Clinicopathological features and menin expression of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1

The association between jaundice and poorly differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (Ki67 index > 55.0%)

BACKGROUND

Jaundice occurs in some pancreatic disease. However, its occurrences and role in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PNENs) has not been well studied. In this study we showed the association between jaundice and the risk of high grade and poorly differentiated PNENs.

METHODS

Ninety-three patients with head-neck PNENs were included. Poorly differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms were defined by a ki67 index > 55.0%. Logistic regression was used to show the association between demographic information, clinical signs and symptoms and the risk of poorly differentiated tumors. A nomogram model was developed to predict poorly differentiated tumor.

RESULTS

Eight of 93 PNEN patients (8.6%) had jaundice. The age and ki67 index in patients with jaundice were significantly higher than those patients without jaundice. All jaundice occurred in patients with grade 3 PNENs. Mutivariable regression analysis showed that age (odds ratio(OR) = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.02-1.19), tumor size (OR = 1.42, 95%CI:1.01-2.00) and jaundice (OR = 14.98, 95%CI: 1.22-184.09) were associated with the risk of poorly differentiated PNENs. The age and size combination showed a good performance in predicting poorly differentiated PNENs (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.71-0.90). The addition of jaundice further improved the age- and size-based model (AUC = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.78-0.91). A nomogram was developed based on age, tumor size and jaundice.

CONCLUSION

Our data showed that jaundice was associated with the risk of high grade PNENs and poorly differentiated PNENs.

[Indication and Surgical Procedures for MEN1-associated Duodenopancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms]

The optimal therapy of duodenopancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasia (dpNEN), which occurs in the context of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1, is still a major challenge and is controversial. Due to the rarity of the disease, there is a lack of prospective randomised studies, so that most recommendations regarding the surgical indication and procedure are based on retrospective case series. In summary, surgical therapy is indicated for non-functional dpNEN > 2 cm, suspected malignancy and functionally active dpNEN. Enucleation or formal pancreatic resections with or without lymphadenectomy may be considered. The aim of therapy should be to eliminate hormone-associated symptoms and prevent an aggressive metastatic disease. At the same time, pancreatic function and quality of life should be preserved in the mostly young patients by resections that save as much parenchyma as possible.

Somatostatin Receptor 2 in 10 Different Types of Human Non-Neoplastic Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Cells

Somatostatin is known to inhibit the secretion of various hormones by acting on endocrine cells through the somatostatin receptor 2 (SSTR2). Immunohistochemical evaluation of SSTR2 has become increasingly important in clinical practice to determine treatment strategies for patients with a neuroendocrine tumor (NET). Gastrointestinal (GI) tracts contain various neuroendocrine cells that constitute a diffuse endocrine system and some NETs are derived from those cells. In addition, NETs have been well known to express a variable spectrum of proteins shared by their normal cell counterparts of the specific anatomical sites. Thus, we may derive the kinetics of SSTR2 expression of NETs, including de novo expression, from the SSTR2 expression of the corresponding normal neuroendocrine cells. Therefore, a detailed study on the distribution of SSTR2 in normal human neuroendocrine cells may contribute to understanding the expression of SSTR2 in GI-NETs. However, the detailed cellular localization of SSTR2 in non-neoplastic neuroendocrine cells remains unknown. Therefore, we immunolocalized SSTR2 in neuroendocrine cells of normal human GI tracts, including the stomach, duodenum, ileum, and rectum, obtained from 41 surgically resected tissue specimens. Double immunohistochemistry of SSTR2 and hormones or hormone-associated proteins was performed. In all GI neuroendocrine cells, cell types other than D- and EC-cells demonstrated a high percentage of SSTR2-positive cases or a high double-positive ratio. In particular, EC-cells showed lower SSTR2-positive ratios in all sites. Midgut NETs, which often produce serotonin, are excellent targets for somatostatin analogs and are positive for SSTR2. Thus, we speculated that EC-cell NETs might lead to the de novo expression of SSTR2. In addition, a previous report showed high SSTR2 expression in ECL-cell NETs and gastrinomas, which could be because they are derived from neuroendocrine cells with high SSTR2 expression. This study may contribute to understanding the expression of SSTR2 in GI-NETs.

[Morphological characteristics of pituitary adenomas in the phenocopy of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1]

BACKGROUND

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN 1) is a rare autosomal dominant disorder caused by mutations in the MEN1 gene, which encodes the menin protein. If a patient has the MEN 1 phenotype in the absence of mutations in the MEN1 gene, the condition is classified as a phenocopy of this syndrome. Although significant progress has been made in understanding the function of menin, its role in the oncogenesis of the endocrine glands is still being elucidated. Due to its key role in physiological and pathological processes, the assessment of the menin expression can provide valuable information.

AIM

to determine whether there are any differences in the expression of menin in the pituitary adenomas (PA) in patients with phenocopy of MEN 1 (phMEN 1) and genetically confirmed MEN 1 (gMEN 1) compared with their sporadic forms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

immunohistochemical assessment of the menin expression was carried out in PA of patients with gMEN 1, phMEN 1 and sporadic acromegaly (SA), surgically treated in 2008-2020. IHC was performed using antibodies to menin, PRL, GH, ACTH, FSH, TSH, Pit-1, T-box, ERA on previously prepared histological section.

RESULTS

The study included 35 samples of PA: gMEN 1 - 9 samples, phMEN 1 - 12 (somatotropinomas + PHPT); CA - 14  samples. The patients were comparable by gender, adenoma size, and drug intake. The gMEN  1 group differed from phMEN 1 and SA by age (p = 0.0005). In patients with gMEN 1, the expression of menin varied from no staining (5/9) to intense cytoplasm staining. Cytoplasmic expression of menin was mainly present (11/12) in the phMEN 1. In the SA group, there was no staining in 1 case; nuclear expression was detected in 6/14 cases. The phMEN  1 group showed significantly higher cytoplasmic expression of menin than the gMEN  1 group (p = 0.006). The gMEN 1 group also differed from the SA group (p = 0.012). There were no statistically significant differences between the phMEN 1 and SA groups (p = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

It was revealed that the menin expression, in general, is retained in phMEN 1 and SA groups, although with different localization in the cell structure (nucleus and / or cytoplasm). At the same time, the expression of menin varies greatly in patients with gMEN 1. According to the data obtained, it can be assumed that the pathogenesis of PA in phMEN 1 and SA may have similarities; however, there could be factors contributing to the appearance of several tumors of the endocrine glands in one person with phMEN 1. To understand this process, it is necessary to further study the genes associated with MEN 1, epigenetic factors, signaling pathways in which menin is involved.

A Direct Comparison of Patients With Hereditary and Sporadic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Evaluation of Clinical Course, Prognostic Factors and Genotype-Phenotype Correlations

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) in hereditary syndromes pose a significant challenge to clinicians. The rarity of these syndromes and PNETs itself make it difficult to directly compare them with sporadic PNETs. Despite research suggesting differences between these two entities, the same approach is used in hereditary and sporadic PNETs.

METHODS

We included 63 patients with hereditary PNET (GpNET) and 145 with sporadic PNET (SpNET) in a retrospective observational study. Clinical and genetic data were collected in two Polish endocrine departments from January 2004 to February 2020. Only patients with confirmed germline mutations were included in the GpNET cohort. We attempted to establish prognostic factors of metastases and overall survival in both groups and genotype-phenotype correlations in the GpNET group.

RESULTS

Patients with GpNET were younger and diagnosed earlier, whereas their tumors were smaller and more frequently multifocal compared with patients with SpNET. Metastases occurred more frequently in the SpNET group, and their appearance was associated with tumor size in both groups. GpNET patients had longer overall survival (OS). OS was affected by age, age at diagnosis, sex, grade, stage, tumor diameter, occurrence and localization of metastases, type of treatment, and comorbidities. In the MEN1 group, carriers of frameshift with STOP codon, splice site, and missense mutations tended to have less advanced disease, while patients with mutations in exon 2 tended to have metastases more frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct comparisons of GpNET and SpNET demonstrate significant differences in the clinical courses of both entities, which should force different approaches. A larger group of patients with GpNET should be assessed to confirm genotype-phenotype correlations.

Clinicopathological features and menin expression of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1

Background/Purpose

We examined therapeutic strategies for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (pNEN) associated with MEN1 (M‐pNEN) by investigating clinicopathological features and menin expression.

Methods

Seventy‐seven patients who underwent resection of pNEN at our department from January 2001 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Immunohistochemical analysis of menin was performed using resected specimens.

Results

Seven patients (9%) met the diagnostic criteria for MEN1. M‐pNEN had more tumors (P < .01), a higher recurrence rate (P = .028), and higher residual pancreatic recurrence (P < .01) than sporadic pNEN (S‐pNEN). There were no significant differences in tumor size, lymph node metastasis, or World Health Organization grade between the two groups. Reduced menin staining in the tumor nuclei was found in 86% of M‐pNEN; whereas only 34% of S‐pNEN showed decreased nuclear staining. The remainder (66%) showed strong nuclear staining similar to normal islet cells (P = .0071). Furthermore, four patients (57%) with MEN1 had many microadenomas with reduced nuclear menin staining. Overall survival of M‐pNEN patients was significantly better than S‐pNEN patients (P = .049).

Conclusion

M‐pNEN patients tend to develop spatially and temporally multifocal pNENs. However, M‐pNEN patient prognosis is good with repeated surgeries at recurrence. Therefore, minimal resection with strict follow‐up is recommended rather than extensive pancreatic resections for consideration of recurrence in M‐pNEN.