Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Catching the Zebra: Clinical Pearls and Pitfalls for the Successful Diagnosis of Zollinger–Ellison Syndrome

  • Review
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Zollinger–Ellison syndrome (ZES) results from an ectopic gastrin-secreting tumor leading to peptic ulcer disease, reflux, and chronic diarrhea. While early recognition portends an excellent prognosis with >80% survival at 15 years, symptoms are often nonspecific making the diagnosis difficult to establish. Diagnosis involves a series of tests, including fasting gastrin, gastric pH, chromogranin A, and secretin stimulation. Performing these tests in the correct sequence and at the proper time is essential to avoid inaccurate results. Tumor localization is equally nuanced. Although providers have classically used 111indium-radiolabeled octreotide with somatostatin receptor scintigraphy to evaluate tumor size and metastases, recent studies have shown superior results with newer imaging modalities. In particular, 68gallium (68Ga)-labeled somatostatin radiotracers (i.e., 68Ga-DOTATOC, 68Ga-DOTANOC and 68Ga-DOTATATE) used with positron emission tomography/computed tomography can provide excellent results. Endoscopic ultrasound is another useful modality, particularly in patients with ZES in the setting of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. This review aims to provide clinicians with an overview of ZES with a focus on both clinical presentation and the proper utilization of the various biochemical and imaging tests available.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from Gibril et al. [5]

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zollinger RM, Ellison EH. Primary peptic ulcerations of the jejunum associated with islet cell tumors of the pancreas. Ann Surg. 1955;142:705–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilcox CM, Seay T, Arcury JT, Mohnen J, Hirschowitz BI. Zollinger–Ellison syndrome: presentation, response to therapy, and outcome. Dig Liver Dis. 2011;43:439–443.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roy PK, Venzon DJ, Shojamanesh H, et al. Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. Clinical presentation in 261 patients. Medicine. 2000;79:379–411.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Feldman M, Friedman LS, Brandt LJ. Sleisenger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver disease: pathophysiology/diagnosis/management. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gibril F, Jensen RT. Zollinger–Ellison syndrome revisited: diagnosis, biologic markers, associated inherited disorders, and acid hypersecretion. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2004;6:454–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Epelboym I, Mazeh H. Zollinger–Ellison syndrome: classical considerations and current controversies. Oncologist. 2014;19:44–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Metz DC, Jensen RT. Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors: pancreatic endocrine tumors. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1469–1492.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Krampitz GW, Norton JA. Current management of the Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. Adv Surg. 2013;47:59–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tetsuhide I, Cadiot G, Jensen RT. Diagnosis of Zollinger–Ellison syndrome: increasingly difficult. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:5495–5503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rehfeld JF, Gingras M, Bardram L, Hilsted L, Goetze JP, Poitras P. The Zollinger–Ellison syndrome and mismeasurement of gastrin. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:1444–1453.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weber HC, Venzon DJ, Lin JT, et al. Determinants of metastatic rate and survival in patients with Zollinger–Ellison syndrome: a prospective long-term study. Gastroenterology. 1995;108:1637–1649.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Keutgen XM, Nilubol N, Kebebew E. Malignant-functioning neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas: a survival analysis. Surgery. 2016;159:1382–1389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Corleto VD, Annibale B, Gibril F, et al. Does the widespread use of proton pump inhibitors mask, complicate and/or delay the diagnosis of Zollinger–Ellison syndrome? Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2001;15:1555–1561.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abou-Saif A, Gibril F, Ojeaburu JV, et al. Prospective study of the ability of serial measurements of serum chromogranin A and gastrin to detect changes in tumor burden in patients with gastrinomas. Cancer. 2003;98:249–261.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hijioka M, Ito T, Igarashi H, et al. Serum chromogranin A is a useful marker for japanese patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer Sci. 2014;105:1464–1471.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Stokkel M, Rietbergen D, Korse C, Taal B. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy and chromogranin A assay in staging and follow-up of patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Nucl Med Commun. 2011;32:731–737.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Campana D, Nori F, Piscitelli L, et al. Chromogranin A: is it a useful marker of neuroendocrine tumors? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1967–1973.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Modlin I, Gustafsson B, Moss S, Pavel M, Tsolakis A, Kidd M. Chromogranin A—biological function and clinical utility in neuro endocrine tumor disease. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2427–2443.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Modlin I, Cornelius E, Lawton GP. Use of an isotopic somatostatin receptor probe to image gut endocrine tumors. Arch Surg. 1995;130:367–373.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kulke MH, Anthony LB, Bushnell DL, et al. NANETS treatment guidelines: well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach and pancreas. Pancreas. 2010;39:735–752.