Key words MEN1 - 3′ and 5′ UTR - CDKN1B - CaSR - hyperparathyroidism
Introduction
Multiple endocrine neoplasia type-1 (MEN1) is a rare autosomal dominant disorder
characterised by a predilection for the occurrence of two or more of the following
endocrine tumours- parathyroid adenomas, gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine
tumours (GEP NETs), and pituitary adenomas, along with adrenal adenomas and
neuroendocrine tumours of the thymus, lung, and stomach [1 ]. MEN1 syndrome is often termed as
‘classical’ if there are at least two endocrine tumours, namely,
parathyroid, pituitary or GEP NETs. Parathyroid tumours are the most common, seen in
about 90%, while 30–70% harbour pancreatic tumours and
30–40% pituitary tumours [2 ].
MEN1 is associated with a significantly higher mortality rate, especially in cases
of malignant GEP NETs, thymic and bronchial carcinoids where the risk of death is
increased three-fold [3 ]. MEN1 is known to be
associated with variable penetrance, though the disease might present with differing
clinical features even among members of the same family [4 ].
MEN1 is caused by germline inactivating mutations in the MEN1 gene, consisting
of 10 exons, that encodes the menin protein [5 ]. Over 1000 germline mutations have been identified, including large
deletions, splice-site mutants and mutations in the 5′ and 3′
untranslated regions (UTRs) [2 ]. Large
deletions in the MEN1 gene are often identified using the multiplex ligation
dependant probe amplification (MLPA) assay [6 ]. Identification of mutations in the MEN1 gene is strongly recommended for
a definitive genetic diagnosis of MEN1 and asymptomatic first-degree relatives [2 ]. However, about 5–10%
patients who strictly meet the clinical criteria have no identifiable mutation [7 ]. About 5% of the MEN1 cases may
represent phenocopies where they mimic MEN1 in clinical presentation, but carry
mutations in unrelated genes like CDKN1B or CaSR [6 ]
[8 ]. The need for such
comprehensive genetic testing limits it to fewer laboratories with the expertise and
infrastructure to undertake this kind of testing.
Aim
Given the paucity of data from India, we decided to prospectively characterise
patients with a clinical diagnosis of MEN1 looking at the clinical presentation, the
genotype-phenotype association and the pattern of mutations involving the MEN1 gene,
5′ and 3′ untranslated regions (UTR) of MEN1 gene, CaSR and the
CDKN1B gene.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Between 2013 and 2019, 31 index cases and nine affected first degree relatives
with MEN1 were enrolled prospectively at our centre. Subjects with two of the
three classical endocrine tumours described with MEN1, that is, parathyroid
adenomas, GEP NETs and anterior pituitary tumours were labelled as definite MEN1
(n=32, index cases-23). Eight index patients who had one classical
endocrine tumour associated with MEN1, with either a non-endocrine tumour
associated with MEN1 or history of one of the MEN1 associated tumour in a first
degree relative, or early onset primary hyperparathyroidism (<30 years)
were classified as MEN1-like cases ([Fig.
1 ]) [2 ].
Fig. 1 Description of the MEN1 study subjects.
Demographic data, details of clinical presentation, biochemical investigations,
imaging, treatment modalities, and outcomes of management were recorded.
Standard recommended protocols were followed for the diagnosis and management of
MEN1 associated parathyroid, pituitary and pancreatic tumours [9 ]
[10 ]
[11 ]
[12 ]
[13 ]
[14 ]
[15 ]
[16 ]
[17 ]. 68 Ga
DOTATATE PET-CT scan was performed when there was a suspicion of metastatic
pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) or carcinoid tumour. Patients with
metastatic GEP NETs were treated with 177 Lu DOTATATE peptide receptor
targeted radionuclide therapy (PRRT) or chemotherapy. Patients with
adrenocortical tumours detected on abdominal CT scans had assessment of their
functional status, and surgery was recommended for functioning tumours or
those≥4 cm in size. Foregut carcinoids were treated with surgery
followed by chemotherapy, radiation therapy and/or PRRT with
177 lutetium DOTATATE.
Institutional review board and ethics committee approval was obtained to conduct
the study (IRB Min number 8141, dated 19.12.2012). Ten ml of peripheral venous
blood was drawn for genetic testing, after obtaining consent. Screening was
extended to all the first-degree relatives “at-risk” of carrying
these mutations, once an index case was identified.
Molecular genetic analysis
DNA for mutational analysis was isolated for each patient using the QIAGEN QIAamp
blood mini kit (Qiagen, India) and the DNA was quantitated using the Nanodrop
(NanoDrop technologies, USA). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for nine exons
(exons 2–10) of the MEN1 gene was performed using published
primer sequences [18 ]. The sense and
antisense strands were sequenced using the automated DNA sequencer (ABI PRISM
310 genetic analyzer) with the ABI PRISM BigDye Terminator Cycle Sequencing
Ready Reaction Kit (Applied Biosystems, USA). Mutational analysis was performed
by comparing the sequence with the wild type (Ref Seq NM_130799). All family
members recruited into the study were screened only for the mutation seen in the
index case. Further, samples from the index cases negative for MEN1
mutation by PCR-sequencing were characterised for large deletions using the MLPA
assay (MRC, Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and eventually for 5′
and 3′ UTR of MEN1 gene (new primers were designed). Those who did not
carry MEN1 mutations or large deletions were further screened for mutations in
CDKN1B [19 ] and CaSR [20 ] genes.
Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 21 (IBM SPSS Statistics for
Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). Mean and standard deviation (SD)
of continuous variables, and the frequency of categorical variables were
calculated. Independent samples t -test was used to compare the continuous
variables between the two groups.
Results
Demographics and clinical presentation
Forty patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia 1 (MEN1) were prospectively
recruited including 32 definite MEN1 cases (15 male and 17 female) – 23
index cases and nine first degree relatives, and eight MEN1-like cases. The
subjects were described with their family number and labelled I for index cases
(e. g., F2I) or R for relatives (e. g., F5R1).
Among the definite MEN1 cases, 16 index cases (70%) had family history of
MEN1; including classical endocrine tumours associated with MEN1 in the
first-degree relatives of five cases, and presumptive MEN1 tumours in the
relatives based on clinical history in eleven others (i. e., renal
calculi in multiple family members, or early death of a parent with abdominal
malignancy). The mean age at diagnosis of the first MEN1 endocrine tumour was
32.7 years (SD 14.4, range 14–71 years). The first endocrine tumour at
presentation was a pituitary tumour in 15 patients (47%), primary
hyperparathyroidism in eight (25%), GEP NETs in nine (28%) and
bronchial carcinoid in one patient (3%).
The commonest endocrine tumour among definite MEN1 cases (n=32) was
primary hyperparathyroidism in 32 patients (100%), followed by GEP NETs
in 22 patients (68.7%) and pituitary adenomas in 21 patients
(65.6%). The GEP NETs included seven insulinomas, eight gastrinomas,
nine non-functioning tumours and one causing ectopic ACTH dependent
Cushing’s syndrome. Two subjects had insulinoma and non-functioning
pancreatic NETs (F1I and F13I), while one had a large gastrinoma and multiple
insulinomas (F5I) ([Table 1 ]). Eight
patients (25%) had nodular adrenal masses of which five were bilateral
tumours. Four patients had carcinoid tumours (12.5%), three were thymic
carcinoids and one was a bronchial carcinoid. Seven patients (22%) had
leiomyomas, five were uterine myomas, and one each in the oesophagus and
hepatico-duodenal omentum. Multiple collagenomas were noted in eight patients
(25%), facial angiofibroma in one patient, lipomas in four and
café-au-lait macules in five patients [21 ]. [Table 1 ] and [Table 2 ] list the tumours and mutation
profile of the familial and sporadic definite MEN1 cases respectively.
Table 1 MEN1 associated tumours and mutations in familial MEN1
cases.
Family number
Age at diagnosis
Number of MEN1 tumours
MEN1 tumours
Index/Relative
MEN1_Mutation and large deletion result*
Effect on protein
MEN1_polymorphism
CDKN1B
CaSR
F1
20
3
HP, PAPr, PNI, PNnf
I
c.1151_1152insGAGG; p.Ala384Glyfs
Novel, Insertion
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F1
38
2
HP, PAPr, TC
R1
c.1151_1152insGAGG; p.Ala384Glyfs
Novel, Insertion
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F1
55
2
HP, PNnf
R2
c.1151_1152insGAGG; p.Ala384Glyfs
Novel, Insertion
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F1
50
3
HP, PAPr, PNnf, ATnf
R3
c.1151_1152insGAGG; p.Ala384Glyfs
Novel, Insertion
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F1
23
3
HP, PAPr, PNnf
R4
c.1151_1152insGAGG; p.Ala384Glyfs
Novel, Insertion
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F1
16
2
HP, PAPr
R5
c.1151_1152insGAGG; p.Ala384Glyfs
Novel, Insertion
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F2
23
2
HP, PNI, ATnf
I
c.93_98 delGCCGGA; p.Glu31Asp delPD
Novel Deletion
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
ND
ND
F4
25
3
HP, PAPr, PNI, ATnf
I
c.606C>G; p.Thr202 Thr
Synonymous rs527294715
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
No mutations/polymorphism
c.2956G>T polymorphism
F5
41
3
HP, PAGH, PAPr, PNG, PNI, TC, ATnf
I
No mutation; No large deletions
–
No polymorphism
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
No mutation
F5
37
1
HP, ATnf
R1
No mutation; No large deletions
–
No polymorphism
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
No mutation/polymorphism
F5
47
1
HP, ATnf
R2
No mutation; No large deletions
–
No polymorphism
No mutation/polymorphism
No mutations; c.3061G>Cpolymorphism
F7
20
3
HP, PAPr, PNG
I
c.* 1393C>T;
p.Arg465*
rs104894267 Terminating mutation
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
ND
ND
F9
28
3
HP, PAnf, PNCS
I
No mutation; No large deletions
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
c.2956G>T, c.3061G>C polymorphism
F10
31
3
HP, PAPr, PNG, ATCS
I
c.1562_1563 insC; p.Arg521Profs ter15
rs761695866 Insertion
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F12
20
3
HP, PAPr, PNG
I
No mutation; No large deletions
–
No polymorphism
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
No mutation
F12
39
2
HP, PNG, ATnf
R1
No mutation; No large deletions
–
No polymorphism
ND
c.2956G>T polymorphism
F13
30
2
HP, PNI, PNnf
I
No mutation; No large deletions
–
No polymorphism
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
c.2968A>G polymorphism
F14
25
3
HP, PAPr, PNnf
I
No mutation; No large deletions
–
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
No mutation
c.2968A>G polymorphism
F15
17
2
HP, PAPr
I
c.1636A>G; p.Thr546Ala
COSM255213 Substitution
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
ND
ND
F17
54
2
HP, PNnf
I
No mutation; No large deletions
–
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
No mutation/polymorphism
F19
14
2
HP, PAPr
I
No mutation; No large deletions
–
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
ND
F19
43
2
HP, PNG
R1
No mutation; No large deletions
–
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp423Asp
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
ND
F20
54
2
HP, PNnf, BC
I
c.16_17insC; p.Ala6Alafs
CI121609 Insertion
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F21
31
3
HP, PAPr, PNG
I
c.250_253delTCT; p.Ser84delS
CD075467 Deletion
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F23
23
2
HP, PNI
I
c.1594 C>T; p.Arg 532*
Novel Terminating mutation
No polymorphism
ND
ND
ATCS: Adrenal tumour - Cushing’s syndrome; ATnf: Adrenal tumour
nonfunctioning; BC: Bronchial carcinoid; HP: Primary
hyperparathyroidism; I: Index case; ND: Not done; PAGH: Growth hormone
secreting pituitary adenoma; PAnf: Pituitary adenoma –
nonfunctioning; PAPr: Pituitary adenoma-prolactinoma; PNCS: GEP NET
causing ectopic ACTH dependent Cushing’s syndrome; PNG: GEP NET
Gastrinoma; PNI: Pancreatic NET insulinoma; PNnf: GEP NET
nonfunctioning; R: Relative of an index case; TC: Thymic carcinoid.
