from retinal and CNS hemangioblastomas and metastatic renal cell carcinoma [36–38].

MEN-2
Activating germline mutations of the RET proto-oncogene result in MEN-2. Medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is the most common presenting feature of MEN-2, with a penetrance of >90% by 50 years of age [46, 47]. Pheochromocytoma occurs in approximately 50% of patients with MEN-2 [48]. In 9%–27% of MEN-2 patients, pheochromocytoma is the first manifestation of the syndrome; of these patients, 35%–73% will have MTC diagnosed concurrently [48–50]. The mean age of presentation of pheochromocytoma is 39.5 years (range, 14–68) for MEN-2A and 32.4 years (range, 15–41) for MEN-2B [49]. Extra-adrenal disease is rarely seen with MEN-2 [49]. Adrenal pheochromocytoma can present as either unilateral or bilateral disease. Of those initially presenting with unilateral disease, 50% will develop a pheochromocytoma in the contralateral gland over a period of 8–10 years [48]. MEN-2–associated pheochromocytomas generally secrete epinephrine, in contrast to VHL-associated tumors [45].

NF1
The diagnosis of NF1 is usually made on the following clinical criteria: greater than six café-au-lait spots, more than two neurofibromas, and axillary freckling [51]. NF1 is associated with a greater incidence of a variety of neuroendocrine tumors, including pheochromocytomas [52, 53], but the occurrence of pheochromocytoma is relatively uncommon, with an estimated lifetime incidence of 0.1%–5.5% [54].

Familial Pheochromocytoma/Paraganglioma Syndromes
Recently described germline mutations in SDHB, SDHD, and SDHC (previously PGL4, PGL1, and PGL3) result in familial pheochromocytoma and/or paraganglioma. SDHB mutations appear to be the most common, with an overall frequency of 1.7%–6.7% in patients presenting with pheochromocytoma [55]. Patients with SDHB mutations predominately develop extra-adrenal pheochromocytoma and are at high risk for malignant disease [56]. Head and neck paragangliomas predominate in SDHD mutation carriers; however, they are more likely than SDHB carriers to have multifocal disease and less likely to be malignant. Importantly, both tumor types (pheochromocytoma or head and neck paraganglioma) may develop in SDHB or SDHD mutation carriers, which must be considered with the long-term monitoring of disease in these patients [57].

SDHD mutations are maternally imprinted; therefore, carriers who inherit the mutation from their mother remain disease free but their offspring are at risk of inheriting the mutation [31]. SDHC-associated disease is rare and was thought to occur exclusively as head and neck paragangliomas; however, an SDHC-associated extra-adrenal abdominal pheochromocytoma was recently reported [58]. Malignant pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma appears to be uncommon in SDHD- and SDHC-associated disease [59–61].


   DIAGNOSIS AND EVALUATION
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 
Much has been written about the diagnostic evaluation of pheochromocytoma. Useful decision algorithms have been proposed for a suspected pheochromocytoma [13], adrenal incidentaloma [26, 62], and patients with a history of malignancy [27]. As a general rule, pheochromocytomas are first established by a sensitive biochemical diagnosis and then confirmed by specific imaging studies. For the adrenal incidentaloma already discovered by computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a biochemical diagnosis should be established before more specific imaging studies are done. A flowchart of our strategy for management and diagnosis is found in Figure 1.


Figure 1
View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Flowchart of diagnosis and management of pheochromocytoma.

Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MIBG, metaiodobenzylguanadine; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; SPECT, single photon emission computed tomography.

 
Biochemical Evaluation
Historically, many institutions relied upon 24-hour measurements of total urinary catecholamines and metanephrines. In studies from the Mayo Clinic, urinary measurements of total catecholamines and metanephrines were found to have a sensitivity and specificity of 98% and 98%, respectively [63, 64]. If a urinary collection is done, it is advisable to measure twice to account for the episodic nature of pheochromocytoma. Although urinary dopamine has a specificity of 99%, it is a poor first choice because of a sensitivity of 63%. Elevations in either urinary norepinephrine or epinephrine were found to have a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 97% [65]. Unfortunately, the 24-hour collection method can place an undue burden on the patient. Tricyclic antidepressants can cause a false-positive result with the measurement of urinary catecholamines [66].

The measurement of plasma metanephrines is extremely sensitive, and some have advocated its use as a first-line test. Its sensitivity is nearly 99%, and its specificity has been reported to be in the range of 85%–89% [64, 67, 68]. Because of its high negative-predictive value and quick results, many argue that a negative result is sufficient to exclude pheochromocytoma [68]. Some causes of false-positive results include tricyclic antidepressants, phenoxybenzamine, radiographic contrast dye, congestive heart failure, major depression, and panic disorder [11, 14, 15]. The clonidine suppression test can be useful to distinguish false-positive results from true-positive results. The centrally acting {alpha}2 agonist is unable to suppress the secretion of epinephrine and norepinephrine in pheochromocytoma, and it has a reported diagnostic accuracy of 92% [69, 70]. This may not be valid for patients with normal catecholamine levels: one group found that the clonidine suppression test has a false-positive rate five times higher than that in those with elevated catecholamines [71]. However, we do not recommend its use because of the reliability and ease of use of other tests. We recommend evaluation of fractionated plasma metanephrines as the first test in cases of suspected pheochromocytoma: it is easy and reliable and effectively rules out pheochromocytoma.

Historical tests worth mentioning include the glucagon stimulation test, chromogranin A, and direct measurements of plasma catecholamines. The glucagon stimulation test is infrequently used because it does not reliably increase hormonal secretion [72, 73]. Although the overlap with carcinoid tumors and adrenal cortical carcinoma lowers its specificity, serum chromogranin A levels were found to be elevated in 86% of patients with pheochromocytoma [74–76]. While not directly useful in diagnosis, chromogranin A levels are useful in the management of malignant pheochromocytoma as a marker of tumor burden and progression of disease. Ultimately, the combination of different biochemical investigations does not increase diagnostic accuracy, and measurement of plasma free metanephrines is the preferred test in patients with both hereditary and sporadic disease [67].

Imaging
Imaging tests should be employed for localization after a biochemical diagnosis is confirmed [77]. With the exception of the smaller tumors seen in hereditary disease, CT and MRI are sensitive enough to localize most pheochromocytomas [78]. Ninety-five percent of extra-adrenal pheochromocytomas are found in the abdomen and pelvis [79]. Both CT and MRI have a sensitivity of 98%–100% for adrenal pheochromocytomas [80], but MRI is more sensitive (94% versus 90%) for extra-adrenal pheochromocytomas [17, 81, 82]. Unfortunately, these tests have a specificity of approximately 70% because of the high incidence of adrenal incidentalomas [83].