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Alexander HR, Fraker DL, Norton JA, et al. Prospective study of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy and its effect on operative outcome in patients with Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. Ann Surg. 1998;228:228–238.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Thoeni RF, Mueller-Lisse UG, Chan R, Do NK, Shyn PB. Detection of small, functional islet cell tumors in the pancreas: selection of MR imaging sequences for optimal sensitivity. Radiology. 2000;214:483–490.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Anderson MA, Carpenter S, Thompson NW, Nostrant TT, Elta GH, Scheiman JM. Endoscopic ultrasound is highly accurate and directs management in patients with neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2271–2277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rösch T, Lightdale CJ, Botet JF, et al. Localization of pancreatic endocrine tumors by endoscopic ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1721–1726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Norton JA, Jensen RT. Resolved and unresolved controversies in the surgical management of patients with Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. Ann Surg. 2004;240:757–773.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Raines D, Chester M, Diebold AE, et al. A prospective evaluation of the effect of chronic proton pump inhibitor use on plasma biomarker levels in humans. Pancreas. 2012;41:508–511.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnbeck CB, Knigge U, Kjær A. PET tracers for somatostatin receptor imaging of neuroendocrine tumors: current status and review of the literature. Future Oncol. 2014;10:2259–2277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith KA, Patel O, Lachal S, et al. Production, secretion, and biological activity of the C-terminal flanking peptide of human progastrin. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:1463–1474.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jain RN, Samuelson LC. Differentiation of the gastric mucosa II. Role of gastrin in gastric epithelial cell proliferation and maturation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2006;291:G762–G765.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Peghini PL, Annibale B, Azzoni C, et al. Effect of chronic hypergastrinemia on human enterochromaffin-like cells: insights from patients with sporadic gastrinomas. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:68–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Maton PN, Lack EE, Collen MJ, et al. The effect of Zollinger–Ellison syndrome and omeprazole therapy on gastric oxyntic endocrine cells. Gastroenterology. 1990;99:943–950.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Collen MJ, Jensen RT. Idiopathic gastric acid hypersecretion. Dig Dis Sci. 1994;39:1434–1440.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hatta W, Iijima K, Koike T, et al. Endoscopic findings for predicting gastric acid secretion status. Dig Endosc. 2015;5:582–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Norton JA, Venzon DJ, Berna MJ, et al. Prospective study of surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism (HPT) in multiple endocrine neoplasia-type 1 and Zollinger–Ellison syndrome: long-term outcome of a more virulent form of HPT. Ann Surg. 2008;247:501–510.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Gibril F, Schumann M, Pace A, Jensen RT. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 and Zollinger–Ellison syndrome: a prospective study of 107 cases and comparison with 1009 cases from the literature. Medicine. 2004;83:43–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Thakker RV, Newey PJ, Walls GV, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:2990–3011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Goebel SU, Peghini PL, Goldsmith PK, et al. Expression of the calcium-sensing receptor in gastrinomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;85:4131–4137.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Scheiman JM, Yeomans ND, Talley NJ, et al. Prevention of ulcers by esomeprazole in at-risk patients using non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:701–710.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hawkey CJ, Karrasch JA, Szczepanski L, et al. Omeprazole compared with misoprostol for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:727–734.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Laine L, Hopkins RJ, Girardi LS. Has the impact of Helicobacter pylori therapy on ulcer recurrence in the united states been overstated? A meta-analysis of rigorously designed trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:1409–1415.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wolfe MM, Sachs G. Acid suppression: optimizing therapy for gastroduodenal ulcer healing, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and stress-related erosive syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2000;118:S9–S31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Metz DC, Comer GM, Soffer E, et al. Three-year oral pantoprazole administration is effective for patients with Zollinger–Ellison syndrome and other hypersecretory conditions. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;23:437–444.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Metz DC, Soffer E, Forsmark CE, et al. Maintenance oral pantoprazole therapy is effective for patients with Zollinger–Ellison syndrome and idiopathic hypersecretion. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:301–307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Termanini B, Gibril F, Stewart CA, Weber HC, Jensen RT. A prospective study of the effectiveness of low dose omeprazole as initial therapy in Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1996;10:61–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Berna MJ, Hoffmann KM, Serrano J, Gibril F, Jensen RT. Serum gastrin in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome: I. Prospective study of fasting serum gastrin in 309 patients from the national institutes of health and comparison with 2229 cases from the literature. Medicine. 2006;85:295–330.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Roy PK, Venzon DJ, Feigenbaum KM, et al. Gastric secretion in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. Correlation with clinical expression, tumor extent and role in diagnosis—a prospective NIH study of 235 patients and a review of 984 cases in the literature. Medicine. 