* Large deletion detected using multiplex
ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA).
Table 2 MEN1 associated tumours and mutations in sporadic MEN1
cases.
Family number
Age at diagnosis
Number of MEN1 tumours
MEN1 tumours
MEN1 Mutation and large deletion result
Effect on protein
MEN1_polymorphism
CDKN1B
CaSR
F3
22
2
HP, PAPr
c.643_646delACAG; p.Thr215Serfs
Frameshift Novel
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
ND
ND
F6
22
3
HP, PAPr, PNG
c.1562_1563insC; p.Arg521fs ter33
Frameshift Novel
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
ND
ND
F8
25
2
HP, PAPr
c.*1402 G>T; p.Glu468*
Terminating mutation Novel
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F11
71
2
HP, PNI
C.1200+1dupG p.400+1dupG
Splice site mutation Novel
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F16
23
3
HP, PAPr, PNnf
c.160_161insTC; p.Ile54Ilefs ter 100
Frameshift Novel
No polymorphism
ND
ND
F18
55
2
HP, PAGH
No mutation; No large deletions
–
No polymorphism
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
ND
F22
23
2
HP, PAGH
No mutation; No large deletions
–
No polymorphism
ND- sample insufficient
ND-sample insufficient
ATCS: Adrenal tumour - Cushing’s syndrome; ATnf: Adrenal tumour
nonfunctioning; BC: Bronchial carcinoid; HP: Primary
hyperparathyroidism; ND: Not done; PAGH: Growth hormone secreting
pituitary adenoma; PAnf: Pituitary adenoma – nonfunctioning;
PAPr: Pituitary adenoma-prolactinoma: PNG: GEP NET gastrinoma: PNI:
Pancreatic NET insulinoma; PNnf: GEP NET nonfunctioning; TC: Thymic
carcinoid.
Parathyroid tumours
The mean age at diagnosis of primary hyperparathyroidism was 36.4 years (SD 14.2,
range 17–71 years). Twenty of 32 patients (62.5%) were
asymptomatic and were diagnosed during screening for MEN1. Two patients had
abdominal pain due to renal calculi, ten had bone pain of whom one had a
vertebral fracture. The biochemical features, surgical outcomes and
histopathology of the tumours are described in [Table 3 ]. Of the 26 patients who underwent ultrasound screening for
localisation of parathyroid adenomas, 14 had enlargement of multiple parathyroid
glands, 10 had enlargement of a single parathyroid gland and in two patients the
tumour could not be localised. Eighteen patients had 99m Tc Sestamibi
scan of which 17 scans localised the tumour – a single hyperfunctioning
parathyroid in nine patients, and multiple hyperfunctioning glands in eight
patients. Among 15 patients who had both 99m Tc Sestamibi and
ultrasound scans, 12 had concordant lesions. Twenty-six patients (81%)
had surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism with cervical thymectomy; three
patients had staged surgery for excision of multiple parathyroid tumours as MEN1
was not suspected during their initial evaluation. Three patients are awaiting
surgery, two have defaulted and one is on medical management with cinacalcet as
she declined surgery (F11). Three patients who had undergone sub-total
parathyroidectomy (excision of 3 or 3½ parathyroid glands) [22 ] at our centre had recurrence of
parathyroid adenomas ten, nine and four years after initial surgery
respectively. One patient underwent repeat surgery and two patients are on
medical treatment.
Table 3 MEN1 associated parathyroid tumours –
characteristics and outcome of treatment.*
Status of Parathyroid surgery (Number)
Serum calcium (mg/dl) Mean (SD)
Serum phosphorus (mg/dl) Mean (SD)
Plasma PTH (pg/ml) Median (Range)
Renal calculi number (%)
Low bone mass Number (%)
One Parathyroid gland not identified Number (%)
Parathyroid hyperplasia Number (%)
Parathyroid adenoma Number (%)
Post-op hypo-parathyroidism
Duration of follow-up after parathyroid surgery in years
Median (range)
Recurrence of primary hyper-parathyroidism
Parathyroidectomy, no follow-up n=8 (Subtotal
parathyroidectomy§= 5, details
not available=3)
11.5 (0.6)
2.6 (0.4)
265.6 (85.6–410.4)
3 (38%)
5/7 (71%)
–
3/5 (60%) All multiglandular
2/5 (40%) 1 had multiple parathyroid
adenomata
3/5 (60%) had prolonged
hypo-parathyroidism
nil
–
Less than Subtotal parathyroidectomy§
n=2; (excision of 2.5 glands)
11.1 (0.7)
3.1 (0.6)
272.2 (173.7–370.8)
nil
2 (100%)
2 (100%)
1 (50%) multiglandular
1 (50%) multiple parathyroid adenomata
2 (100%) 1-Transient & 1-prolonged
hypo-parathyroidism
1.75 (1.5–2)
nil
Sub-total parathyroidectomy§
n=16
11.0 (0.5)
3.0 (0.8)
252.0 (77.7–1320)
9 (56.2%)
10/13 (76.9%)
nil
9/15** (60%) 8 had
multiglandular hyperplasia
7/15** (46.7%) 6
had multiple parathyroid adenomata
12 (75%) 4-transient 8-prolonged
hypo-parathyroidism; 2 recovered on follow-up
5.5 (0.3–19)
3 (18.7%)
* Among 32 patients with primary hyperparathyroidism, 3 are
awaiting surgery, 2 were lost to follow-up, and 1 preferred medical
management. [Table 3 ] describes
the details of 26 patients who underwent parathyroid surgery.
§ Subtotal parathyroidectomy- excision of 3 or
3½ parathyroid glands. ** One patient
had subtotal parathyroidectomy in 2001, the details of histopathology
were not available.
Pituitary tumours
Twenty-one patients had pituitary adenomas. The mean age at diagnosis was 27.6
years (SD 10.6, range 14–55 years). Eleven patients had presented with
headache, six had visual impairment, one had 3rd cranial nerve palsy
and two had presented with pituitary apoplexy. The remaining were incidentally
detected on pituitary MRI during evaluation for MEN1. Eight patients had
symptoms of hypogonadism in the form of amenorrhoea or erectile dysfunction.
Seven patients had pituitary microadenomas, 12 had macroadenomas of which seven
were invasive tumours, and two patients who had previously been treated at
another hospital had no residual tumour on imaging. Sixteen patients had
prolactinomas, two had growth hormone (GH) secreting tumours, one had a GH and
prolactin co-secreting tumour, and two patients had non-functioning pituitary
adenomas. Three patients with prolactinoma had undergone surgery for excision of
the tumours 20 years before the diagnosis of MEN1. Thirteen patients with
prolactinoma were treated with cabergoline and one was treated earlier at
another centre with bromocriptine; 13 patients responded to medical treatment,
one patient with prolactinoma resistant to cabergoline was advised surgery, and
one cabergoline responder underwent surgery for CSF rhinorrhoea. All three
patients with GH and GH-prolactin co-secreting tumours underwent surgery, and
have remained in remission. Among the non-functioning pituitary tumours, one
underwent surgery and the other patient with a microadenoma is on follow-up.
Gastroentero-pancreatic NETs
Among 22 patients with GEP NETs, eight patients had gastrinomas. Six patients had
mild hypergastrinemia with serum gastrin<1000 pg/ml without any
duodenal or pancreatic NET identified on CT scan abdomen and/or MRI of
the pancreas. Among patients with gastrinoma, one had recurrent peptic ulcers,
and seven had dyspeptic symptoms. The mean serum gastrin level was 8941 (SD
7631) ng/l. The hormonal profile, imaging characters and treatment of
these patients is described in [Table
4 ].
Table 4 Hormonal profile, imaging and treatment of MEN1 GEP NETs.
No Subject number
Hormonal profile
Imaging CECT abdomen ± MRI pancreas
Treatment
Follow-up
Gastrinoma
Serum Gastrin (pg/ml)
1
F5 Index
19000
Multiple T2 hyperintense lesions in the Pancreas:
tail: 71×63 mm; body: 12 mm;
head of pancreas: 15 mm. Multiple
enlarged greater and
lesser omental nodes,
25×20 mm metastatic lesion in
segment 3 of the liver
Distal pancreatectomy+enucleation of tumours in the
head and uncinate process of pancreas, resection of adjacent
omental lymph nodes and hepatic metastasectomy HPE:
Multifocal Pancreatic NETs, liver and lymph node
metastases
Doing well 6 years after surgery
2
F6 Index
10000
Duodenal nodule (details not available)
Refused surgery. On pantoprazole
Lost to follow-up
3
F7 Index
2170
Lesion in the tail of pancreas 7×6 mm
Refused surgery. On pantoprazole
Lost to follow-up
4
F10 Index
3380
Lesion in the tail of pancreas 19×16 mm,
multiple gastric neuroendocrine tumours – largest
28×22 mm
Unfit for surgery due to left ventricular systolic
dysfunction. On pantoprazole
Died 8 years after the diagnosis of GEP NETs
5
F12 Index
2009>1000 2018 14720
2009: Tumours in the head of pancreas 2011: Duodenal
nodules (details not available) 2018: Lesion in the
body of pancreas 10.6×9.8 mm; multiple
nodules in D1 and D2 on upper GI endoscopy.
177 Lu DOTATATE PRRT in 2009 Subsequently on
Pantoprazole
Has developed decompensated cirrhosis of liver
6
F12 relative
1000
3 enhancing lesions in the pancreas:
body:18×20 mm, head: 10×8 mm
& tail: 5 mm with liver metastases
177 Lu DOTATATE PRRT in 2009 Subsequently on
Pantoprazole
Died 13 years after the diagnosis of pancreatic NETs: sudden
cardiac death
7
F19 Index
2680
No tumour identified
On pantoprazole
Keeping well
8
F21 Index
18580
Enhancing mass in the pancreatico-duodenal grove
27×34×36 mm; nodules in the
duodenum- 12×8 mm in the posterior wall and
7×8 mm in the third part
On pantoprazole, awaiting surgery
Insulinoma
Lowest Plasma Glucose (mg/dl)
Plasma Insulin µIU/ml
C-peptide ng/ml
1
F1 Index
40
2.0
6.0
Multiple lesions in the pancreas – small lesion in
the neck,<2 cm lesion in the posterior
distal body of pancreas.
2011: ubtotal pancreatectomy with enucleation of tumour in
the head of pancreas HPE: well differentiated
pancreatic endocrine neoplasm
(multifocal-<1 mm to 2 cm) MIB-1:
1–2%
New non-functioning GEP NETs in the head and uncinate process of pancreas 7 years after surgery (2018)
2
F2 Index
32
24.3
3.3
Insulinoma operated at another centre in 2009, recurrence in
2011: 15×14 mm lesion in the uncinate
process of pancreas.
Laparotomy and enucleation of insulinoma HPE: Well
differentiated neuroendocrine tumour, M1B1
index<2%
No recurrence until 2018
3
F4 Index
16
15.2
3.7
23×17 mm lesion in the tail of pancreas
Two lesions in the tail of pancreas: 17 mm and
21 mm enucleated HPE: Pancreatic endocrine
neoplasms with extensive amyloid deposits, MIB1:
1–2%, focally up to 4%
Was well on follow-up 1 year after surgery. Subsequently lost
to follow-up
4
F5 Index
39
15.9
4.1
Multiple lesions in the pancreatic head, body and tail (as
above) with lymph node and liver metastases
Distal pancreatectomy+enucleation of tumours in the
head and uncinate process of pancreas, resection of adjacent
lymph nodes and hepatic metastasectomy HPE:
Multifocal Pancreatic NETs, liver and lymph node
metastases
No recurrence on follow-up for 6 years
5
F11 Index
38
11.3
1.8
10×8 mm lesion in the distal body of
pancreas. 68 Ga DOTATATE PET scan: 2 lesions in
the tail of pancreas: 10 mm and
14×12 mm
Refused surgery in view of old age. Doing well on Diazoxide
50 mg BD
No hypoglycemia on Diazoxide – 7 years follow-up
6
F13 Index
39
10.5
3.1
30×40 mm pancreatic tail lesion
Operated at another hospital in 2014. Pancreatic ductal leak
post-op, subsided with Inj Octreotide
Repeat imaging 9 months after surgery showed a 6 mm
lesion in the body of pancreas (non-functioning pNET)
7
F23 Index
44
4.5
1.8
10×9 mm lesion in the neck of pancreas
Five pancreatic lesions identified during surgery- distal
pancreatectomy+enucleation of uncinate lesion
HPE: NETs WHO grade 2, MIB 1 index
3–4%
Doing well at one year follow-up
CECT: Contrast enhanced computed tomography; D1,D2: First and second part
of duodenum; DOTATATE:
1,4,7,10-Tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7,10-tetraacetic acid
(DOTA)-octreotat; MIB-1: Marker of cell proliferation (MIB-1 is a
monoclonal antibody directed against the Ki-67 antigen); GEP NETs:
Gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours; NETs: Neuroendocrine
tumours; ONDST: Overnight dexamethasone suppression test; PRRT: Peptide
receptor radionuclide therapy.
Seven patients had insulinomas, all of them presented with fasting hypoglycemia.
The mean plasma glucose was 35.4 mg/dl (SD 9.3), the corresponding mean
plasma insulin level was 11.9 μIU/ml (SD 7.5), and the mean
C-peptide level was 2.63 ng/ml (SD 1.2). Four patients had multiple
lesions and three patients had a single tumour on imaging. One patient (F5
index) had a large gastrinoma at the pancreatic tail and multiple insulinomas in
the neck and uncinate process of pancreas with liver metastases. The details of
their biochemical parameters, imaging findings and management are described in
[Table 4 ].
One patient had multiple pancreatic NETs with ACTH dependent Cushing’s
syndrome which had progressed over two years. He underwent near total
pancreatectomy at another centre, and the Cushing’s syndrome is in
remission. Nine patients had non-functioning GEP NETs. One patient
with an inoperable tumour involving the tail of the pancreas with liver and
lymph node metastases was treated with chemotherapy and 177 lutetium
DOTATATE PRRT; he is doing well on follow up. Another patient with a
4×3 cm non-functioning pancreatic NET underwent surgery. Six
patients with lesions<2 cm at initial presentation have been on
regular follow-up; two of them were advised surgery as the tumours had increased
in size to more than 2 cm. One patient who had distal pancreatectomy
earlier for insulinoma developed non-functioning GEP NETs in the head
(31×27 mm) and uncinate process (9 mm), she is also
awaiting repeat surgery ([Table 4 ]).