If a solitary tumor is localized, confirmatory studies may be pursued but are not essential if there is no suggestion of familial disease. The most commonly used studies are either iodine-123–labeled metaiodobenzylguanadine (123I-MIBG) or 131I-MIBG scintigraphy, which use a norepinephrine precursor compound to localize the hypersecretory adrenergic tissue. When a pheochromocytoma is confirmed both biochemically and by CT or MRI, scintigraphy has been shown to be unnecessary for benign sporadic or familial pheochromocytoma [84, 85]. 123I-MIBG is superior to 131I-MIBG scintigraphy for the evaluation of metastases, but it is not widely available [86]. Both have a specificity of approximately 95%, but the sensitivity of 123I-MIBG is higher (90% versus 77%) [87]. Moreover, 123I-MIBG can be used to perform single photon emission CT. The absence of β-emission and a shorter half-life result in a 20 times greater initial level of radioactivity administered to the patient without increasing the absorbed radiation dose, which accounts for the greater sensitivity of 123I-MIBG [88]. In centers where this is not available, however, 131I-MIBG can still be used successfully. In contrast to benign tumors, MIBG does have a role in the staging and diagnosis of malignant disease, where it can be used to find metastases too small to be detected by CT or MRI [89].

Another important imaging technique is positron emission tomography (PET). Several different agents have been used for localization of pheochromocytoma. The more sensitive agents include 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose [90] and 82rubidium [91], while more specific agents incorporate 11C-hydroxyephedrine [92] and 6-18F-fluorodopamine [87]. While studies have shown remarkably high sensitivity and specificity, the series are small and many of the agents are not yet in widespread clinical use. Generally considered to be superior to MIBG scintigraphy, PET may one day play a major role in the imaging of metastatic pheochromocytoma because of its ability to specifically localize small tumors distributed throughout the body [87, 93, 94].

In conclusion, our recommendation is to first attempt to localize the tumor by CT or MRI. Routine preoperative imaging with MIBG in patients with well-localized tumors is probably unnecessary, but may be beneficial in patients with bilateral lesions or a clinical suspicion of malignancy. If the tumor cannot be found and pheochromocytoma is still strongly suspected, further imaging with MIBG is an appropriate measure. There are excellent decision trees available for the appropriate approach to imaging [13, 95].


   TREATMENT OF PHEOCHROMOCYTOMA
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 
Preoperative Management
Once the diagnosis of a pheochromocytoma is made, appropriate preoperative medical management is necessary to reduce the risk for perioperative complications. During surgical manipulation of the tumor, massive catecholamine release may occur, which can exceed the normal plasma concentration by >1,000 times. This can result in hypertensive crisis, cardiac arrhythmias, cerebral vascular accident, myocardial infarction or ischemia, pulmonary edema, and multiorgan failure [96]. The introduction of pharmacological pretreatment in the 1950s reduced the perioperative mortality rate from as high as 45% to <2% [74–76, 97, 98].

The aim of pharmacological management is to abolish or reduce the potentially lethal swings in blood pressure that can occur during induction of an anesthetic and surgical manipulation of the tumor, and to prevent the severe hypotension that can result immediately following removal of the tumor. Stabilization of blood pressure is achieved by the use of a single antihypertensive agent or a combination of antihypertensive agents preoperatively and intraoperatively to counteract excessive catecholamine adrenergic activity, volume expansion with i.v. fluid to prevent hypotension once maximal vasodilatation is achieved, and inotropic support after excision of the pheochromocytoma if required [99]. There are currently no randomized prospective trials to establish the optimal preoperative pharmacological management of pheochromocytoma. As a result, there is no clear consensus regarding the drug of choice [100]. {alpha}-adrenoceptor antagonists, dihydropyridine calcium channel receptor blockers, the tyrosine hydroxylase inhibitor {alpha}-methyltyrosine, and the competitive {alpha}- and β-receptor blocking drug labetalol have all been successfully used in an oral form for the preoperative treatment of pheochromocytoma [84, 85, 101–104]. The drug dosage is generally reassessed and titrated every 2–3 days until the expected therapeutic response is achieved. Adequate dosage is indicated by a reduction in blood pressure to normal levels with mild orthostatic hypotension (not less than 80/45 mmHg). Treatment is usually commenced 10–14 days preoperatively to allow adequate time for blood pressure normalization and volume expansion to occur. Intravenous saline is administered if further volume expansion is required prior to surgery [76, 105].

The two most commonly used {alpha}-adrenergic antagonists are phenoxybenzamine and doxazosin [34]. Phenoxybenzamine is a nonselective, noncompetitive {alpha}-adrenergic antagonist with a plasma half-life of 24 hours. Starting dosages of 20–40 mg daily are titrated depending on patient response. Nonselective {alpha}-adrenergic blockade can result in reflex tachycardia, for which the addition of a β-adrenergic blocker is often required for symptomatic relief from tachycardia or tachyarrhythmias. β-adrenergic blockers should never be used alone and should be commenced only after adequate pretreatment with {alpha}-adrenergic blockade, because unopposed {alpha}-adrenergic receptor stimulation can induce a catastrophic hypertensive crisis [76, 100, 105]. Labetalol has both {alpha}- and β-receptor antagonist activity, is available in oral and i.v. preparations, and has been successfully used for the perioperative control of blood pressure in pheochromocytoma patients and in patients with metastatic disease; however, patient response may be variable [104, 106, 107]. Doxazosin is a selective {alpha}1-adrenergic antagonist and therefore does not result in tachycardia; however, as a competitive antagonist it can be displaced by high levels of endogenous catecholamines [108]. It has a plasma half-life of 20 hours and is usually given in increasing doses from 1 mg to 16 mg once a day [109]. Other selective {alpha}1-adrenergic antagonists include prazosin and terazosin, which have shorter half-lives and therefore require more frequent administration [100].

The dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are useful in patients who are normotensive but have paroxysmal episodes of hypertension, because they are less likely to cause significant orthostatic hypotension or overshoot hypotension. Reduction in arterial blood pressure results from inhibition of norepinephrine-mediated transmembrane calcium influx in vascular smooth muscle [110]. Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers do not induce tachycardia and may also reduce catecholamine-associated coronary artery spasm, and are therefore particularly useful in pheochromocytoma patients with coronary vasospasm or myocarditis [100, 105, 109]. Amlodipine is given in a dose of 10–20 mg/day, nifedipine is given at 30–90 mg/day, nicardipine is given at 60–90 mg/day, and verapamil is given at 180–540 mg/day [105]. Nicardipine infusion has also been used effectively for the rapid control of hemodynamic changes intraoperatively [109, 111].

{alpha}-methyltyrosine competitively inhibits tyrosine hydroxylase, which catalyzes the conversion of tyrosine to dihydroxyphenylalanine, the first step of catecholamine synthesis [76, 105, 112]. It is centrally acting and therefore can result in sedation, anxiety, psychic disturbance, and extrapyramidal side effects that may be exacerbated by the concurrent use of a dopamine antagonist. Patients may also experience severe diarrhea necessitating treatment with antidiarrheal agents. In patients with pheochromocytoma, a dose of 1–4 g/day of {alpha}-methyltyrosine is administered and the maximum biochemical effect is observed within 2–3 days. Response to treatment can be observed by clinical response and measured by a reduction in urinary or plasma catecholamine levels, and the drug dose can be titrated accordingly, thereby reducing the frequency and severity of the side effects that may occur [113, 114]. {alpha}-methyltyrosine is effective for the management of patients with extensive metastatic pheochromocytoma; however, it can also be used for preoperative preparation of pheochromocytoma patients. It may therefore be a useful alternative for patients in whom {alpha}-adrenoceptor or calcium channel blockers are contraindicated [76, 100, 105].

