1.The dopamine dilemma: Exogenous L-DOPA or rare dopaminoma?
Amal Hanani Abdul Halim ; Farhi Ain Jamaluddin
Journal of the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies 2026;41(S1):22-23
Introduction:
Dopaminomas or dopamine-secreting pheochromocytomas
are rare neuroendocrine tumors that frequently lack the
classic paroxysmal symptoms of catecholamine excess
(headache, sweating, palpitation). Diagnosing these tumors
is exceptionally challenging when biochemical markers—
specifically markedly elevated urinary dopamine—are
interpreted in patients receiving exogenous Levodopa
(L-DOPA) therapy, as the intake obscures clinical
significance.
Case:
A 76-year-old male with ischemic heart disease, stage 4
chronic kidney disease, and new-onset hypertension was
admitted for acute cholecystitis. Imaging studies incidentally revealed bilateral adrenal masses and demonstrated
lipid-rich characteristics upon further evaluation with
computed tomography (CT) adrenal washout. Biochemical
evaluation revealed extreme elevations in 24-hour urinary
dopamine (47,534 nmol/24 hours; normal <3,237) and
3-methoxytyramine (18.93 µmol/24 hours; normal <2.60),
whereas downstream urinary noradrenaline (5.0 nmol/24
hours; normal 71.5–505.3), adrenaline (4.0 nmol/24 hours;
normal 9.2–122.3), normetanephrine (0.22 µmol/24 hours;
normal 0.88–2.88), and metanephrine (0.25 µmol/24 hours;
normal 0.33–1.53) levels were all significantly below their
respective reference ranges. The diagnosis was complicated
by the patient’s concurrent use of L-DOPA/Benserazide
for flupentixol-induced parkinsonism. L-DOPA is a direct
precursor to dopamine; its administration can cause
massive, false-positive elevations in urinary dopamine,
mimicking a dopaminoma’s biochemical signature.
However, the unique combination of profoundly high
dopamine alongside suppressed downstream catecholamines and metanephrines suggested a true dopaminesecreting tumor—potentially secondary to dopamine
beta-hydroxylase (DBH) deficiency—rather than drug
interference.
Conclusion
This case illustrates the profound difficulty in diagnosing
dopaminoma when exogenous L-DOPA therapy creates a
near-identical biochemical profile. The diagnostic dilemma
is further amplified by vague symptomatology, multiple
comorbidities, and non-suggestive imaging. However,
the finding of isolated dopamine hypersecretion with
suppressed metanephrines serves as a critical clinical clue.
This pattern points toward an intratumoral biosynthetic
defect rather than drug interference. Clinicians must
maintain a high index of suspicion and perform meticulous
biochemical fractionation to identify these rare, dopamineisolated secreting tumors.
Dopamine
;
Levodopa
2.Presence of Macro-TSH: A Rare Mimicker of Subclinical Hypothyroidism
Zi Yang Lian ; Nicholas Ken Yoong Hee ; Shireene Vethakkan ; Jeyakantha Ratnasingam ; Farhi Ain Jamaluddin
Journal of the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies 2026;41(S1):113-114
Introduction:
Macro-thyroid-stimulating hormone (macro-TSH) is a
rare complex formed by monomeric TSH with anti-TSH
autoantibodies. Macromolecules of TSH are not renally
excreted due to its large size, leading to elevated TSH
measurements without clinical consequences. This rare
condition frequently mimics subclinical hypothyroidism,
often leading to misdiagnosis and inappropriate
levothyroxine therapy.
Case:
A 17-year-old female with major depressive disorder was
biochemically diagnosed with subclinical hypothyroidism
(TSH 39.06 mIU/L, free thyroxine 4 12.9 pmol/L, antithyroid peroxidase negative) and commenced on
levothyroxine. Over 5 years, her TSH levels heavily
fluctuated (0.48–82.59 mIU/L) and remained persistently
elevated with high-normal free T4 levels despite treatment
adherence. An endocrinology consult was obtained, and
clinical evaluation revealed a clinically asymptomatic
and euthyroid patient, with no family history of thyroid
disease or supplement use, and there was no goiter.
Assay interference was excluded by analyzing her thyroid
function tests on a different platform, which yielded similar
biochemical results. Subsequently, a polyethylene glycol
(PEG) precipitation test was performed. Her pre-PEG
TSH of 29.24 mIU/L decreased significantly to 2.78 mIU/L
post-PEG. This yielded a remarkably low TSH recovery
rate of 9.5%, strongly indicating the presence of macroTSH. Levothyroxine was then stopped, and she remained
clinically euthyroid.
Conclusion
While gel filtration chromatography remains the gold
standard for diagnosing this condition, PEG precipitation
is a more accessible, cost-effective, and reliable screening
method in clinical practice. A TSH recovery rate below 20%
is considered highly suggestive of macro-TSH. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for macro-TSH
in asymptomatic patients presenting with isolated TSH
elevations that do not respond to thyroxine therapy. Prompt
recognition prevents misdiagnosis and avoids the potential
risks of unnecessary thyroid hormone replacement.
Hypothyroidism
;
Thyrotropin
3.Importance of screening for macroprolactin in all hyperprolactinaemic sera
Farhi Ain Jamaluddin ; Pavai Sthaneshwar ; Zanariah Hussein ; Nor’ashikin Othman ; Chan Siew Peng
The Malaysian Journal of Pathology 2013;35(1):59-63
Introduction: Prolactin (PRL) exists in different forms in human serum. The predominant form
is monomeric PRL (molecular mass 23 kDa) with smaller amounts of big PRL (molecular mass
50–60 kDa) and at times macroprolactin (molecular mass 150–170 kDa). Macroprolactin, generally
considered to be biologically inactive, accounts for the major part of prolactin in some patients.
Different immunoassays for prolactin differ in reactivity with this macromolecular complex. Aim:
The present study was undertaken to assess the incidence of macroprolactinaemia in our cohort
of hyperprolactinemic patients. Method: 204 samples with hyperprolactinemia were evaluated for
macroprolactinemia by polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation and gel fi ltration chromatography
(GFC). Recoveries <60% after PEG precipitation were considered to have macroprolactinaemia.
Results: A total of 43 (21%) of these patients had less than 60% recovery after PEG precipitation.
GFC confi rmed that in seven of these patients macroprolactin was the major part of the prolactin.
Recoveries were < 40% PEG precipitation in these samples. Combined macro and hyperprolactinemia
was observed in two samples and the recovery after PEG precipitation was >40% but 50%. The
incidence of macroprolactinemia in our cohort of hyperprolactinaemic patients was noted to be 4.4%.
Conclusion: Macroprolactin is a signifi cant cause of misdiagnosis, unnecessary investigation, and
inappropriate treatment and hence it is useful to screen all patients with high PRL levels with PEG
precipitation and to apply GFC to samples with recoveries <50%.


Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail