| Literature DB >> 32153511 |
Xin Ji1,2, Zihao Wang1,2, Wenze Wang3, Lu Gao1,2, Xiaopeng Guo1,2, Chenzhe Feng1,2, Wei Lian1,2, Kan Deng1,2, Bing Xing1,2.
Abstract
Purpose: To increase knowledge for the early differential diagnosis and accurate therapeutic strategies for pediatric patients with sellar or suprasellar region (SSR) lesions who initially present with central diabetes insipidus (CDI).Entities:
Keywords: central diabetes insipidus; craniopharyngioma; germ cell tumor; langerhans cell histiocytosis; sellar and suprasellar region
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32153511 PMCID: PMC7044264 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00076
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Demographic data for the 55 patients with different causes of CDI.
| GCT | 41 (74.5) | 11/30 | 9.9 ± 2.5 | 21.5 ± 21.2 | 35.4 ± 20.2 |
| LCH | 10 (18.2) | 5/5 | 11.2 ± 3.3 | 23.7 ± 30.8 | 43.4 ± 16.0 |
| CP | 4 (7.3) | 1/3 | 11.4 ± 2.3 | 35 ± 31.3 | 32.5 ± 12.6 |
| Total | 55 (100) | 17/38 | 10.3 ± 2.7 | 22.9 ± 24.3 | 36.6 ± 19.3 |
CDI, central diabetes insipidus; GCT, germ cell tumor; LCH, Langerhans cell histiocytosis; CP, craniopharyngioma; yr, years; mo, month.
Anterior pituitary function in 55 patients.
| Multiple axes dysfunction | 31 | 3 | 3 | |||
| GH + TSH + ACTH + Gonadotropin | 6 | 1 | 0 | |||
| GH + TSH + ACTH | 12 | 0 | 1 | |||
| GH + TSH + Gonadotropin | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| GH + TSH | 5 | 0 | 1 | |||
| GH + ACTH | 3 | 0 | 0 | |||
| GH + Gonadotropin | 3 | 1 | 0 | |||
| TSH + ACTH | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| TSH + Gonadotropin | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| ACTH + Gonadotropin | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Isolated axis dysfunction | 8 | 5 | 0 | |||
| GH | 7 | 3 | 0 | |||
| TSH | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Gonadotropin | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Normal function | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
GH, growth hormone; TSH, thyroid-stimulating hormone; ACTH, adrenocorticotropic hormone.
MRI characteristics of different types of SSR lesions.
| ≤1 cm | 3 (7.3%) | 4 (40%) | 0 | |
| 1–2 cm | 27 (65.9%) | 6 (60%) | 3 (75%) | |
| 2–3 cm | 6 (14.6%) | 0 | 0 | |
| ≥3 cm | 5 (12.2%) | 0 | 1 (25%) | |
| 0 | 29 (70.7%) | 8 (80%) | 3 (75%) | |
| I | 3 (7.3%) | 0 | 0 | |
| II | 6 (14.6%) | 1 (10%) | 1 (25%) | |
| III | 1 (2.4%) | 1 (10%) | 0 | |
| IV | 2 (4.9%) | 0 | 0 | |
| Iso | 36 (87.8%) | 7 (70%) | 0 | |
| Hyper | 0 | 3 (30%) | 3 (75%) | |
| Hypo | 5 (12.2%) | 0 | 1 (25%) | |
| Iso | 30 (73.2%) | 8 (80%) | 0 | |
| Hyper | 9 (21.9%) | 1 (10%) | 4 (100%) | |
| Hypo | 2 (4.9%) | 1 (10%) | 0 | |
| Heterogeneous | 21 (51.2%) | 0 | 4 (100%) | |
| Homogeneous | 20 (48.8%) | 10 (100%) | 0 | |
| Disappeared | 41 (100%) | 10 (100%) | 4 (100%) | |
| Present | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| <3.0 mm | 2 (73.2%) | 0 | 0 | |
| 3.0–4.5 mm | 6 (14.6%) | 6 (60%) | 0 | |
| 4.5–6.5 mm | 12 (29.3%) | 4 (40%) | 0 | |
| >6.5 mm | 14 (34.1%) | 0 | 1 (25%) | |
| Not observed | 7 (17.1%) | 0 | 3 (75%) | |
| Deviation from midline | 13 (31.7%) | 6 (60%) | – | |
| Uplift | 20 (48.8%) | 0 | 3 (75%) | |
| Normal | 21 (51.2%) | 10 (100%) | 1 (25%) | |
| Suprasellar | 13 (31.7%) | 3 (30%) | 2 (50%) | |
| Sellar | 2 (4.9%) | 0 | 0 | |
| Suprasellar and sellar | 26 (63.4%) | 7 (70%) | 2 (50%) | |
This case showed T1 central hypointensity and a rim hyperintensity.
Measurements indicated the average value of the maximum measurements on sagittal and coronal images.
Among GCT patients, 7 (17.1%) pituitary stalks were not observed as being surrounded by large tumors.
Among CP patients, 3 (75%) pituitary stalks were not observed as being surrounded by tumor. One (25%) presented with a thickened pituitary stalk that deviated from the midline.
Figure 1MRI characteristics of GCT, LCH and CP (cases 7, 46, and 53, respectively). GCT showed isointensity on T1WI (A coronal), iso to hyperintensity on T2WI (B coronal) and obvious enhancement after gadolinium injection (C coronal, D sagittal). LCH showed isointensity on T1WI (E coronal), isointensity on T2WI (F coronal) and obvious enhancement after gadolinium injection (G coronal, H sagittal). CP showed hyperintensity on T1WI (I coronal), hyperintensity on T2WI (J coronal) and obvious heterogeneous enhancement (K coronal, L sagittal).
Figure 2Histopathological findings: (A) HE staining (×200) of GCT; note the diffuse tumor cells that aggregated into sheets, with a large, partially transparent cytoplasm and obvious nucleoli. Stroma was scant and mainly comprised of lymphocytes. (B) Expression of CD117 in GCT. (C) Expression of PLAP in GCT. (D) Expression of OCT3/4 in GCT. (E) HE staining (×200) of LCH; note that large amounts of mononuclear phagocytes are diffusely distributed and intermingled with eosinophilic granulocytes and lymphocytes. (F) Expression of CD1a in LCH. (G) Expression of S100 in LCH. (H) HE staining (×200) of CP; the squamous epithelium with papillary hyperplasia and the fibrous vessel axis can be seen.
Figure 3Treatments of 55 patients. VMPP, vincristine (V) + methotrexate (M) + pingyangmycin (P) + Cisplatin (P); EP, Etoposide + Cisplatin; IEP, Isophosphoramide (I) + Etoposide (E) + Cisplatin (P), MA, methotrexate (M) + Ara-c (A); VMP, Vindesine (V) + Methotrexate (M) + Prednisone (P); VM, Vindesine (V) + Methotrexate (M); VP, Vinblastine (V) + Prednisone (P).