Adequate preoperative medical preparation limits intraoperative cardiovascular instability; however, hypertensive crisis can still occur as a result of significant catecholamine release that can occur with surgical manipulation of the tumor. Volume expansion should be optimized preoperatively by the administration of i.v. saline or colloid, because this minimizes the blood pressure fluctuations that can occur intraoperatively with the administration of antihypertensive agents. Pharmacological agents that can be used to control blood pressure intraoperatively include phentolamine, sodium nitroprusside, nitroglycerine, magnesium sulfate, and urapidil. Cardiac tachyarrhythmias can be treated with short-acting β -blockers, such as esmolol or labetalol [76, 100, 102].

Operative Approach
Whenever possible, pheochromocytomas should be removed using a laparoscopic approach, because this technique results in less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, quicker recovery, and better cosmesis when compared with an open surgical approach. Open procedures are reserved for very large tumors or extra-adrenal tumors in locations difficult to remove laparoscopically. A transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach can be used depending on the site of the tumor and surgeon preference and experience [100, 115–118]. Removal of benign solitary tumors results in biochemical cure if complete excision is achieved; however, the long-term recurrence rates of pheochromocytoma are reported to be in the range of 0%–17% of patients [9, 98, 119]. Unlike adrenocortical tumors, in adrenal pheochromocytomas with local disease only, size is a poor predictor of malignancy and should therefore not be the deciding factor when considering a laparoscopic resection, because adrenal pheochromocytomas ≥10 cm can be safely removed with a laparoscopic approach [116, 117]. Regardless of tumor size, laparoscopic resection for pheochromocytoma should be converted to an open procedure for a difficult dissection, uncontrolled bleeding, suspicion of malignancy, or surgeon inexperience [116, 120, 121].

Bilateral cortical-sparing adrenalectomy has been advocated for patients presenting with bilateral adrenal pheochromocytoma or for MEN-2 and VHL patients presenting with unilateral adrenal pheochromocytoma, because of the high incidence of synchronous and metachronous disease that occurs in these familial pheochromocytoma syndromes [34, 122]. In expert hands, approximately 65% of patients remain corticosteroid independent, with a long-term recurrence rate from the adrenal remnant of 10%–20% [122–124].


   POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 
Patients may require monitoring in a high-dependency unit or intensive care setting for the first 12–48 hours because cardiovascular and metabolic instability can occur. Blood pressure and volume should be monitored using invasive arterial pressure and central venous pressure monitoring. Postoperative hypotension can result from the persisting action of antihypertensive agents used in the pre- and postoperative phases of management [100], as well as adrenoreceptor downregulation resulting from chronic high levels of circulating catecholamines [125]. Norepinephrine may be required to maintain blood pressure in the early postoperative period. Hypoglycemia can occur postoperatively and should be monitored for and corrected [126].

Biochemical testing should be performed postoperatively to confirm the absence of any residual disease; however, normal biochemical tests do not exclude the presence of microscopic disease [127]. Patients with familial pheochromocytoma should undergo life-long annual clinical and biochemical assessment because of the high risk for recurrent disease as well as screening for other syndromic neoplasms. Patients with sporadic pheochromocytoma should also be followed up indefinitely, because there are currently no reliable tests to discriminate benign from malignant disease, and recurrence rates up to 17% have been reported even in expert hands [9, 100].


   MALIGNANT DISEASE
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 
The World Health Organization tumor definition of a malignant pheochromocytoma is the presence of metastases [128], but this distinction between benign and malignant pheochromocytoma does not account for recurrent or locally invasive tumors. Frequently the diagnosis of malignant disease can only be made retrospectively once metastases have become evident. Metastases occur most frequently to bone, liver, and lungs and can appear as many as 20 years after initial presentation [127]. Currently, there are no prognostic tests that can reliably predict which patients are at risk of developing metastatic disease.

Histopathological and Molecular Markers of Malignant Disease
As with many other neuroendocrine tumors, a pathologist cannot determine whether a tumor is benign or malignant based on histological features alone (Table 3, [166]). The diagnosis of a malignant pheochromocytoma is often only made in retrospect once metastasis has occurred [128, 129]. In pheochromocytomas without local invasion, as opposed to adrenocortical tumors, size is not a predictive factor for malignancy [116].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Pheochromocytoma of the adrenal gland scaled score (PASS)

 
The histological scaling system Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal Gland Scaled Score uses a range of histological criteria to group adrenal pheochromocytomas into those with potential for biologically aggressive behavior (atypical) and those likely to behave in a benign fashion; however, it cannot predict malignancy within the atypical pheochromocytoma group. The immunohistochemical markers Ki-67, p53, MIB-1, inhibin/activin β-subunit, heat shock protein-90 (HSP-90), cyclo-oxygenase, N-cadherin, vascular endothelial growth factor, endothelin receptor type A and B, EM66, and several neuroendocrine- and catecholamine-related markers such as chromogranin A, neuropeptide Y, and 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine may be indicative of malignant disease; however, none has been shown to be a reliable prognostic marker [130–132].

The genetic changes that induce malignant disease remain unclear. Certain groups are predisposed to malignant disease. For example, patients with SDHB mutations are more likely to develop malignant disease [56, 59, 133] and nondiploid tumors have also been found to be associated with malignancy [134]. Gene expression and protein profiling are beginning to identify the genetic characteristics of malignant pheochromocytoma [135]. A recent gene-expression profiling study comparing nine benign and nine malignant pheochromocytomas identified approximately 100 genes demonstrating a statistically significant differential expression [136]. A low molecular weight (LMW) protein profile study generated from the serum of 33 patients with benign pheochromocytoma and 34 patients with malignant pheochromocytoma was able to identify combinations of LMW molecules that could distinguish all metastatic from benign pheochromocytoma patient serum samples [130]. These studies demonstrate the potential of profiling studies to discriminate between benign and malignant pheochromocytomas; however, validation of these results is required in larger case series.


   MANAGEMENT OF MALIGNANT DISEASE
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 
Once an individual has developed metastatic disease, the overall survival rate is 50% at 5 years. Whereas survival has exceeded 30 years in some patients, treatments for malignant disease are generally poor. Morbidity and mortality are often related to tumor burden because of high circulating catecholamines and the mass effect of metastases [80, 137, 138]. Malignant pheochromocytomas are generally resistant to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and patients therefore have a poor prognosis, with treatment aimed at palliative control of symptoms [139, 140].

Principles of management with malignant pheochromocytoma include pharmacologic control of symptoms and tumor mass reduction followed by radionuclide therapy with or without chemotherapy. Tumor mass reduction is achieved by surgical resection of the primary tumor and local or distal metastases [141, 142]. Hepatic resection should be considered for localized liver metastases; however, less invasive techniques such as arterial embolization or chemoembolization, cryoablation, and radiofrequency ablation will provide transient responses [143, 144]. Widespread liver metastases may respond to transcatheter arterial embolization with minimal morbidity [145].

131I-MIBG is an analogue of norepinephrine, which is sequestered in neurosecretory granules of chromaffin cells. Treatment with high-dose 131I-MIBG results in an objective tumor response in 30% of patients, stabilization of disease in 57% of patients, and progression of disease in 13% of patients. A reduction in catecholamine secretion is seen in up to 45% of patients [146]. The radiolabeled somatostatin analogues 111In-pentetreotide/111In-DOTA-octreotide, 90Y-DOTA-octreotide, 177Lu-DOTA-octreotide, and 90Y-DOTA-lanreotide have also been used with a similar tumor response in patients with tumors demonstrating uptake of the somatostatin radionuclide [147, 148].