Adrenal, thymic, and bronchial tumours
Eight patients had nodular adrenal masses, five of them were bilateral. One
patient had ACTH independent Cushing’s syndrome which was well
controlled with ketoconazole, others were non-functioning. Four patients had
carcinoid tumours, three had thymic carcinoids and one had a bronchial
carcinoid. Two of the three thymic carcinoids were large tumours
(>5 cm); one underwent surgery (F1R1), and histopathological
examination confirmed the diagnosis of thymic neuroendocrine carcinoma. He
received adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy and 177 lutetium DOTATATE
PRRT, and is in remission. Another patient with a large thymic tumour had
spontaneous regression of thymic enlargement after surgery for his growth
hormone secreting pituitary adenoma (F5 index). The third patient with thymic
carcinoid declined surgery, and was lost to follow-up. The patient with
bronchial carcinoid underwent surgical treatment and is in remission.
MEN1-like cases
Eight patients had MEN1-like presentation, the mean age at diagnosis was 38.2
years (SD 23.8, range 14 to 73 years). Three patients had pituitary adenomas,
three had GEP NETs, and two had primary hyperparathyroidism. The reason for
inclusion of these patients as MEN1-like cases for genetic testing is described
in [Table 5 ]. Three patients had positive
family history of one MEN1 associated endocrine tumour in a first-degree
relative. One patient had early onset primary hyperparathyroidism at 21 years of
age, and was screened for MEN1 mutation, despite the absence of other
manifestations or family history of MEN1.
Table 5 MEN1 associated tumours and mutations in MEN1-like
Index cases.
Family number
Age at diagnosis
Number of MEN1 tumours
MEN1 tumours
Reason for genetic testing
MEN1 mutation
MEN1 polymorphism
CDKN1B
F24
14
1
PACD
Mother had insulinoma
No mutation
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
No mutation
F25
14
1
PAPr
Mother had lung carcinoid
No mutation
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
No mutation
F26
73
1
PNG_lost follow-up
Brother had pancreatic tumour
No mutation
No polymorphism
No mutation
F27
71
1
PNGl, Meningioma
Glucagonoma with liver metastases, and left parietal
meningioma
No mutation
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
No mutation
F28
49
1
PNnf, TC_lost follow-up
Patient has PNETs and thymic tumour, family h/o
pituitary tumour in 2/7 siblings and father
No mutation
exon 9 c.1269C>T ; p.Asp 423Asp
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
F29
21
1
HP
Primary hyperparathyroidism at young age
No mutation
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
c.326 T>G, P.V109G polymorphism
F30
28
1
PAPr (1997), BC
Pituitary adenoma with Bronchial carcinoid
No mutation
exon 9 c.1269C>T; p.Asp 423Asp
No mutation
F31
36
2
HP, PNnf (prob)
Hyperparathyroidism: LIPA, h/o distal pancreatectomy
in 1989, recurrent tumour operated in 1996-probable NET
No mutation
No polymorphism
No mutation
BC: Bronchial carcinoid; HP: Primary hyperparathyroidism; LIPA: Left
inferior parathyroid adenoma; NET: Neuroendocrine tumour; PACD:
Cushing’s disease due to pituitary adenoma; PAnf: Pituitary
adenoma – nonfunctioning; PAPr: Pituitary adenoma-prolactinoma;
PNG: GEP NET gastrinoma; PNGl: Pancreatic NET Glucagonoma; PNnf: GEP NET
nonfunctioning; TC: Thymic carcinoid.
Mortality
During a mean follow-up period of 5.0 years (SD 4.2 years), two patients with
definite MEN1 had sudden cardiac death at home (F10I and F12R1), and another
patient with MEN1-like syndrome died of metastatic glucagonoma (F27).
Mutational profiles
Among the 23 index cases with definite MEN1, 13(56.5%) had mutations in
the MEN1 gene. One had a previously described (rs527294715; c.606C>G;
p.Thr202 Thr) synonymous variation, that was not considered a mutation. Mutation
positive subjects tended to be diagnosed at a younger age compared to mutation
negative subjects though this was not significant (mean age 29.4 vs. 31.5 years,
p=0.74). Among index cases who gave a family history of MEN1, eight of
16 cases (50%) had MEN1 gene mutations, three of which were novel
mutations ([Table 1 ]). Interestingly,
mutation positivity was higher among those without family history of MEN1 where
five of seven (71.4%) were positive, and all carried novel mutations
that have not been described before ([Table
2 ]). In all 61% of the mutations reported were novel. The
mutational spectrum in this study included frameshift (61%), terminating
(23%) and substitutions/splice site mutations (8% each).
Twelve index patients had all the three classical tumours described with MEN1,
and among them five (41.7%) carried MEN1 mutations, while seven of
eleven index patients (63.6%) with two classical tumours associated with
MEN1 carried mutations in the MEN1 gene. The mutation positivity was higher with
the combination of parathyroid tumours and GEP NETs (4/5; 80%)
compared to patients with parathyroid and pituitary tumours (3/6;
50%). There was no genotype-phenotype correlation; six members of F1
carried the same mutation, but had different combinations of MEN1 tumours with
varied severity of manifestations. Among the nine affected relatives tested,
five subjects from one family (F1) carried the same mutation as in the index
case, the remaining four were mutation negative similar to their respective
index cases ([Table 1 ]). Ten index
patients (43.5%) had MEN1 gene polymorphisms ([Table 1 ] and [Table 2 ]). None of the patients
characterised in this study had large exonic/gene deletions detected by
MLPA assay. Further, 10 index cases (43.5%) who did not have mutations
in the MEN1 exonic region were checked for mutations in the 5′ and
3′ untranslated regions of the MEN1 gene, CDKN1B and CaSR genes and
found to be negative though several of them carried polymorphisms ([Table 1 ] and [Table 2 ]). None of the eight MEN1-like
cases carried mutations in the MEN1 exonic or untranslated regions, six had
polymorphisms in the MEN1 gene ([Table
5 ]).
Thirteen asymptomatic first-degree relatives of definite MEN1 cases provided
blood samples for genetic testing. Three were relatives of MEN1 mutation
negative index patients and hence, their samples were not tested for MEN1
mutations. Four (40%) of 10 relatives of MEN1 mutation positive index
cases carried MEN1 exonic region mutations similar to their respective index
cases - one of four from F1, one of two from F7 and one each from F2 and F15.
Two relatives have been on periodic screening for MEN1 related tumours and have
not manifested any MEN1 tumours until the last follow-up, one from F2 is a
four-year-old child, and her parents have been counselled about the need for
screening for MEN1 associated tumours after the age of five years. One
asymptomatic relative was lost to follow-up.
Discussion
We present the clinical and mutational profile of 40 patients with MEN1 from 31
families, including 31 index cases (23 definite and eight MEN1-like cases), nine
affected relatives and 13 asymptomatic first-degree relatives. The study highlights
the challenges in clinical management and the importance of a multidisciplinary
approach for successful diagnosis and treatment of MEN1. To the best of our
knowledge this is the largest case series of MEN1 from India, where genetic testing
for MEN1 has been performed in-house, complemented by testing for large deletions by
MLPA, MEN1 UTRs, and sequencing for CDKN1B and CaSR genes to identify
phenocopies.
Familial MEN1
Seventy percent of our definite MEN1 cases had a positive family history, similar
to the Japanese and French series where 72 and 64% respectively had
familial MEN1 [23 ]
[24 ]. Other series have reported lesser
frequency of familial MEN1– 57% in an Australian series [25 ], 29% in a Swedish series [26 ] and 17% from Western India
[27 ].
Clinical presentation and outcomes of treatment
The most common presenting tumour of MEN1 was pituitary tumour (47%) in
our study, though others reported GEP NETs as the first presenting tumour [23 ]
[27 ], likely due to referral bias. Primary hyperparathyroidism
recurred in 19% of our patients who were available for follow-up after
sub-total parathyroidectomy. A Dutch series reported recurrence rates of
53% following excision of fewer than three parathyroids, 17%
after sub-total parathyroidectomy and 19% after total parathyroidectomy
[28 ], while an American study reported
relapse in 24% after subtotal parathyroidectomy and 13% after
total parathyroidectomy [29 ]. Ninety
percent (19/21) of the pituitary tumours were functional, with a
predominance of prolactinomas (76%) in our series, similar to the French
series, where 72% were functioning pituitary tumours [30 ]. One of our eight patients with
gastrinoma, six of seven patients with insulinoma, and one of nine patients with
non-functioning GEP NET had surgical excision. The role of surgery, and the
extent of surgical exploration of gastrinomas is controversial because of the
inability to achieve consistent biochemical cure [31 ]. Resection of the most severely
affected part of the pancreas, with enucleation of concomitant
NETs>0.5 cm in the preserved pancreas is recommended for
insulinomas associated with MEN1 [32 ].
Most small non-functioning pancreatic NETs<2 cm remain stable
over time [33 ] and have low risk of
disease-specific mortality; hence conservative management is recommended [17 ]. Though DOTA PET scan provides a
panoramic view of the various tumours associated with MEN1, it is expensive, and
does not have greater sensitivity as compared to cross sectional imaging for
pancreas, pituitary, and adrenals, and has low sensitivity to localise
parathyroid tumours [34 ].
MEN1 mutational analysis
Though genetic testing is recommended for definitive diagnosis, it yields
negative results in a significant proportion of patients with a clinical
diagnosis of MEN1. Among our definite MEN1 index cases (n=23), mutations
in the MEN1 gene were detected in 56.5% of the patients; none of the
eight MEN1-like cases carried mutations. The overall mutation positivity among
31 index cases (definite and MEN1-like) was 42%. Similar mutation
frequency of 42% was reported by a study from UK including 142 MEN1
cases [35 ], and a lower frequency of
24% was reported in a Swedish cohort [26 ]. Some large studies have reported higher MEN1 mutation positivity
of 69–83% [23 ]
[24 ]
[36 ]. Mutation positivity rates have been reported to be higher in
familial cases (>87%) when compared to sporadic cases
(31–82%) [23 ]
[24 ]
[26 ]. In our series, the MEN1 mutation positivity was 50%
among familial cases and 71% among sporadic cases of definite MEN1.
However, the mutation positivity reported in our study is certainly lesser than
a series from Western India with 85% positivity, though they performed
mutational analysis in a subset of their cases [27 ].
Our results are also slightly in variance to what is reported in the context of
mutation positivity based on the number of tumours. In a large MEN1 cohort,
those with all three classic MEN1 endocrine tumours were more likely to have
mutations when compared to those with two or one classical MEN1 tumour (79 vs.
37 vs. 15%) [35 ]. In our study,
41.7% of the patients with all three classical tumours were mutation
positive when compared to 63.6% with two tumours. Further, none of the
MEN1-like cases were mutation positive in this study; it is fairly well
established that MEN1-like cases have lower mutation frequency ranging from
6–31%, with a study from UK finding none to be positive [23 ]
[24 ]
[35 ]. It can be argued that
the higher population prevalence of primary hyperparathyroidism and pituitary
adenomas could lead to a sporadic co-occurrence of these tumours, a plausible
reason for lesser MEN1 mutation positivity in these patients when compared to
the combination of hyperparathyroidism with GEP NETs [8 ]. In a recent study by Backman et al,
only three of the 14 cases that were negative by Sanger sequencing for MEN1 were
found to carry MEN1 gene mutations by whole genome sequencing. The authors
therefore contend that the absence of mutations in the remaining cases could
perhaps be explained as a chance co-occurrence of endocrine tumours in a single
patient [37 ]. Also, the presence of
somatic mosaicism in these ‘simplex’ cases (without family
history of MEN1) cannot be ruled out [38 ].
Further, mutation negative patients have been reported to have later age at
diagnosis of MEN1 tumours, milder disease course and longer median survival
[26 ]
[28 ]
[39 ]. A similar scenario is
presented in our study, though it did not tend to statistical significance.
Further, most studies describing the mutational spectrum among MEN1 patients
usually report several novel mutations, a fact that has been reiterated in this
study wherein 61% of the mutations were considered novel. This is also a
pointer to the widely recognised feature among MEN1 which is the absence of
mutational hotspots and phenotype-genotype correlation [24 ]
[26 ]
[36 ]
[40 ]
[41 ] corroborated by the varied spectrum of presentations and severity
among the members of a single family (F1) in this study with a novel insertion
(c.1151_1152insGAGG). The spectrum of mutations in this study ranged from
frameshift to terminating mutations, again keeping in tune with literature in
this area, though the absence of large deletions was certainly in contrast to
that reported by Lemos et al. where 10% harbour such deletions [7 ]. This finding coupled with the absence
of mutation in ~44% of the definite index cases prompted us to
look at other possibilities including mutations in the untranslated regions of
MEN1 gene, CDKN1B and the CaSR genes; however, no mutations were found in these
regions. Agarwal et al checked for CDKN1B mutations in 196 MEN1 mutation
negative patients, and identified mutations in only 1.5% of those tested
[42 ]. Mutation in CDKN1B is now
recognised to be a rare cause of MEN1 like phenotype.
Polymorphisms in MEN1, CDKN1B, and the CaSR genes
Interestingly, several polymorphisms were seen in MEN1 mutants and non-mutants,
the commonest being in exon 9 of the MEN1 gene (c.1269C>T;p.Asp423Asp).
Among mutation negative patients, c.326T>G, P.V109G polymorphism in
CDKN1B gene was found in nine cases of definite MEN1 and two among MEN1-like
patients. Patients≥30 years old carrying truncating MEN1 mutations and
the c.326T>G(V109G) variant have been reported to have 18.3 times higher
susceptibility to tumours in multiple glands (three to four glands) [43 ]. Also, the age at manifestation of the
first aggressive tumour (pancreatic NET>2 cm or any thoracic
carcinoid tumour), and the time from diagnosis of MEN1 to the development of the
first aggressive tumour have been found to be significantly shorter in MEN1
patients with CDKN1B V109G polymorphism [44 ]. Though benign, this change has been reported at an allele
frequency ranging from 0.45 to 0.7 in population databases, for example, 1000
genome database. The role that these variants play in the absence of an exonic
mutation is not clear, though speculative, the possibility of them serving as
triggers for tumourigenesis cannot be ruled out. However, of note is the fact
that the data from a meta-analysis on the role of this variant in a general
population in the context of cancer development clearly showed no correlation
between the presence of this variant and an overall risk of cancer, casting
doubts on its role in MEN1 [45 ].
Finally, the utility of screening asymptomatic “at risk” first
degree relatives cannot be emphasised more as shown by the four unaffected
relatives (40%) who were found to be positive for mutations. An early
detection and subsequent thorough follow up could change the course of events
and showcases the need to screen as many at risk individuals as possible.
There are a few limitations to this study including the fact that we have limited
follow-up for these patients, and that many other genes (AIP, CDKN1A, CDKN2C,
and CDKN2B) that could also carry mutations, albeit in very small percentages,
were not included. In fact, several intronic mutations in the MEN1 gene have
been described which may be significant in the absence of exonic mutations [40 ]
[46 ]
[47 ]. With the advent of
next generation sequencing many more genes can now be screened together,
including a targeted panel that can cover for genes that might be rarely
associated with MEN1. However, this study has the limitation of restricting
genetic data to select genes and sequencing by Sangers method. Perhaps, a
targeted panel that explores the most important genes associated with MEN1 or
exome sequencing of the mutation negative definitive cases, might provide some
answers.
Conclusions
Despite the limitations, this study has helped to capture in detail the clinical
profile and provide an in-depth analysis on the mutational profile of patients with
MEN1 from India, and will certainly help to overcome some lacunae in this area. The
absence of MEN1 mutation in ~44% of cases and the presence of
p.V109G polymorphism in CDKN1B gene raises the question whether such polymorphisms
could independently contribute to the pathogenesis.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection and
analysis were performed by HSA and RP. The first draft of the manuscript was written
by HSA and RP, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript.