| Literature DB >> 34688301 |
Valentina Assirelli1,2, Federico Baronio1, Rita Ortolano1, Giulio Maltoni1, Stefano Zucchini1, Valeria Di Natale1, Alessandra Cassio3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recently, we observed some cases of Precocious Puberty (PP) with a partial central activation of hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis that tended to normalized in 6-12 months. To evaluate the frequency of this form within the spectrum of forms of PP, we retrospectively assessed the clinical, hormonal and ultrasound characteristics of patients attending to our Center for signs of PP, between 2007 and 2017. To hypothesize some causes of this "pubertal poussée" a questionnaire about environmental data was provided to patients.Entities:
Keywords: Central precocious puberty; Endocrine disruptors; Herbicides and pesticides; Nutritional factors; Thelarche; Transient precocious puberty
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34688301 PMCID: PMC8542285 DOI: 10.1186/s13052-021-01163-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ital J Pediatr ISSN: 1720-8424 Impact factor: 2.638
Fig. 1Questionnaire administered to families, concerning socio-economic, anamnestic, nutritional and environmental aspects
Fig. 2Distribution of the diagnosis (%) of the different forms of PP in our Center between 2007 and 2017
Auxological and anamnestic data in the 3 groups of girls at the first evaluation
| Group 1 (n° 56) | Group 2 (n° 22) | Group3 (n°18) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA at onset of pubertal signs | 7.00 ± 1.00* | 6.35 ± 1.20° | 4.85 ± 1.90 |
| CA diagnosis | 7.58 ± 0.73§ | 6.75 ± 1.06 | 6.25 ± 0.35 |
| BA diagnosis | 9.55 ± 1.00§ | 7.20 ± 1.70 | 7.94 ± 1.04 |
| Height at diagnosis (SDS) | 1.19 ± 0.82§ | 0.50 ± 1.20 | 0.80 ± 0.76 |
| BMI at diagnosis | 0.56 ± 0.90 | 0.29 ± 0.90 | 0.98 ± 0.69** |
*p < 0.05 vs Group 3; ° p < 0.05 vs Group 3; §p < 0.05 vs Group 2 and 3; **p < 0.05 vs Group 2
CA Chronological Age, BA Bone Age
Laboratoristic and ultrasound data at diagnosis and at 6–12 months of follow up in the Groups of girls
| At diagnosis | At 6–12 months of follow up | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline LH (U/mL) | Peak LH (U/mL) | LH/FSH peak ratio | ULD (mm) | Baseline LH (U/ml) | Peak LH (U/ml) | LH/FSH peak ratio | ULD (mm) | |
| Group 1 | 1,4 ± 2.3* | 11.7 ± 7.8* | 1.1 ± 0.7* | 42.5 ± 6.3* | 0.6 ± 0.8 | 40.2 ± 6.3# | ||
| Group 2 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 4.6 ± 1.6§ | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 36.5 ± 4.9§ | 0.3 ± 0.8 | 2.3 ± 1.3° | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 35.1 ± 4.2 |
| Group 3 | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 2.2 ± 1.1 | 0.2 ± 0.0 | 30.7 ± 4.7 | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 1.8 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 32.2 ± 2.7 |
ULD Uterine Longitudinal Diameter
*p < 0.001 vs Group 2 and 3; § p < 0.05 vs Group 3; #p < 0.05 vs Group 2 and 3; °p < 0.05 vs Group 2 at diagnosis
Fig. 3Mean Uterine Volume at Diagnosis and at 12 months of Follow-up in the 3 Groups examined. §p < 0.05 vs Group 2 at diagnosis, ° p < 0.001 vs Group 3 at diagnosis, * p < 0.05 vs Group 3 at diagnosis, # p < 0.05 vs Group 2 and 3 at 12 months of follow up
Socio-economic, anamnestic, nutritional and environmental data derived from the questionnaire in the responder girls
| Group 1 (34/56 responders) | Group 2 (16/22 responders) | |
|---|---|---|
| 34/56 | 16/22 | |
| 1,2 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.7 | |
| 14/34 (41.2%) | 5/16 (31.2%) | |
| 20/34 (58.8%) | 11/16 (68.8%) | |
| 6/34 (17.6%) | 3/16 (18.7%) | |
| 6/34 (17.6%) | 2/16 (12.5%) | |
| 32/34 (94.1%) | 15/16 (93.7%) | |
| 2/34 (5.9%) | 1/16 (6.3%) | |
| 3/34 (8.8%) | 0/16 (0%) | |
| 1/34 (2.9%) | 0/16 (0%) | |
| 19/34 (55.8%) | 8/16 (50%) | |
| 0/34 (0%) | 0/16 (0%) | |
| 16/34 (47%) | 8/16 (50%) | |
| 5/34 (14.7%) | 4/16 (25%)* | |
| 0/34 (0%) | 1/16 (6.25%)* | |
| 4/34 (11.7%) | 3/16 (18.7%)§ | |
| 2/34 (5.9%) | 2/16 (12.5%)* |
AFT assisted fertilization technique
*p < 0.05 vs Group 1. §p < 0.001 vs Group 1