Chemotherapy may be used in combination with radionuclide therapy, particularly when there is extensive residual disease or poor uptake and response to radionuclide treatment. Combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dacarbazine (CVD) is well described, with transient tumor response and symptomatic improvement in up to 65% of cases [149, 150]. Treatment regimes with etoposide and cisplatin [151], an anthracycline plus CVD [152], and the cytokine arabinoside [153] have also been used with similar response rates.

As molecular-profiling studies uncover the genetic changes that occur with tumorigenesis in pheochromocytoma, targeted gene therapy may soon become a treatment option. Recently, a phase II study evaluated the efficacy of temozolomide and thalidomide as a novel antineoplastic therapy for patients with malignant pheochromocytomas. Although a biochemical response of 40% and radiological response of 33% were achieved, significant lymphopenia occurred in a large number of patients, with opportunistic infections occurring in 10% [154]. More specific targeted therapy with imatinib mesylate [155] and everolimus [131] has been tried in a small number of patients with malignant pheochromocytomas; however, no significant effect was observed. Overexpression of the protein HSP-90 in malignant pheochromocytoma makes this a target of interest. HSP90 controls signaling pathways for proliferation/cell cycle control. The inhibitor of this protein 17-allylamino, 17-demethoxygeldanamycin has been shown to reduce cell proliferation in vitro; however, it has not yet reached clinical trials [156]. It is likely that, in the future, targeted gene therapy will be individualized based on the tumor molecular expression profile but also used in conjunction with current conventional treatments.

Surveillance and response to treatment can be assessed by the subjective relief of symptoms, control of hypertension, measurement of catecholamine levels, and radiological imaging with CT, MRI, MIBG, or PET. Although MIBG has a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 77%–90%, it has a much lower detection rate for malignant pheochromocytomas (57%), and individual patients with malignant disease can have both MIBG-negative and MIBG-positive lesions [87].


   GENETIC TESTING
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 
The identification of a germline mutation is a crucial part of the management of pheochromocytoma. The detection of a germline mutation should prompt screening for multifocal pheochromocytomas and other syndrome-associated tumors and the offer of genetic testing to first-degree relatives. The presence of a germline mutation is ideally known prior to embarking on surgical management; however, in most centers, this is not feasible with the current scope of genetic testing. General guidelines from the First International Pheochromocytoma Symposium (2006) for considering genetic testing include any patient with any of the following criteria: suggestive family history; age <35 years; and multifocal, bilateral adrenal, extra-adrenal, or malignant disease [157]. Since the discovery and description of the SDH gene mutations, several studies have shown that the overall rate of germline mutation carriers in patients presenting with apparently sporadic pheochromocytoma may be as high as 24% [8, 9]. It has therefore been suggested that all patients with pheochromocytoma should be considered for genetic testing [55, 158]. The clinical picture of the patient, family history, and characteristics of the tumor will help guide the clinician to determine the most likely gene mutation (VHL, SDHB, SDHD, RET) and hence prioritize the order in which gene testing should be performed (Table 2).


   FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
Author Contributions
 References
 
Much attention has recently been devoted to pheochromocytoma as the understanding of this disease continues to improve. Serum tests have achieved a high sensitivity and specificity, and new imaging techniques continue to develop. 123I-MIBG is superior to 131I-MIBG scintigraphy for the evaluation of metastases, but the availability of this scanning modality is not yet widespread in the U.S. While expensive, 6-18F-fluorodopamine PET is a selective and sensitive system that reliably locates both primary tumors and metastases. If it becomes widely available, it would greatly aid in the staging and management of malignant disease. Continually improving detection methods, especially screening of high-risk populations, will only contribute to the treatment and knowledge of these conditions in the future.

It has become clear that many apparently sporadic pheochromocytomas have a genetic component. Not only has there been a great deal of attention directed toward the hereditary components, but better predictive molecular factors have been identified for malignant pheochromocytoma, which could lead to more effective genetic testing [56]. In addition, microarray studies have identified a set of genes preferentially expressed in malignant pheochromocytoma [135]. Others have noted the growing usefulness of pheochromocytoma as a model for understanding cancer biology [159]. The combination of an identifiable hereditary component along with an understanding of the genetic and molecular defects in sporadic pheochromocytoma makes this a promising model and approach for insights into other cancers.

While treatment for benign pheochromocytoma remains surgical resection, therapy for malignant disease is unsatisfying at best. Combination therapy with 131I-MIBG and chemotherapy using cyclophosphamide, dacarbazine, and vincristine produced additive effects, but there was not a significant long-lasting benefit [160]. Radiofrequency ablation of hepatic and bony metastases has shown symptomatic relief in some patients [144]. Current studies focus on targeted pharmacologic interventions of specific pathways within pheochromocytoma cells, specifically Raf-1 [161], glycogen synthase kinase-3β [162], and Notch-1 [163]. These pathways are currently being targeted in clinical trials for carcinoids and medullary thyroid cancer, and future experiments will be directed toward clinical applications of these treatments. With a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of these tumors, better treatments could become possible. The future is wide open for improvements in the understanding and treatment of this disease.


   AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
References
 
Conception/design: Joel T. Adler, Goswin Y. Meyer-Rochow, Herbert Chen, Diana E. Benn, Bruce G. Robinson, Rebecca Sippel, Stan B. Sidhu

Financial support: Herbert Chen, Stan B. Sidhu

Administrative support: Herbert Chen, Stan B. Sidhu

Manuscript writing: Joel T. Adler, Goswin Y. Meyer-Rochow, Herbert Chen, Diana E. Benn, Bruce G. Robinson, Rebecca Sippel, Stan B. Sidhu

Final approval of manuscript: Joel T. Adler, Goswin Y. Meyer-Rochow, Herbert Chen, Diana E. Benn, Bruce G. Robinson, Rebecca Sippel, Stan B. Sidhu


   FOOTNOTES
 
*Co-first authors. Back


   REFERENCES
Top
 Footnotes
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Clinical Presentation
 Diagnosis and Evaluation
 Treatment of Pheochromocytoma
 Postoperative Management
 Malignant Disease
 Management of Malignant Disease
 Genetic Testing
 Future Directions
 Author Contributions
 References
 

  1. Fränkel F. Ein Fall von doppelseitigem, völlig latent verlaufenen Nebennierentumor und gleichzeitiger Nephritis mit Veränderungen am Circulationsapparat und Retinitis. Arch Pathol Anat Physiol Klin Med 1886;103:244–263.
  2. Classics in oncology. A case of bilateral completely latent adrenal tumor and concurrent nephritis with changes in the circulatory system and retinitis: Felix Frankel, 1886. CA Cancer J Clin 1984;34:93–106.[Free Full Text]
  3. Stein PP, Black HR. A simplified diagnostic approach to pheochromocytoma. A review of the literature and report of one institution's experience. Medicine (Baltimore) 1991;70:46–66.[Medline]
  4. Mantero F, Terzolo M, Arnaldi G et al. A survey on adrenal incidentaloma in Italy. Study Group on Adrenal Tumors of the Italian Society of Endocrinology. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000;85:637–644.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Sidhu S, Bambach C, Pillinger S et al. Changing pattern of adrenalectomy at a tertiary referral centre 1970–2000. ANZ J Surg 2002;72:463–466.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Bravo EL, Gifford RW Jr. Current concepts. Pheochromocytoma: Diagnosis, localization and management. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1298–1303.[Medline]
  7. Dluhy RG. Pheochromocytoma—death of an axiom. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1486–1488.[Free Full Text]
  8. Neumann HP, Bausch B, McWhinney SR et al. Germ-line mutations in nonsyndromic pheochromocytoma. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1459–1466.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Amar L, Servais A, Gimenez-Roqueplo AP et al. Year of diagnosis, features at presentation, and risk of recurrence in patients with pheochromocytoma or secreting paraganglioma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90:2110–2116.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Manger WM. The vagaries of pheochromocytomas. Am J Hypertens 2005;18:1266–1270.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Manger WM, Gifford JRW. Clinical and Experimental Pheochromocytoma. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science, 1996:1-570.
  12. Baguet JP, Hammer L, Mazzuco TL et al. Circumstances of discovery of phaeochromocytoma: A retrospective study of 41 consecutive patients. Eur J Endocrinol 2004;150:681–686.[Abstract]
  13. Pacak K, Linehan WM, Eisenhofer G et al. Recent advances in genetics, diagnosis, localization, and treatment of pheochromocytoma. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:315–329.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Alderazi Y, Yeh MW, Robinson BG et al. Phaeochromocytoma: Current concepts. Med J Aust 2005;183:201–204.[Medline]
  15. Manger WM. An overview of pheochromocytoma: History, current concepts, vagaries, and diagnostic challenges. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1073:1–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Young WF Jr, Maddox DE. Spells: In search of a cause. Mayo Clin Proc 1995;70:757–765.[Abstract]
  17. Mannelli M, Ianni L, Cilotti A et al. Pheochromocytoma in Italy: A multicentric retrospective study. Eur J Endocrinol 1999;141:619–624.[Abstract]
  18. Zelinka T, Widimsky J, Weisserova J. Diminished circadian blood pressure rhythm in patients with asymptomatic normotensive pheochromocytoma. Physiol Res 2001;50:631–634.[Medline]
  19. Herrera MF, Grant CS, van Heerden JA et al. Incidentally discovered adrenal tumors: An institutional perspective. Surgery 1991;110:1014–1021.[Medline]
  20. Hedeland H, Ostberg G, Hökfelt B. On the prevalence of adrenocortical adenomas in an autopsy material in relation to hypertension and diabetes. Acta Med Scand 1968;184:211–214.[Medline]
  21. Bouloux PG, Fakeeh M. Investigation of phaeochromocytoma. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1995;43:657–664.[Medline]
  22. Kloos RT, Gross MD, Francis IR et al. Incidentally discovered adrenal masses. Endocr Rev 1995;16:460–484.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Weismann D, Fassnacht M, Schubert B et al. A dangerous liaison—pheochromocytoma in patients with malignant disease. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:1696–1701.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Lenert JT, Barnett CC Jr, Kudelka AP et al. Evaluation and surgical resection of adrenal masses in patients with a history of extra-adrenal malignancy. Surgery 2001;130:1060–1067.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Adler JT, Mack E, Chen H. Isolated adrenal mass in patients with a history of cancer: Remember pheochromocytoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:2358–2362.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Grumbach MM, Biller BM, Braunstein GD et al. Management of the clinically inapparent adrenal mass ("incidentaloma"). Ann Intern Med 2003;138:424–429.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Mitchell IC, Nwariaku FE. Adrenal masses in the cancer patient: Surveillance or excision. The Oncologist 2007;12:168–174.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Amar L, Bertherat J, Baudin E et al. Genetic testing in pheochromocytoma or functional paraganglioma. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8812–8818.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Astuti D, Latif F, Dallol A et al. Gene mutations in the succinate dehydrogenase subunit SDHB cause susceptibility to familial pheochromocytoma and to familial paraganglioma. Am J Hum Genet 2001;69:49–54.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Niemann S, Mller U. Mutations in SDHC cause autosomal dominant paraganglioma, type 3. Nat Genet 2000;26:268–270.[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Baysal BE, Ferrell RE, Willett-Brozick JE et al. Mutations in SDHD, a mitochondrial complex II gene, in hereditary paraganglioma. Science 2000;287:848–851.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Mannelli M, Simi L, Gagliano MS et al. Genetics and biology of pheochromocytoma. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2007;115:160–165.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Walther MM, Keiser HR, Linehan WM. Pheochromocytoma: Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment. World J Urol 1999;17:35–39.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Lenders JW, Eisenhofer G, Mannelli M et al. Phaeochromocytoma. Lancet 2005;366:665–675.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Maher ER, Yates JR, Harries R et al. Clinical features and natural history of von Hippel-Lindau disease. Q J Med 1990;77:1151–1163.[Medline]
  36. Friedrich CA. von Hippel-Lindau syndrome. A pleomorphic condition. Cancer 1999;86;(11) (suppl):2478–2482.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Maher ER, Kaelin WG Jr. von Hippel-Lindau disease. Medicine (Baltimore) 1997;76:381–391.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Linehan WM, Lerman MI, Zbar B. Identification of the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) gene. Its role in renal cancer. JAMA 1995;273:564–570.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Filling-Katz MR, Choyke PL, Oldfield E et al. Central nervous system involvement in von Hippel-Lindau disease. Neurology 1991;41:41–46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Choyke PL, Glenn GM, Walther MM et al. von Hippel-Lindau disease: Genetic, clinical, and imaging features. Radiology 1995;194:629–642.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Walther MM, Reiter R, Keiser HR et al. Clinical and genetic characterization of pheochromocytoma in von Hippel-Lindau families: Comparison with sporadic pheochromocytoma gives insight into natural history of pheochromocytoma. J Urol 1999;162:659–664.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Lonser RR, Glenn GM, Walther M et al. von Hippel-Lindau disease. Lancet 2003;361:2059–2067.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Brauch H, Hoeppner W, Jahnig H et al. Sporadic pheochromocytomas are rarely associated with germline mutations in the vhl tumor suppressor gene or the ret protooncogene. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997;82:4101–4104.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. van der Harst E, de Krijger RR, Dinjens WN et al. Germline mutations in the vhl gene in patients presenting with phaeochromocytomas. Int J Cancer 1998;77:337–340.[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Eisenhofer G, Walther MM, Huynh TT et al. Pheochromocytomas in von Hippel-Lindau syndrome and multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 display distinct biochemical and clinical phenotypes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:1999–2008.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Easton DF, Ponder MA, Cummings T et al. The clinical and screening age-at-onset distribution for the MEN-2 syndrome. Am J Hum Genet 1989;44:208–215.[Medline]
  47. Ponder BA, Ponder MA, Coffey R et al. Risk estimation and screening in families of patients with medullary thyroid carcinoma. Lancet 1988;1:397–401.[Medline]
  48. Gagel RF, Tashjian AH Jr, Cummings T et al. The clinical outcome of prospective screening for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2a. An 18-year experience. N Engl J Med 1988;318:478–484.[Abstract]
  49. Modigliani E, Vasen HM, Raue K et al. Pheochromocytoma in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2: European study. The Euromen Study Group. J Intern Med 1995;238:363–367.[Medline]
  50. Bryant J, Farmer J, Kessler LJ et al. Pheochromocytoma: The expanding genetic differential diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1196–1204.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Plouin PF, Gimenez-Roqueplo AP. The genetic basis of pheochromocytoma: Who to screen and how? Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab 2006;2:60–61.[CrossRef][Medline]
  52. Cantor AM, Rigby CC, Beck PR et al. Neurofibromatosis, phaeochromocytoma, and somatostatinoma. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982;285:1618–1619.[Medline]
  53. Zhu Y, Parada LF. Neurofibromin, a tumor suppressor in the nervous system. Exp Cell Res 2001;264:19–28.[CrossRef][Medline]
  54. Machens A, Brauckhoff M, Gimm O et al. Risk-oriented approach to hereditary adrenal pheochromocytoma. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1073:417–428.[CrossRef][Medline]
  55. Gimenez-Roqueplo AP, Lehnert H, Mannelli M et al. Phaeochromocytoma, new genes and screening strategies. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2006;65:699–705.[CrossRef][Medline]
  56. Brouwers FM, Eisenhofer G, Tao JJ et al. High frequency of SDHB germline mutations in patients with malignant catecholamine-producing paragangliomas: Implications for genetic testing. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91:4505–4509.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Benn DE, Gimenez-Roqueplo AP, Reilly JR et al. Clinical presentation and penetrance of pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma syndromes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91:827–836.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Mannelli M, Ercolino T, Giache V et al. Genetic screening for pheochromocytoma: Should SDHC gene analysis be included? J Med Genet 2007;44:586–587.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Neumann HP, Pawlu C, Peczkowska M et al. Distinct clinical features of paraganglioma syndromes associated with SDHB and SDHD gene mutations. JAMA 2004;292:943–951.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Martin TP, Irving RM, Maher ER. The genetics of paragangliomas: A review. Clin Otolaryngol 2007;32:7–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
  61. Benn DE, Richardson AL, Marsh DJ et al. Genetic testing in pheochromocytoma- and paraganglioma-associated syndromes. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1073:104–111.[CrossRef][Medline]
  62. Arnaldi G, Masini AM, Giacchetti G et al. Adrenal incidentaloma. Braz J Med Biol Res 2000;33:1177–1189.[Medline]
  63. Kudva YC, Sawka AM, Young WF Jr. Clinical review 164: The laboratory diagnosis of adrenal pheochromocytoma: The Mayo Clinic experience. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:4533–4539.[Free Full Text]
  64. 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 2003;88:553–558.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Smythe GA, Edwards G, Graham P et al. Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma by simultaneous measurement of urinary excretion of epinephrine and norepinephrine. Clin Chem 1992;38:486–492.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  66. Harding JL, Yeh MW, Robinson BG et al. Potential pitfalls in the diagnosis of phaeochromocytoma. Med J Aust 2005;182:637–640.[Medline]
  67. Lenders JW, Pacak K, Walther MM et al. Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: Which test is best? JAMA 2002;287:1427–1434.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Sawka AM, Prebtani AP, Thabane L et al. A systematic review of the literature examining the diagnostic efficacy of measurement of fractionated plasma free metanephrines in the biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma. BMC Endocr Disord 2004;4:2.[CrossRef][Medline]
  69. Eisenhofer G, Goldstein DS, Walther MM et al. Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: How to distinguish true- from false-positive test results. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:2656–2666.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  70. Sjoberg RJ, Simcic KJ, Kidd GS. The clonidine suppression test for pheochromocytoma. A review of its utility and pitfalls. Arch Intern Med 1992;152:1193–1197.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  71. Elliott WJ, Murphy MB. Reduced specificity of the clonidine suppression test in patients with normal plasma catecholamine levels. Am J Med 1988;84:419–424.[CrossRef][Medline]
  72. Lawrence AM. Glucagon and pheochromocytoma. Ann Intern Med 1970;73:852–853.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  73. Lawrence AM. Glucagon provocative test for pheochromocytoma. Ann Intern Med 1967;66:1091–1096.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  74. Apgar V, Papper EM. Pheochromocytoma. Anesthetic management during surgical treatment. AMA Arch Surg 1951;62:634–648.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Plouin PF, Duclos JM, Soppelsa F et al. Factors associated with perioperative morbidity and mortality in patients with pheochromocytoma: Analysis of 165 operations at a single center. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:1480–1486.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  76. Kinney MA, Narr BJ, Warner MA. Perioperative management of pheochromocytoma. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2002;16:359–369.[CrossRef][Medline]
  77. Shulkin BL, Ilias I, Sisson JC et al. Current trends in functional imaging of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1073:374–382.[CrossRef][Medline]
  78. Bravo EL. Pheochromocytoma: New concepts and future trends. Kidney Int 1991;40:544–556.[Medline]
  79. Bravo EL. Evolving concepts in the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of pheochromocytoma. Endocr Rev 1994;15:356–368.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  80. Goldstein RE, O'Neill JA Jr, Holcomb GW 3rd et al. Clinical experience over 48 years with pheochromocytoma. Ann Surg 1999;229:755–764; discussion 764–766.[CrossRef][Medline]
  81. Maurea S, Cuocolo A, Reynolds JC et al. Diagnostic imaging in patients with paragangliomas. Computed tomography, magnetic resonance and MIBG scintigraphy comparison. Q J Nucl Med 1996;40:365–371.[Medline]
  82. Lumachi F, Tregnaghi A, Zucchetta P et al. Sensitivity and positive predictive value of CT, MRI and 123I-MIBG scintigraphy in localizing pheochromocytomas: A prospective study. Nucl Med Commun 2006;27:583–587.[CrossRef][Medline]
  83. Maurea S, Cuocolo A, Reynolds JC et al. Iodine-131-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy in preoperative and postoperative evaluation of paragangliomas: Comparison with CT and MRI. J Nucl Med 1993;34:173–179.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  84. Lebuffe G, Dosseh ED, Tek G et al. The effect of calcium channel blockers on outcome following the surgical treatment of phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Anaesthesia 2005;60:439–444.[CrossRef][Medline]
  85. Takahashi S, Nakai T, Fujiwara R et al. Effectiveness of long-acting nifedipine in pheochromocytoma. Jpn Heart J 1989;30:751–757.[Medline]
  86. Van Der Horst-Schrivers AN, Jager PL, Boezen HM et al. Iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy in localising phaeochromocytomas—experience and meta-analysis. Anticancer Res 2006;26:1599–1604.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  87. Ilias I, Yu J, Carrasquillo JA et al. Superiority of 6-[18F]-fluorodopamine positron emission tomography versus [131I]-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy in the localization of metastatic pheochromocytoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:4083–4087.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  88. Fujita A, Hyodoh H, Kawamura Y et al. Use of fusion images of I-131 metaiodobenzylguanidine, SPECT, and magnetic resonance studies to identify a malignant pheochromocytoma. Clin Nucl Med 2000;25:440–442.[CrossRef][Medline]
  89. Shapiro B. Ten years of experience with MIBG applications and the potential of new radiolabeled peptides: A personal overview and concluding remarks. Q J Nucl Med 1995;39(suppl 1):150–155.[Medline]
  90. Shulkin BL, Thompson NW, Shapiro B et al. Pheochromocytomas: Imaging with 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET. Radiology 1999;212:35–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  91. Neumann DR, Basile KE, Bravo EL et al. Malignant pheochromocytoma of the anterior mediastinum: PET findings with [18F]FDG and 82Rb. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996;20:312–316.[CrossRef][Medline]
  92. Shulkin BL, Wieland DM, Schwaiger M et al. PET scanning with hydroxyephedrine: An approach to the localization of pheochromocytoma. J Nucl Med 1992;33:1125–1131.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  93. Timmers HJ, Kozupa A, Chen CC et al. Superiority of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to other functional imaging techniques in the evaluation of metastatic SDHB-associated pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2262–2269.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  94. Esfandiari NH, Shulkin BL, Bui C et al. Multimodality imaging of malignant pheochromocytoma. Clin Nucl Med 2006;31:822–825.[CrossRef][Medline]
  95. Bravo EL, Tagle R. Pheochromocytoma: State-of-the-art and future prospects. Endocr Rev 2003;24:539–553.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  96. Schütler J, Westhofen P, Kania U et al. [Quantitative assessment of catecholamine secretion as a rational principle of anesthesia management in pheochromocytoma surgery]. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 1995;30:341–349; German.[Medline]
  97. Khorram-Manesh A, Ahlman H, Nilsson O et al. Long-term outcome of a large series of patients surgically treated for pheochromocytoma. J Intern Med 2005;258:55–66.[CrossRef][Medline]
  98. Williams DT, Dann S, Wheeler MH. Phaeochromocytoma—views on current management. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003;29:483–490.[CrossRef][Medline]
  99. Russell WJ, Metcalfe IR, Tonkin AL et al. The preoperative management of phaeochromocytoma. Anaesth Intensive Care 1998;26:196–200.[Medline]
  100. Mannelli M. Management and treatment of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1073:405–416.[CrossRef][Medline]
  101. Bravo EL. Pheochromocytoma: An approach to antihypertensive management. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2002;970:1–10.[CrossRef][Medline]
  102. Prys-Roberts C. Phaeochromocytoma—recent progress in its management. Br J Anaesth 2000;85:44–57.[Free Full Text]
  103. Steinsapir J, Carr AA, Prisant LM et al. Metyrosine and pheochromocytoma. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:901–906.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  104. Kanto JH. Current status of labetalol, the first alpha- and beta-blocking agent. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1985;23:617–628.[Medline]
  105. Pacak K. Preoperative management of the pheochromocytoma patient. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92:4069–4079.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  106. Sugano O, Hirano J, Hirano K et al. [Malignant pheochromocytoma: Blood pressure controlled by labetalol]. Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi 1984;75:523–527; Japanese.[Medline]
  107. Rosei EA, Brown JJ, Lever AF et al. Treatment of phaeochromocytoma and of clonidine withdrawal hypertension with labetalol. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1976;3(suppl 3):809–815.[Medline]
  108. Elliott HL, Meredith PA, Vincent J et al. Clinical pharmacological studies with doxazosin. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1986;21(suppl 1):27S–31S.[Medline]
  109. Bravo EL. Pheochromocytoma. Curr Ther Endocrinol Metab 1997;6:195–197.[Medline]
  110. Lehmann HU, Hochrein H, Witt E et al. Hemodynamic effects of calcium antagonists. Review. Hypertension 1983;5:II66–II73.[Medline]
  111. 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 1989;106:1149–1154.[Medline]
  112. Engelman K, Horwitz D, Jéquier E et al. Biochemical and pharmacologic effects of alpha-methyltyrosine in man. J Clin Invest 1968;47:577–594.[Medline]
  113. Brogden RN, Heel RC, Speight TM et al. {alpha}-methyl-p-tyrosine: A review of its pharmacology and clinical use. Drugs 1981;21:81–89.[Medline]
  114. Hengstmann JH, Gugler R, Dengler HJ. Malignant pheochromocytoma. Effect of oral alpha-methyl-p-tyrosine upon catecholamine metabolism. Klin Wochenschr 1979;57:351–355.[CrossRef][Medline]
  115. Gumbs AA, Gagner M. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;20:483–499.[CrossRef][Medline]
  116. Shen WT, Sturgeon C, Clark OH et al. Should pheochromocytoma size influence surgical approach? A comparison of 90 malignant and 60 benign pheochromocytomas. Surgery 2004;136:1129–1137.[CrossRef][Medline]
  117. Ippolito G, Palazzo FF, Sebag F et al. Safety of laparoscopic adrenalectomy in patients with large pheochromocytomas: A single institution review. World J Surg 2008;32:840–844; discussion 845–846.[CrossRef][Medline]
  118. Soon PS, Yeh MW, Delbridge LW et al. Laparoscopic surgery is safe for large adrenal lesions. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008;34:67–70.[Medline]
  119. van Heerden JA, Roland CF, Carney JA et al. Long-term evaluation following resection of apparently benign pheochromocytoma(s)/paraganglioma(s). World J Surg 1990;14:325–329.[CrossRef][Medline]
  120. Solorzano CC, Lew JI, Wilhelm SM et al. Outcomes of pheochromocytoma management in the laparoscopic era. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:3004–3010.[CrossRef][Medline]
  121. Dimas S, Roukounakis N, Kafetzis I et al. Feasibility of laparoscopic adrenalectomy for large pheochromocytomas. JSLS 2007;11:30–33.[Medline]
  122. Lee JE, Curley SA, Gagel RF et al. Cortical-sparing adrenalectomy for patients with bilateral pheochromocytoma. Surgery 1996;120:1064–1070; discussion 1070–1071.[CrossRef][Medline]
  123. Jansson S, Khorram-Manesh A, Nilsson O et al. Treatment of bilateral pheochromocytoma and adrenal medullary hyperplasia. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1073:429–435.[CrossRef][Medline]
  124. Yip L, Lee JE, Shapiro SE et al. Surgical management of hereditary pheochromocytoma. J Am Coll Surg 2004;198:525–534; discussion 534–535.[CrossRef][Medline]
  125. Snavely MD, Mahan LC, O'Connor DT et al. Selective down-regulation of adrenergic receptor subtypes in tissues from rats with pheochromocytoma. Endocrinology 1983;113:354–361.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  126. Meeke RI, O'Keeffe JD, Gaffney JD. Phaeochromocytoma removal and postoperative hypoglycaemia. Anaesthesia 1985;40:1093–1096.[Medline]
  127. Plouin PF, Chatellier G, Fofol I et al. Tumor recurrence and hypertension persistence after successful pheochromocytoma operation. Hypertension 1997;29:1133–1139.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  128. DeLellis RA, Lloyd RV, Heitz PU, Eng C, eds. WHO Classification of Tumours—Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Endocrine Organs. Lyon: IARC Press, 2004:147-150.
  129. Pattarino F, Bouloux PM. The diagnosis of malignancy in phaeochromocytoma. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1996;44:239–241.[CrossRef][Medline]
  130. Brouwers FM, Petricoin EF 3rd, Ksinantova L et al. Low molecular weight proteomic information distinguishes metastatic from benign pheochromocytoma. Endocr Relat Cancer 2005;12:263–272.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  131. Chrisoulidou A, Kaltsas G, Ilias I et al. The diagnosis and management of malignant phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Endocr Relat Cancer 2007;14:569–585.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  132. Helman LJ, Cohen PS, Averbuch SD et al. Neuropeptide Y expression distinguishes malignant from benign pheochromocytoma. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1720–1725.[Abstract]
  133. Gimenez-Roqueplo AP, Favier J, Rustin P et al. Mutations in the SDHB gene are associated with extra-adrenal and/or malignant phaeochromocytomas. Cancer Res 2003;63:5615–5621.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  134. Nativ O, Grant CS, Sheps SG et al. The clinical significance of nuclear DNA ploidy pattern in 184 patients with pheochromocytoma. Cancer 1992;69:2683–2687.[CrossRef][Medline]
  135. Brouwers FM, Elkahloun AG, Munson PJ et al. Gene expression profiling of benign and malignant pheochromocytoma. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1073:541–556.[CrossRef][Medline]
  136. Thouennon E, Elkahloun AG, Guillemot J et al. Identification of potential gene markers and insights into the pathophysiology of pheochromocytoma malignancy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92:4865–4872.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  137. O'Riordain DS, Young WF Jr, Grant CS et al. Clinical spectrum and outcome of functional extraadrenal paraganglioma. World J Surg 1996;20:916–921; discussion 922.[CrossRef][Medline]
  138. John H, Ziegler WH, Hauri D et al. Pheochromocytomas: Can malignant potential be predicted? Urology 1999;53:679–683.[CrossRef][Medline]
  139. Manger WM, Eisenhofer G. Pheochromocytoma: Diagnosis and management update. Curr Hypertens Rep 2004;6:477–484.[Medline]
  140. Sisson JC, Shulkin BL, Esfandiari NH. Courses of malignant pheochromocytoma: Implications for therapy. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1073:505–511.[CrossRef][Medline]
  141. Eisenhofer G, Bornstein SR, Brouwers FM et al. Malignant pheochromocytoma: Current status and initiatives for future progress. Endocr Relat Cancer 2004;11:423–436.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  142. Eisenhofer G, Lenders JW, Pacak K. Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma. Front Horm Res 2004;31:76–106.[Medline]
  143. Kebebew E, Duh QY. Benign and malignant pheochromocytoma: Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1998;7:765–789.[Medline]
  144. Pacak K, Fojo T, Goldstein DS et al. Radiofrequency ablation: A novel approach for treatment of metastatic pheochromocytoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:648–649.[Free Full Text]
  145. Takahashi K, Ashizawa N, Minami T et al. Malignant pheochromocytoma with multiple hepatic metastases treated by chemotherapy and transcatheter arterial embolization. Intern Med 1999;38:349–354.[Medline]
  146. Loh KC, Fitzgerald PA, Matthay KK et al. The treatment of malignant pheochromocytoma with iodine-131 metaiodobenzylguanidine (131I-MIBG): A comprehensive review of 116 reported patients. J Endocrinol Invest 1997;20:648–658.[Medline]
  147. Shapiro B, Gross MD, Shulkin B. Radioisotope diagnosis and therapy of malignant pheochromocytoma. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2001;12:469–475.[CrossRef][Medline]
  148. Kaltsas GA, Papadogias D, Makras P et al. Treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumours with radiolabelled somatostatin analogues. Endocr Relat Cancer 2005;12:683–699.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  149. Averbuch SD, Steakley CS, Young RC et al. Malignant pheochromocytoma: Effective treatment with a combination of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dacarbazine. Ann Intern Med 1988;109:267–273.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  150. Scholz T, Eisenhofer G, Pacak K et al. Clinical review: Current treatment of malignant pheochromocytoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92:1217–1225.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  151. Schlumberger M, Gicquel C, Lumbroso J et al. Malignant pheochromocytoma: Clinical, biological, histologic and therapeutic data in a series of 20 patients with distant metastases. J Endocrinol Invest 1992;15:631–642.[Medline]
  152. Nakane M, Takahashi S, Sekine I et al. Successful treatment of malignant pheochromocytoma with combination chemotherapy containing anthracycline. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1449–1451.[Free Full Text]
  153. Iwabuchi M, Oki Y, Nakamura H. Palliative chemotherapy for malignant pheochromocytoma: Symptomatic palliation of two cases. Intern Med 1999;38:433–435.[Medline]
  154. Kulke MH, Stuart K, Enzinger PC et al. Phase II study of temozolomide and thalidomide in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:401–406.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  155. Gross DJ, Munter G, Bitan M et al. The role of imatinib mesylate (Glivec) for treatment of patients with malignant endocrine tumors positive for c-Kit or PDGF-R. Endocr Relat Cancer 2006;13:535–540.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  156. Sausville EA, Tomaszewski JE, Ivy P. Clinical development of 17-allylamino, 17-demethoxygeldanamycin. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 2003;3:377–383.[CrossRef][Medline]
  157. Bornstein SR, Gimenez-Roqueplo AP. Genetic testing in pheochromocytoma: Increasing importance for clinical decision making. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1073:94–103.[CrossRef][Medline]
  158. Favier J, Briere JJ, Strompf L et al. Hereditary paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma and inherited succinate dehydrogenase deficiency. Horm Res 2005;63:171–179.[CrossRef][Medline]
  159. Dahia PL. Evolving concepts in pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Curr Opin Oncol 2006;18:1–8.[Medline]
  160. Sisson JC, Shapiro B, Shulkin BL et al. Treatment of malignant pheochromocytomas with 131-I metaiodobenzylguanidine and chemotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol 1999;22:364–370.[CrossRef][Medline]
  161. Kappes A, Vaccaro A, Kunnimalaiyaan M et al. ZM336372, a Raf-1 activator, inhibits growth of pheochromocytoma cells. J Surg Res 2006;133:42–45.[CrossRef][Medline]
  162. Kappes A, Vaccaro A, Kunnimalaiyaan M et al. Lithium ions: A novel treatment for pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Surgery 2007;141:161–165; discussion 165.[CrossRef][Medline]
  163. Adler JT, Hottinger DG, Kunnimalaiyaan M, Chen H. Histone deacetylase inhibitors upregulate notch1 and inhibit growth in pheochromocytoma cells. Surgery 2008 (in press).
  164. Maher ER, Eng C. The pressure rises: Update on the genetics of phaeochromocytoma. Hum Mol Genet 2002;11:2347–2354.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  165. Schiavi F, Boedeker CC, Bausch B et al. Predictors and prevalence of paraganglioma syndrome associated with mutations of the SDHC gene. JAMA 2005;294:2057–2063.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  166. Thompson LD. Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal gland Scaled Score (PASS) to separate benign from malignant neoplasms: A clinicopathologic and immunophenotypic study of 100 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:551–566.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The OncologistHome page
P. J. Morrison and A. B. Atkinson
Genetic Aspects of Familial Thyroid Cancer
Oncologist, June 1, 2009; 14(6): 571 - 577.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
theoncologist.2008-0043v1
13/7/779    most recent
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Adler, J. T.
Right arrow Articles by Sidhu, S. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Adler, J. T.
Right arrow Articles by Sidhu, S. B.

HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ONCOLOGIST STEM CELLS CME ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS