English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Plasma-free normetanephrine and metanephrine (metanephrines) are the recommended biomarkers for testing of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL). This study evaluated the status of harmonization of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based measurements of plasma metanephrines and methoxytyramine and clinical interpretation of test results. Methods 125 plasma samples from patients tested for PPGLs were analyzed in 12 laboratories. Analytical performance was also assessed from results of a proficiency-testing program. Agreement of test results from different laboratories was assessed by Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Agreement in clinical test interpretation based on laboratory specific reference intervals was also examined. Results Comparisons of analytical test results by regression analysis revealed strong correlations for normetanephrine and metanephrine (R ≥ 0.95) with mean slopes of 1.013 (range 0.975–1.078), and 1.019 (range 0.963–1.081), and intercepts of −0.584 (−53.736 to 54.790) and −3.194 (−17.152 to 5.933), respectively. The mean bias between methods was 1.2% (−11.6% to 16.0%) for metanephrine and 0.1% (−18.0% to 9.5%) for normetanephrine. Measurements of 3-methoxytyramine revealed suboptimal agreement between laboratories with biases ranging from −32.2% to 64.0%. Interrater agreement in test interpretation was &amp;gt;94% for metanephrine and &amp;gt;84% for normetanephrine; improvements in interrater agreement were observed with use of harmonized reference intervals, including age-specific cut-offs for normetanephrine. Conclusions Analytical methods for metanephrines are well harmonized between laboratories. However, the 16% disagreement in test interpretation for normetanephrine suggests use of suboptimal method-dependent reference intervals for clinical decision-making for this metabolite. Improved analytical methods and reference interval harmonization are particularly required for 3-methoxytyramine.

Harmonization of LC-MS/MS Measurements of Plasma Free Normetanephrine, Metanephrine, and 3-Methoxytyramine