Purpose The 14th Acromegaly Consensus Conference was convened to consider biochemical criteria for acromegaly diagnosis and evaluation of therapeutic efficacy.Methods Fifty-six acromegaly experts... Show morePurpose The 14th Acromegaly Consensus Conference was convened to consider biochemical criteria for acromegaly diagnosis and evaluation of therapeutic efficacy.Methods Fifty-six acromegaly experts from 16 countries reviewed and discussed current evidence focused on biochemical assays; criteria for diagnosis and the role of imaging, pathology, and clinical assessments; consequences of diagnostic delay; criteria for remission and recommendations for follow up; and the value of assessment and monitoring in defining disease progression, selecting appropriate treatments, and maximizing patient outcomes.Results In a patient with typical acromegaly features, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I > 1.3 times the upper limit of normal for age confirms the diagnosis. Random growth hormone (GH) measured after overnight fasting may be useful for informing prognosis, but is not required for diagnosis. For patients with equivocal results, IGF-I measurements using the same validated assay can be repeated, and oral glucose tolerance testing might also be useful. Although biochemical remission is the primary assessment of treatment outcome, biochemical findings should be interpreted within the clinical context of acromegaly. Follow up assessments should consider biochemical evaluation of treatment effectiveness, imaging studies evaluating residual/recurrent adenoma mass, and clinical signs and symptoms of acromegaly, its complications, and comorbidities. Referral to a multidisciplinary pituitary center should be considered for patients with equivocal biochemical, pathology, or imaging findings at diagnosis, and for patients insufficiently responsive to standard treatment approaches.Conclusion Consensus recommendations highlight new understandings of disordered GH and IGF-I in patients with acromegaly and the importance of expert management for this rare disease. Show less
Wit, J.M.; Joustra, S.D.; Losekoot, M.; Duyvenvoorde, H.A. van; Bruin, C. de 2021
The current differential diagnosis for a short child with low insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and a normal growth hormone (GH) peak in a GH stimulation test (GHST), after exclusion of acquired... Show moreThe current differential diagnosis for a short child with low insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and a normal growth hormone (GH) peak in a GH stimulation test (GHST), after exclusion of acquired causes, includes the following disorders: (1) a decreased spontaneous GH secretion in contrast to a normal stimulated GH peak ("GH neurosecretory dysfunction," GHND) and (2) genetic conditions with a normal GH sensitivity (e.g., pathogenic variants of GH1 or GHSR) and (3) GH insensitivity (GHI). We present a critical appraisal of the concept of GHND and the role of 12- or 24-h GH profiles in the selection of children for GH treatment. The mean 24-h GH concentration in healthy children overlaps with that in those with GH deficiency, indicating that the previously proposed cutoff limit (3.0-3.2 mu g/L) is too high. The main advantage of performing a GH profile is that it prevents about 20% of false-positive test results of the GHST, while it also detects a low spontaneous GH secretion in children who would be considered GH sufficient based on a stimulation test. However, due to a considerable burden for patients and the health budget, GH profiles are only used in few centres. Regarding genetic causes, there is good evidence of the existence of Kowarski syndrome (due to GH1 variants) but less on the role of GHSR variants. Several genetic causes of (partial) GHI are known (GHR, STAT5B, STAT3, IGF1, IGFALS defects, and Noonan and 3M syndromes), some responding positively to GH therapy. In the final section, we speculate on hypothetical causes. Show less
Wit, J.M.; Ranke, M.B.; Albertsson-Wikland, K.; Carrascosa, A.; Rosenfeld, R.G.; Buuren, S. van; ... ; Roelants, M. 2013
