33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Chromogranin A as circulating marker for diagnosis and management of neuroendocrine neoplasms: more flaws than fame

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Owing to the heterogeneity of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), the availability of reliable circulating markers is critical for improving diagnostics, prognostic stratification, follow-up and definition of treatment strategy. This review is focused on chromogranin A (CgA), a hydrophilic glycoprotein present in large dense core vesicles of neuroendocrine cells. Despite being long identified as the most useful NEN-related circulating marker, clinical application of CgA is controversial. CgA assays still lack standardization, thus hampering not only clinical management but also the comparison between different analyses. In the diagnostic setting, clinical utility of CgA is limited as hampered by (a) the variety of oncological and non-oncological conditions affecting marker levels, which impairs specificity; (b) the fact that 30-50% of NENs show normal CgA, which impairs sensitivity. Regarding the prognostic phase, there is prospective evidence which demonstrates that advanced NENs secreting CgA have poorer outcome, as compared with those showing non-elevated marker levels. Although the identification of cut-offs allowing a proper risk stratification of CgA-secreting patients has not been performed, this represents the most important clinical application of the marker. By contrast, based on prospective studies, the trend of elevated circulating CgA does not represent a valid indicator of morphological evolution and has therefore no utility for the follow-up phase. Ultimately, current knowledge about the role of the marker for the definition of treatment strategy is poor and is limited by the small number of available studies, their prevalent retrospective nature and the absence of control groups of untreated subjects.

          Related collections

          Most cited references143

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          ENETS Consensus Guidelines Update for the Management of Patients with Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors and Non-Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pulmonary neuroendocrine (carcinoid) tumors: European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society expert consensus and recommendations for best practice for typical and atypical pulmonary carcinoids.

            Pulmonary carcinoids (PCs) are rare tumors. As there is a paucity of randomized studies, this expert consensus document represents an initiative by the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society to provide guidance on their management.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Liver and Other Distant Metastases from Neuroendocrine Neoplasms of Foregut, Midgut, Hindgut, and Unknown Primary

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endocrine-Related Cancer
                Endocr Relat Cancer
                Bioscientifica
                1351-0088
                1479-6821
                December 18 2017
                January 2018
                January 2018
                October 24 2017
                : 25
                : 1
                : R11-R29
                Article
                10.1530/ERC-17-0269
                29066503
                57e93e9f-a646-44f5-acf6-846db4ec39fa
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article