MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1055/s-2008-1062501

Медицинская библиотека · Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 1992

[Pheochromocytoma as dominant manifestation of v. Hippel-Lindau syndrome].

Neumann H P, Hofmann V, Zäuner I, Sigmund G, Blum U, Schümichen C, Schmidt D, Kirste G

Клинический случайСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

A diagnosis of von Hippel-Lindau syndrome was made in two families originating from the same part of the Black Forest but apparently unrelated. Nine affected persons (seven males and two females) had a total of 17 tumours: retinal angioma (4), haemangioblastoma of the CNS (1), and phaeochromocytoma (12). Three of the affected persons and eight of the tumours (six phaeochromocytomas, two retinal angiomas) were diagnosed by family screening. Phaeochromocytoma was diagnosed in eight persons; in four it was the only symptomatic lesion. After extensive diagnostic tests the phaeochromocytoma was the sole tumour in four. Despite severe symptoms the diagnosis of von Hippel-Lindau syndrome had not been made prior to the screening examinations because either the common aetiology of the tumour was not known or there was insufficient exchange of information between the two families.--It is recommended that in each case of phaeochromocytoma von Hippel-Lindau syndrome should be excluded so that lesions can be discovered early in other organs and in other affected family members. If the syndrome is present, annual examinations are indicated because of asynchronous and multi-focal tumour growth.

Для цитирования: Neumann H P, Hofmann V, Zäuner I, Sigmund G, Blum U, Schümichen C, Schmidt D, Kirste G. [Pheochromocytoma as dominant manifestation of v. Hippel-Lindau syndrome].. Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946). 1992. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1062501.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.