2001;80:189–222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Phan J, Benhammou J, Pisegna J. Gastric hypersecretory states: investigation and management. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2015;13:386–397.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Oh DS, Wang HS, Ohning GV, Pisegna JR. Validation of a new endoscopic technique to assess acid output in Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:1467–1473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Weinstein DH, deRijke S, Chow CC, et al. A new method for determining gastric acid output using a wireless pH-sensing capsule. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;37:1198–1209.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Frucht H, Howard JM, Slaff JI, et al. Secretin and calcium provocative tests in the Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. A prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:713–722.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Berna MJ, Hoffmann KM, Long SH, Serrano J, Gibril F, Jensen RT. Serum gastrin in Zollinger-Ellison syndrome: II. Prospective study of gastrin provocative testing in 293 patients from the National Institutes of Health and comparison with 537 cases from the literature: evaluation of diagnostic criteria, proposal of new criteria, and correlations with clinical and tumoral features. Medicine. 2006;85:331–364.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Metz DC, Buchanan M, Purich E, Fein S. A randomized controlled crossover study comparing synthetic porcine and human secretins with biologically derived porcine secretin to diagnose Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2001;15:669–676.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Long SH, Berna MJ, Thill M, et al. Secretin-receptor and secretin-receptor-variant expression in gastrinomas: correlation with clinical and tumoral features and secretin and calcium provocative test results. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:4394–4402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Shah P, Singh MH, Yang Y, Metz DC. Hypochlorhydria and achlorhydria are associated with false-positive secretin stimulation testing for Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. Pancreas. 2013;42:932–936.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Shin JM, Sachs G. Restoration of acid secretion following treatment with proton pump inhibitors. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:1588–1597.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Katashima M, Yamamoto K, Tokuma Y, Hata T, Sawada Y, Iga T. Comparative pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis of proton pump inhibitors omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole, in humans. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 1998;23:19–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Poitras P, Gingras MH, Rehfeld JF. The Zollinger–Ellison syndrome: dangers and consequences of interrupting antisecretory treatment. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:199–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Singh Ospina N, Donegan D, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Al-Hilli Z, Young WF. Assessing for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 in patients evaluated for Zollinger–Ellison syndrome—clues to a safer diagnostic process. Am J Med. 2017;130:603–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Gillen D, McColl KE. Problems associated with the clinical use of proton pump inhibitors. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001;89:281–286.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Jensen RT. Consequences of long-term proton pump blockade: insights from studies of patients with gastrinomas. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;98:4–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Waldum HL, Arnestad JS, Brenna E, Eide I, Syversen U, Sandvik AK. Marked increase in gastric acid secretory capacity after omeprazole treatment. Gut. 1996;39:649–653.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Deftos LJ. Chromogranin A: its role in endocrine function and as an endocrine and neuroendocrine tumor marker. Endocr Rev. 1991;12:181–188.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tomassetti P, Migliori M, Simoni P, et al. Diagnostic value of plasma chromogranin A in neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;13:55–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Goebel SU, Serrano J, Yu F, Gibril F, Venzon DJ, Jensen RT. Prospective study of the value of serum chromogranin A or serum gastrin levels in the assessment of the presence, extent, or growth of gastrinomas. Cancer. 1999;85:1470–1483.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Qiu W, Christakis I, Silva A, et al. Utility of chromogranin A, pancreatic polypeptide, glucagon and gastrin in the diagnosis and follow-up of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 patients. Clin Endocrinol. 2016;85:400–407.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Krampitz GW, Norton JA, Poultsides GA, Visser BC, Sun L, Jensen RT. Lymph nodes and survival in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Arch Surg. 2012;147:820–827.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Roland CL, Bian A, Mansour JC, et al. Survival impact of malignant pancreatic neuroendocrine and islet cell neoplasm phenotypes. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:595–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Twerdahl EH, Costantino CL, Ferrone CR, Hodin RA. Primary hepatic gastrinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20:662–663.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Wank SA, Doppman JL, Miller DL, et al. Prospective study of the ability of computed axial tomography to localize gastrinomas in patients with Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. Gastroenterology. 1987;92:905–912.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Reznek RH. CT/MRI of neuroendocrine tumours. Cancer Imaging. 2006;6:S163–S177.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Gibril F, Reynolds JC, Doppman JL, et al. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy: its sensitivity compared with that of other imaging methods in detecting primary and metastatic gastrinomas: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:26–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Cimitan M, Buonadonna A, Cannizzaro R, et al. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy versus chromogranin A assay in the management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors of different types: clinical role. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:1135–1141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Krausz Y, Keidar Z, Kogan I, et al. SPECT/CT hybrid imaging with 111In-pentetreotide in assessment of neuroendocrine tumours. Clin Endocrinol. 2003;59:565–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ruf J, Wedel FV, Christian F, et al. Significance of a single-time-point somatostatin receptor SPECT/multiphase CT protocol in the diagnostic work-up of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:180–185.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Wong KK, Ghandi A, Viglianti BL, Fig LM, Rubello D, Gross MD. Endocrine radionuclide scintigraphy with fusion single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography. World J Radiol. 2016;8:635–655.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Sainz-Esteban A, Olmos R, González-Sagrado M, et al. Contribution of 111In-pentetreotide SPECT/CT imaging to conventional somatostatin receptor scintigraphy in the detection of neuroendocrine tumours. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36:251–259.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Gabriel M, Decristoforo C, Kendler D, et al. 68 Ga-DOTA-Tyr3-octreotide PET in neuroendocrine tumors: comparison with somatostatin receptor scintigraphy and CT. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:508–518.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Wild D, Bomanji JB, Benkert P, et al. Comparison of 68 Ga-DOTANOC and 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT within patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:364–372.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Herrmann K, Czernin J, Wolin EM, et al. Impact of 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT on the management of neuroendocrine tumors: the referring physician’s perspective. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:70–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Skoura E, Michopoulou S, Mohmaduvesh M, et al. The impact of 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT imaging on management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors: experience from a national referral center in the United Kingdom. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:34–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Sharma P, Arora S, Mukherjee A, et al. Predictive value of 68 Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT in patients with suspicion of neuroendocrine tumors: is its routine use justified? Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39:37–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Geijer H, Breimer L. Somatostatin receptor PET/CT in neuroendocrine tumours: update on systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1770–1780.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Putzer D, Gabriel M, Henninger B, et al. Bone metastases in patients with neuroendocrine tumor: 68 Ga-DOTA-Tyr3-octreotide PET in comparison to CT and bone scintigraphy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1214–1221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Calais J, Czernin J, Eiber M, et al. Most intended management changes after 68Ga-DOTATE PET/CT are implemented. J Nucl Med. 2017. doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.192450.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Thomas-Marques L, Murat A, Delemer B, et al. Prospective endoscopic ultrasonographic evaluation of the frequency of nonfunctioning pancreaticoduodenal endocrine tumors in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:266–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Wamsteker E, Gauger PG, Thompson NW, Scheiman JM. EUS detection of pancreatic endocrine tumors in asymptomatic patients with type 1 multiple endocrine neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:531–535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Barbe C, Murat A, Dupas B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus endoscopic ultrasonography for the detection of pancreatic tumours in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Dig Liver Dis. 2012;44:228–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Kappelle W, Valk G, Leenders M, et al. Growth rate of small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: results from an endoscopic ultrasound based cohort study. Endoscopy. 2016;49:27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Braden B, Jenssen C, D’Onofrio M, et al. B-mode and contrast-enhancement characteristics of small nonincidental neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors. Endosc Ultrasound. 2017;6:49–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. van Asselt SJ, Brouwers AH, Dullemen HM, et al. EUS is superior for detection of pancreatic lesions compared with standard imaging in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:159–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Wang J, Benhammou JN, Ghassemi K, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration accurately diagnoses smaller pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors compared to computer tomography-guided fine needle aspiration. J Gastroenterol Pancreatol Liver Disord. 2017;4:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Aaron H. Mendelson & Mark Donowitz

Authors
  1. Aaron H. Mendelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Donowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron H. Mendelson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mendelson, A.H., Donowitz, M. Catching the Zebra: Clinical Pearls and Pitfalls for the Successful Diagnosis of Zollinger–Ellison Syndrome. Dig Dis Sci 62, 2258–2265 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-017-4695-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-017-4695-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation