Literature DB >> 20685857

Clinical characteristics and therapeutic responses in patients with germ-line AIP mutations and pituitary adenomas: an international collaborative study.

Adrian F Daly1, Maria A Tichomirowa, Patrick Petrossians, Elina Heliövaara, Marie-Lise Jaffrain-Rea, Anne Barlier, Luciana A Naves, Tapani Ebeling, Auli Karhu, Antti Raappana, Laure Cazabat, Ernesto De Menis, Carmen Fajardo Montañana, Gerald Raverot, Robert J Weil, Timo Sane, Dominique Maiter, Sebastian Neggers, Maria Yaneva, Antoine Tabarin, Elisa Verrua, Eija Eloranta, Arnaud Murat, Outi Vierimaa, Pasi I Salmela, Philippe Emy, Rodrigo A Toledo, Maria Isabel Sabaté, Chiara Villa, Marc Popelier, Roberto Salvatori, Juliet Jennings, Angel Ferrandez Longás, José Ignacio Labarta Aizpún, Marianthi Georgitsi, Ralf Paschke, Cristina Ronchi, Matti Valimaki, Carola Saloranta, Wouter De Herder, Renato Cozzi, Mirtha Guitelman, Flavia Magri, Maria Stefania Lagonigro, Georges Halaby, Vinciane Corman, Marie-Thérèse Hagelstein, Jean-François Vanbellinghen, Gustavo Barcelos Barra, Anne-Paule Gimenez-Roqueplo, Fergus J Cameron, Françoise Borson-Chazot, Ian Holdaway, Sergio P A Toledo, Günter K Stalla, Anna Spada, Sabina Zacharieva, Jerome Bertherat, Thierry Brue, Vincent Bours, Philippe Chanson, Lauri A Aaltonen, Albert Beckers.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: AIP mutations (AIPmut) give rise to a pituitary adenoma predisposition that occurs in familial isolated pituitary adenomas and less often in sporadic cases. The clinical and therapeutic features of AIPmut-associated pituitary adenomas have not been studied comprehensively.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess clinical/therapeutic characteristics of AIPmut pituitary adenomas.
DESIGN: This study was an international, multicenter, retrospective case collection/database analysis.
SETTING: The study was conducted at 36 tertiary referral endocrine and clinical genetics departments. PATIENTS: Patients included 96 patients with germline AIPmut and pituitary adenomas and 232 matched AIPmut-negative acromegaly controls.
RESULTS: The AIPmut population was predominantly young and male (63.5%); first symptoms occurred as children/adolescents in 50%. At diagnosis, most tumors were macroadenomas (93.3%); extension and invasion was common. Somatotropinomas comprised 78.1% of the cohort; there were also prolactinomas (n = 13), nonsecreting adenomas (n = 7), and a TSH-secreting adenoma. AIPmut somatotropinomas were larger (P = 0.00026), with higher GH levels (P = 0.00068), more frequent extension (P = 0.018) and prolactin cosecretion (P = 0.00023), and occurred 2 decades before controls (P < 0.000001). Gigantism was more common in the AIPmut group (P < 0.000001). AIPmut somatotropinoma patients underwent more surgical interventions (P = 0.00069) and had lower decreases in GH (P = 0.00037) and IGF-I (P = 0.028) and less tumor shrinkage with somatostatin analogs (P < 0.00001) vs. controls. AIPmut prolactinomas occurred generally in young males and frequently required surgery or radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: AIPmut pituitary adenomas have clinical features that may negatively impact treatment efficacy. Predisposition for aggressive disease in young patients, often in a familial setting, suggests that earlier diagnosis of AIPmut pituitary adenomas may have clinical utility.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20685857     DOI: 10.1210/jc.2009-2556

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab        ISSN: 0021-972X            Impact factor:   5.958


  98 in total

1.  Familial pituitary apoplexy as the only presentation of a novel AIP mutation.

Authors:  Paraskevi Xekouki; Spyridon A Mastroyiannis; Dimitrios Avgeropoulos; Maria de la Luz Sierra; Giampaolo Trivellin; Evgenia A Gourgari; Charalampos Lyssikatos; Martha Quezado; Nicholas Patronas; Christina Kanaka-Gantenbein; George P Chrousos; Constantine A Stratakis
Journal:  Endocr Relat Cancer       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 5.678

Review 2.  Advances and controversies in the classification and grading of pituitary tumors.

Authors:  E R Laws; D L Penn; C S Repetti
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 4.256

Review 3.  Update on prognostic factors in acromegaly: Is a risk score possible?

Authors:  E Fernandez-Rodriguez; F F Casanueva; I Bernabeu
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.107

Review 4.  T2-weighted MRI signal intensity as a predictor of hormonal and tumoral responses to somatostatin receptor ligands in acromegaly: a perspective.

Authors:  Iulia Potorac; Albert Beckers; Jean-François Bonneville
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.107

Review 5.  A 2019 update on TSH-secreting pituitary adenomas.

Authors:  P Beck-Peccoz; C Giavoli; A Lania
Journal:  J Endocrinol Invest       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 4.256

6.  The role of AIP mutations in pituitary adenomas: 10 years on.

Authors:  Adrian F Daly; Albert Beckers
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 3.633

Review 7.  Somatostatin receptor ligands in acromegaly: clinical response and factors predicting resistance.

Authors:  Rosa Maria Paragliola; Salvatore Maria Corsello; Roberto Salvatori
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.107

Review 8.  Somatostatin receptor ligands in the treatment of acromegaly.

Authors:  Monica R Gadelha; Luiz Eduardo Wildemberg; Marcello D Bronstein; Federico Gatto; Diego Ferone
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.107

Review 9.  Genetics of Cushing's Syndrome.

Authors:  Laura C Hernández-Ramírez; Constantine A Stratakis
Journal:  Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 4.741

Review 10.  Pituitary gigantism: update on molecular biology and management.

Authors:  Maya B Lodish; Giampaolo Trivellin; Constantine A Stratakis
Journal:  Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 3.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.