Next Article in Journal
The Effect of CAG Repeats within the Non-Pathological Range in the HTT Gene on Cognitive Functions in Patients with Subjective Cognitive Decline and Mild Cognitive Impairment
Previous Article in Journal
Active Ratio Test (ART) as a Novel Diagnostic for Ovarian Cancer
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Case Report

Somatostatin Receptor Subtype Expression in Patients with Acromegaly and Complicated Clinical Course

1
Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Neuromed Campus, Kepler University Hospital, 4021 Linz, Austria
2
Institute of Pathology and Neuropathology, Neuromed Campus, Kepler University Hospital, 4021 Linz, Austria
3
Department of Neurosurgery, Neuromed Campus, Kepler University Hospital, 4021 Linz, Austria
4
Institute of Neuroradiology, Neuromed Campus, Kepler University Hospital, 4021 Linz, Austria
5
Department of Neurology, Neuromed Campus, Kepler University Hospital, 4021 Linz, Austria
6
Nuclear Medicine Research Department, IASON, A-8054 Graz, Austria
7
Nuclear Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2021, 11(6), 1050; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11061050
Submission received: 10 May 2021 / Revised: 2 June 2021 / Accepted: 5 June 2021 / Published: 7 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics)

Abstract

:
Somatostatin analogues are considered to be the first line of treatment in acromegaly. Somatostatin analogues of the first generation mainly target the somatostatin receptor (SSTR) subtype 2 and have been proven efficient in the majority of patients with acromegaly. Pasireotide was the first somatostatin analogue also substantially targeting the SSTR subtype 5. An efficient drug for Cushing’s disease tailored to suboptimal-responding patients with acromegaly then became available. We immunohistochemically investigated SSTR subtypes expression in pituitary adenomas from operated acromegaly patients with clinical relapse and a complicated clinical course. Patients received pasireotide in the course of their disease. The predictive value of SSTR subtypes immunhistochemical analysis for the therapeutic response is discussed.

1. Introduction

Somatostatin analogues (SA) are a cornerstone in the treatment of acromegaly that have enabled efficient medical treatment since their introduction. SA of the first generation, mainly targeting the somatostatin receptor (SSTR) subtype 2, has proven to be efficient in most patients with acromegaly but not in patients with Cushing’s disease. With the development of SA targeting the SSTR subtype 5 additionally to the subtype 2, i.e., pasireotide, an efficient drug for ACTH secreting pituitary tumor patients became available [1]. Additionally, patients with acromegaly who could not be managed satisfactorily with sandostatin or lanreotide could reach endocrine control under pasireotide treatment [2].
It is feasible to investigate specific subtype-receptor density on biopsy specimens using immunohistochemistry methods; but it is not yet established to measure SSTR subtype 2 and 5 on pituitary tumour tissue to predict therapeutic response. It has been reported that high SSTR2 levels and SSTR2/SSTR5 ratio are associated with responsiveness to first generation somatostatin analogues—if not, pasireotide efficacy is favoured [3].

2. Materials and Methods

We investigated immunohistochemically SSTR subtypes 2 and 5 in pituitary adenomas in operated acromegaly patients with clinical relapse under treatment with SA of the first generation.
Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples were cut into sequential 4-μm-thick sections, deparaffinized, and immunostained using SSTR2 (Somatostatin receptor type 2 RabMAb, Clone UMB1, Epitomics, dilution 1:300) and SSTR5 (Anti-Somatostatin Receptor 5 RabMAb, Clone UMB4, Abcam, dilution 1:100) primary antibodies. BenchMark ULTRA immunostainer with DAB visualization was used for both reactions.
SSTR2 and SSTR5 immunostaining was scored by a semiquantitative immunoreactivity scoring system and is the product of the percentage of positive-stained cells (0: no positive cells; 1: <10%; 2: 10–50%; 3: 51–80%; 4: >80%) multiplied by the staining intensity (0: no staining; 1: weak staining; 2: moderate staining; 3: strong staining). The Immuno Reactivity Score (IRS) ranges between 0 and 12 [4,5].
Primary Dako-antibodies against hGH (Somatotropin, Rabbit polyclonal, dilution 1:2000), AE1/AE3, and ACTH (both Abs mouse, monoclonal, dilution 1:50) further processed in Thermo Scientific autostainer 480S with DAB visualization were also used.

3. Results

3.1. Clinical Story #1

A 22-year-old woman presented in 2011 at our hospital for endocrine evaluation with subtle coarsening/masculinisation of facial features. The insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) was elevated to two times the upper limit of normal (ULN), and the oral glucose tolerance test could not show growth hormone (GH) suppression. Laboratory values are presented by Table 1. All other hormonal values were normal. MRI detected a pituitary adenoma with a diameter of 12 mm (T2 signal was isointensive), which was operated via transsphenoidal approach in August 2011. The densely granulated somatotroph adenoma stained positive for GH (Figure 1), and Ki-67 reached 5% focally. Because of endocrine relapse. 2012 lanreotide 60 mg/month was started; the only clinical complaint was facial skin acne. Later, cabergoline 1 mg/week was added, but in spite of combined medical therapy, MRI control revealed an intrasellar tumor (14 mm) in May 2013. The endocrine situation remained favourable. Reoperation showed the same histology as before. No medical therapy was given then. In 2015, an endocrine relapse with modest elevation of IGF-1 levels occurred, and a growing residual tumor mass (the diameter was 9 mm then) became detectable by MRI. Higher dose cabergoline therapy was reinitiated without success. Stereotactic radiation with 18 Gy was performed in January 2016. Laboratory parameters of the GH-axis normalized after some weeks without any further therapy. In November 2016, IGF-1 levels rose again to 1.2 ULN and skin acne became worse. In the meantime, pasireotide therapy had become available in Austria for acromegaly patients and was initiated at low dose (20 mg/month) in 2017. Then SSTR subtype evaluation of the preserved tumor specimens was additionally performed (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Since then, all further control examinations until September 2020 presented normal IGF-1 values and GH < 1.5 ng/mL. The patient did not refer any clinical problems. Adverse events such as diabetes mellitus did not occur. Control MRI presented size regression of the pituitary tumour to 2 mm at last control (see Table 1).

3.2. Clinical Story #2

A 32-year-old female patient presented at the department of neurology with visual field restrictions in June 2016 that were caused by a large pituitary tumor with a maximal diameter of 37 mm, presenting with mixed hypo- and isointensive signal on T2 images by MRI. Medical history revealed carpal tunnel syndrome and nodular goiter. MRI had been effectuated 10 years before because of tinnitus without any signs of a hypophyseal lesion. There was some evidence of enlargement of the fingers over the years suggested by rings (which became too small and did not fit any more) and an increasing size of shoes was inquired. Mild galactorrhea was present due to concomitant hyperprolactinemia. HGH levels were elevated, and IGF-1 preoperatively reached 2.7 × ULN. Laboratory values are presented in Table 2. Morning ACTH (51 pg/mL) and serum cortisol (26.4 µg/dl) were in the upper normal range; free cortisol in 24 h urine sample (52 µg/d) was in the normal range of 36–137 µg/d. Prolactin was also normal at 19.6 ng/mL. As the carotid arteries were enclosed by the tumor (Figure 4), radiotherapy was principally considered after transsphenoidal surgery because of expected tumor remnants. Immunohistochemistry was positive for HGH only; therefore, hyperprolactinemia was considered to be caused by a hampered feedback mechanism of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis [6]. Ki-67 focally reached 5% (Table 3). Abundant fibrous bodies were present (Figure 5), corresponding to a sparsely granulated somatotroph adenoma with expected limited therapeutic efficacy. The endocrine response to surgery was poor, as IGF-1 remained relatively stable at 2.5 UNV. As lanreotide 40 mg/month—the recommended starter dose at the time in Austria—diminished, IGF-1 only at 2.0 × ULN therapy was changed to pasireotide 40 mg/month. This worked better, and a IGF-1 level of 1.5 × ULN was obtained. The addition of cabergoline was without any benefit and was therefore stopped. LINAC radiation surgery was then realized in November 2017 with 18 Gy, pasireotide being continued as a bridging therapy. Six months later, IGF-1 was even higher at 2.0 × ULN, and pegvisomant was added. MRI showed the tumor remnants with identical size. Finally, the patient had an IGF-1 level of 1.25 ULN under pasireotide and a then augmented therapy of pegvisomant 60 mg/week in March 2019. Pegvisomant was decided to be increased at 80 mg/week and further augmented to 100 mg/week and to 150 mg/week in April 2020 and to 180 mg/week after October 2020. Clinically, she reported some mild arthropathy, which ceased in October 2020 when IGF-1 had nearly normalized; otherwise, she felt well. Drug-induced, adverse events were not present; HbA1c and liver parameters were in the normal range. Retrospectively, SSTR subtype analysis of the adenoma was realized (Figure 6 and Figure 7).

4. Discussion

Long-acting somatostatin analogs of the first generation had become a cornerstone of medical therapy for acromegaly [7]. As they target mainly the SSTR subtype 2, they were not useful for treating Cushing’s disease. The field changed with the development of pasireotide [8]. This new generation somatostatin analog also became available for treatment of acromegaly and has proven to be superior in various cases but at the price of a higher rate of adverse effects, especially diabetes mellitus [9,10]. It would be desirable to have a diagnostic marker to know in advance if the use of pasireotide is preferable to first-generation somatostatin analogs. The presence or density of the SSTR subtypes shown by immunohistochemistry of the tumor specimens might be such an option.
Patients presented here received pasireotide in the course of their disease. Our two cases showed a pronounced receptor density of subtype 5. Regardless, the therapeutic change was decided based on endocrine response (hormone levels and clinics) only. Immunohistochemistry for SSTR subtypes was done retrospectively on the preserved tumor species.
Higher SSTR2 expression on somatotroph adenomas is considered to generate a better response to somatostatin analogues [4]. It has to be emphasized that the responsiveness to pasireotide has been shown to depend on the presence of receptor subtype 2 [11] but also that SSTR5 might be the major determinant of the biochemical response [12]. It can be speculated that a low intensity of subtype 2 might be a reason to switch early to alternatives and/or combination therapies with pegvisomant [13] and cabergoline [14]. In our cases, cabergoline was been efficient. Other experience shows an if not disappointing then at least suboptimal therapeutic response to pasireotide, probably due to only moderate expression of SSTR subtype 2. As SSTR subtype 5 expression outnumbered that of subtype 2, the slightly better efficiency of pasireotide compared to lanreotide could be explained by this circumstance. We also relate the relatively unfavorable evolution of tumor growth in case 1 and, respectively, endocrine response to radiation therapy in case 2 to the relatively high Ki67-labeling indices of the adenomas [15].
Receptor profiling and possibly the molecular characterization of pituitary tumors may guide an individualized therapeutic plan [16].

5. Conclusions

We recommend the evaluation of SSTR subtypes 2 and 5 in pituitary adenomas of patients with acromegaly in prospective studies to define the usefulness for early therapeutic decisions regarding somatostatin analogues.

Author Contributions

R.P., endocrinological management of the patients and manuscript writing; O.K., interpretation of histology and providing of SSTR immunohistochemistry; B.T., neurosurgical evaluation and performance; M.S., radiological imaging; D.E., clinical management of the patients; M.H., manuscript writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this communication, due to the fact that it is a retrospective observational presentation of two individual cases and informed patient consent for publication was obtained.

Informed Consent Statement

Written consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Patients were under the clinical routine work; ethical committee approval was obtained.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Sieglinde Prechtl, Silke Kern, and their team of technicians for cooperation and advice on technical matters.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Boscaro, M.; Ludlam, W.H.; Atkinson, B.; Glusman, J.E.; Petersenn, S.; Reincke, M.; Snyder, P.; Tabarin, A.; Biller, B.M.; Findling, J.; et al. Treatment of pituitary-dependent Cushing’s disease with the multireceptor ligand somatostatin analog pasireotide (SOM230): A multicenter, phase II trial. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2009, 94, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Paragliola, R.M.; Salvatori, R. Novel Somatostatin Receptor Ligands Therapies for Acromegaly. Front. Endocrinol. 2018, 9, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Marazuela, M.; Ramos-Leví, A.M.; Borges de Souza, P.; Zatelli, M.C. Is receptor profiling useful for predicting pituitary therapy? Eur. J. Endocrinol. 2018, 179, D15–D25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Franck, S.E.; Gatto, F.; van der Lely, A.J.; Janssen, J.A.M.J.L.; Dallenga, A.H.G.; Nagtegaal, A.P.; Hofland, L.J.; Neggers, S.J.C.M.M. Somatostatin Receptor Expression in GH-Secreting Pituitary Adenomas Treated with Long-Acting Somatostatin Analogues in Combination with Pegvisomant. Neuroendocrinology 2017, 105, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Remmele, W.; Stegner, H.E. Recommendation for uniform definition of an immunoreactive score (IRS) for immunohistochemical estrogen receptor detection (ER-ICA) in breast cancer tissue (in German). Pathologe 1987, 8, 138–140. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Mikhael, S.; Punjala-Patel, A.; Gavrilova-Jordan, L. Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Ovarian Axis Disorders Impacting Female Fertility. Biomedicines 2019, 7, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Gadelha, M.R.; Kasuki, L.; Korbonits, M. Novel pathway for somatostatin analogs in patients with acromegaly. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2013, 24, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Colao, A.; Bronstein, M.D.; Freda, P.; Gu, F.; Shen, C.C.; Gadelha, M.; Fleseriu, M.; van der Lely, A.J.; Farrall, A.J.; Hermosillo Reséndiz, K.; et al. Pasireotide versus octreotide in acromegaly: A head-to-head superiority study. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2014, 99, 791–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Sheppard, M.; Bronstein, M.D.; Freda, P.; Serri, O.; De Marinis, L.; Naves, L.; Rozhinskaya, L.; Hermosillo Reséndiz, K.; Ruffin, M.; Chen, Y.; et al. Pasireotide LAR maintains inhibition of GH and IGF-1 in patients with acromegaly for up to 25 months: Results from the blinded extension phase of a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, Phase III study. Pituitary 2015, 18, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Gadelha, M.R.; Bronstein, M.D.; Brue, T.; Coculescu, M.; Fleseriu, M.; Guitelman, M.; Pronin, V.; Raverot, G.; Shimon, I.; Lievre, K.K.; et al. Pasireotide versus continued treatment with octreotide or lanreotide in patients with inadequately controlled acromegaly (PAOLA): A randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014, 2, 875–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Muhammad, A.; Coopmans, E.C.; Gatto, F.; Franck, S.E.; Janssen, J.A.M.J.L.; van der Lely, A.J.; Hofland, L.J.; Neggers, S.J.C.M.M. Pasireotide Responsiveness in Acromegaly Is Mainly Driven by Somatostatin Receptor Subtype 2 Expression. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2019, 104, 915–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Iacovazzo, D.; Carlsen, E.; Lugli, F.; Chiloiro, S.; Piacentini, S.; Bianchi, A.; Giampietro, A.; Mormando, M.; Clear, A.J.; Doglietto, F.; et al. Factors predicting pasireotide responsiveness in somatotroph pituitary adenomas resistant to first-generation somatostatin analogues: An immunohistochemical study. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 2016, 174, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. van der Lely, A.J.; Biller, B.M.; Brue, T.; Buchfelder, M.; Ghigo, E.; Gomez, R.; Hey-Hadavi, J.; Lundgren, F.; Rajicic, N.; Strasburger, C.J.; et al. Long-term safety of pegvisomant in patients with acromegaly: Comprehensive review of 1288 subjects in ACROSTUDY. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012, 97, 1589–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Sandret, L.; Maison, P.; Chanson, P. Place of cabergoline in acromegaly: A meta-analysis. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2011, 96, 1327–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Dai, C.; Liu, X.; Ma, W.; Wang, R. The Treatment of Refractory Pituitary Adenomas. Front. Endocrinol. 2019, 10, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Alexandraki, K.I.; Papadimitriou, E.; Mavroeidi, V.; Kyriakopoulos, G.; Xydakis, A.; Papaioannou, T.G.; Kolomodi, D.; Kaltsas, G.A.; Grossman, A.B. Role of Receptor Profiling for Personalized Therapy in a Patient with a Growth Hormone-Secreting Macroadenoma Resistant to First-Generation Somatostatin Analogues. J. Pers. Med. 2019, 9, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Immunohistochemical staining for growth hormone was positive in nearly all cells of the adenoma. A dense, granulated pattern was observed in this specimen (patient 1).
Figure 1. Immunohistochemical staining for growth hormone was positive in nearly all cells of the adenoma. A dense, granulated pattern was observed in this specimen (patient 1).
Diagnostics 11 01050 g001
Figure 2. SSTR subtype 2 is present in >80% of the cells with moderate intensity of level 2; this leads to an immunoreactivity score (IRS) of 8 (patient 1).
Figure 2. SSTR subtype 2 is present in >80% of the cells with moderate intensity of level 2; this leads to an immunoreactivity score (IRS) of 8 (patient 1).
Diagnostics 11 01050 g002
Figure 3. SSTR subtype 5 can be observed in about 70% of the cells at an intensity of level 2; IRS is therefore 6 (patient 1).
Figure 3. SSTR subtype 5 can be observed in about 70% of the cells at an intensity of level 2; IRS is therefore 6 (patient 1).
Diagnostics 11 01050 g003
Figure 4. MRI of the sella T1 with contrast media, axial and sagital pre- and postoperative: the tumor encloses the carotid arteries; close to the arteries, remnants had to be left (patient 2).
Figure 4. MRI of the sella T1 with contrast media, axial and sagital pre- and postoperative: the tumor encloses the carotid arteries; close to the arteries, remnants had to be left (patient 2).
Diagnostics 11 01050 g004
Figure 5. Abundant fibrous bodies were present in the pituitary adenoma species (patient 2).
Figure 5. Abundant fibrous bodies were present in the pituitary adenoma species (patient 2).
Diagnostics 11 01050 g005
Figure 6. At moderate staining intensity of SSTR, subtype 2 and IRS of 6 can be observed (patient 2).
Figure 6. At moderate staining intensity of SSTR, subtype 2 and IRS of 6 can be observed (patient 2).
Diagnostics 11 01050 g006
Figure 7. For SSTR5—presented here—the IRS of 8 is higher than that for SSTR2 (patient 2).
Figure 7. For SSTR5—presented here—the IRS of 8 is higher than that for SSTR2 (patient 2).
Diagnostics 11 01050 g007
Table 1. Patient 1 laboratory data.
Table 1. Patient 1 laboratory data.
DateGH (ng/mL)IGF-1 (ng/mL)Normal Value IGF-1Therapy (mg)MRI (mm)
Length/Width/Height
August 201110.9563117–358014/12/12
August 2011 1st operation8/11/7 **
September 20114.9352117–3580
December 201110.6334117–3580
June 201210.6334117–358LAN90/8w
December 20126.1752117–358LAN120/6w10/14/11
March 20139.8504117–358LAN90/4w+CAB1/1w
May 2013 10/14/11
June 20139.9438117–358LAN90/4w+CAB4/1w
October 201318.6412117–358LAN90/4w+CAB6/1w11/15/11
November 20133.0312117–3582nd operation2/2/2
December 20131.8322117–3580
March 201410.2164117–35802/2/2
July 20143.5190117–3580
January 20154.1292117–35805/6/6
January 20168.7568117–358CAB1/1w9/9/7
January 2016 Radiation9/9/7
May 20162.2381117–35806/6/5
August 20162.6328117–3580
November 20163.4401117–3580
February 20171.3228150117–358
88–537 *
PAS20/4w
June 20171.8189145117–358
88–537 *
PAS20/4w2/2/2
January 20181.213388–537PAS20/4w
June 20181.414988–537PAS20/4w2/2/2
November 20181.220941–246PAS20/4w
August 20191.0170112–281PAS20/4w2/2/2
September 20201.2152109–271PAS20/4w
* new laboratory kit, parallel measurement, ** intraoperative MRI, LAN, lanreotide; CAB, cabergoline; PAS, pasireotide.
Table 2. Patient 2 laboratory data.
Table 2. Patient 2 laboratory data.
DateGH (ng/mL)IGF-1 (ng/mL)Normal Value IGF-1Therapy (mg)MRI (mm)
Length/Width/Height
June 2016>40816109–307026/25/37
June 2016 109–307Operation
June 20165.0751109–30708/15/11
October 20168.5760109–3070
February 201710.6678
400
109–307
41–246 *
LAN60/4w
March 201711.5604
405
109–307
41–246 *
LAN60/4w
May 20176.4603
360
109–307
41–246 *
PAS40/4w8/15/11
August 20173.9581
373
109–307
41–246 *
PAS40/4w+CAB1/1w
November 20176.042541–246PAS40/4w8/15/11
November 2017 Radiation
May 20185.949041–246PAS40/6w8/15/11
September 20182.328741–246PAS40/6w+PEG40/1w
March 201911.8304100–242PAS40/6w+PEG60/1w
August 20197.229798–238PAS40/6w+PEG80/1w6/10/9
April 20208.631998–238PAS40/6w+PEG100/1w
October 202014.924697–234PAS40/6w+PEG150/1w
May 202113,013897–234PAS40/6w+PEG180/1w
* new laboratory kit, parallel measurement; PEG, pegvisomant.
Table 3. Prognostic factors.
Table 3. Prognostic factors.
Patient 1Patient 2
Adenoma sizeMacroadenoma (12 mm)Macroadenoma (37 mm)
HistologyDensely granulatedSparsely granulated, fibrous bodies
Ki675%5%
SSTR2IRS = 8IRS = 6
SSTR5IRS = 6IRS = 8
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pichler, R.; Kalev, O.; Tomancok, B.; Sonnberger, M.; Ehrlich, D.; Hodolic, M. Somatostatin Receptor Subtype Expression in Patients with Acromegaly and Complicated Clinical Course. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11061050

AMA Style

Pichler R, Kalev O, Tomancok B, Sonnberger M, Ehrlich D, Hodolic M. Somatostatin Receptor Subtype Expression in Patients with Acromegaly and Complicated Clinical Course. Diagnostics. 2021; 11(6):1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11061050

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pichler, Robert, Ognian Kalev, Berndt Tomancok, Michael Sonnberger, Daniela Ehrlich, and Marina Hodolic. 2021. "Somatostatin Receptor Subtype Expression in Patients with Acromegaly and Complicated Clinical Course" Diagnostics 11, no. 6: 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11061050

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop