Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Ashley Grossman x
Clear All Modify Search
Open access

Matilde Calanchini, Michael Tadman, Jesper Krogh, Andrea Fabbri, Ashley Grossman and Brian Shine

Open access

Matilde Calanchini, Michael Tadman, Jesper Krogh, Andrea Fabbri, Ashley Grossman and Brian Shine


The 24-h urinary output of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) is used to monitor disease progression and treatment responses of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Several conditions are required for 5-HIAA assay, involving urine collection/preservation and food/drug restrictions.


To evaluate the correlation between 5-HIAA concentration in a spot urine sample and the output in a 24-h urine collection, and whether spot urine specimens can replace 24-h collection.


Patients with NENs or symptoms suggestive of NENs were asked to provide a separate spot urine at the end of the 24-h urine collection for 5-HIAA assessment. The upper reference limit for 24-h urinary 5-HIAA was 40 µmol/24 h. 5-HIAA measurements in spot urine samples were corrected for variation in urine flow rate by expressing results as a ratio to creatinine concentration.


We included 136 paired urinary samples for 5-HIAA assessment from 111 patients (100 NENs). The correlation between 5-HIAA values measured in 24-h and spot urines was r = +0.863 (P < 0.001) and r = +0.840 (P < 0.001) including only NEN patients. Using the 24-h urinary 5-HIAA as reference method, the AUC on ROC analysis for spot urinary 5-HIAA was 0.948 (95% CI, 0.914–0.983; P < 0.001), attaining a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 95% using 5.3 mol/mmol as cut-off for the spot urine. The AUC among NEN patients alone was 0.945 (95% CI, 0.904–0.987; P < 0.001).


The ratio of 5-HIAA to creatinine in a spot urine could replace the measurement of 5-HIAA output in a 24-h urine collection, especially for follow-up of patients with known elevated 5-HIAA levels.

Open access

Kjell Oberg, Eric Krenning, Anders Sundin, Lisa Bodei, Mark Kidd, Margot Tesselaar, Valentina Ambrosini, Richard P Baum, Matthew Kulke, Marianne Pavel, Jaroslaw Cwikla, Ignat Drozdov, Massimo Falconi, Nicola Fazio, Andrea Frilling, Robert Jensen, Klaus Koopmans, Tiny Korse, Dik Kwekkeboom, Helmut Maecke, Giovanni Paganelli, Ramon Salazar, Stefano Severi, Jonathan Strosberg, Vikas Prasad, Aldo Scarpa, Ashley Grossman, Annemeik Walenkamp, Mauro Cives, Irene Virgolini, Andreas Kjaer and Irvin M Modlin

The complexity of the clinical management of neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) is exacerbated by limitations in imaging modalities and a paucity of clinically useful biomarkers. Limitations in currently available imaging modalities reflect difficulties in measuring an intrinsically indolent disease, resolution inadequacies and inter-/intra-facility device variability and that RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria are not optimal for NEN. Limitations of currently used biomarkers are that they are secretory biomarkers (chromogranin A, serotonin, neuron-specific enolase and pancreastatin); monoanalyte measurements; and lack sensitivity, specificity and predictive capacity. None of them meet the NIH metrics for clinical usage. A multinational, multidisciplinary Delphi consensus meeting of NEN experts (n = 33) assessed current imaging strategies and biomarkers in NEN management. Consensus (>75%) was achieved for 78% of the 142 questions. The panel concluded that morphological imaging has a diagnostic value. However, both imaging and current single-analyte biomarkers exhibit substantial limitations in measuring the disease status and predicting the therapeutic efficacy. RECIST remains suboptimal as a metric. A critical unmet need is the development of a clinico-biological tool to provide enhanced information regarding precise disease status and treatment response. The group considered that circulating RNA was better than current general NEN biomarkers and preliminary clinical data were considered promising. It was resolved that circulating multianalyte mRNA (NETest) had clinical utility in both diagnosis and monitoring disease status and therapeutic efficacy. Overall, it was concluded that a combination of tumor spatial and functional imaging with circulating transcripts (mRNA) would represent the future strategy for real-time monitoring of disease progress and therapeutic efficacy.