| Literature DB >> 35464054 |
Ichelle M A A van Roessel1, Antoinette Y N Schouten-van Meeteren2, Lisethe Meijer2, Eelco W Hoving3, Boudewijn Bakker1,2, Hanneke M van Santen1,2.
Abstract
Background: Children with suprasellar low grade glioma (LGG) frequently develop problems to maintain their body weight within the normal range, due to hypothalamic dysfunction. Hypothalamic damage may result in the diencephalic syndrome (DS), characterized by underweight or failure to thrive, but also in hypothalamic obesity (HO). Children with LGG presenting with DS at young age often develop HO later in life. The underlying pathophysiology for this change in body mass index (BMI) is not understood. Previous hypotheses have focused on the tumor or its treatment as the underlying cause. To better understand its etiology, we aimed to relate changes in BMI over time in children with suprasellar LGG presenting with DS to age, tumor progression, treatment, and endocrine function. We hypothesize that the development of HO in children with LGG presenting with DS is related to maturation status of the hypothalamus at time of injury and thus age.Entities:
Keywords: Low Grade Glioma (LGG); diencephalic syndrome; hypothalamic obesity; hypothalamic pituitary; suprasellar tumor
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35464054 PMCID: PMC9019925 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.846124
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 6.055
Figure 1Case of DS evolving into HO to support . On the X axis the age is shown and on the Y axis the BMI. Various time points as displayed in are shown here.
Change in BMI over time.
| Nr | Age at Dx, yrs | Age UW | BMI SDS | ΔBMI UW–NW | Age NW | ΔBMI NW–OW | Age OW | BMI SDS | ΔBMI OW–OB | Age OB | BMI SDS | Max Δ BMI SDS* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1.3 | −4.76 | 3.01 | 3.78 | 2.20 | 4.35 | 3.76 | 8.52 | ||||
| B | 0.5 | −2.97 | 2.05 | 3.49 | 2.04 | 1.41 | 2.69 | 6.29 | ||||
| C | 0.4 | −2.46 | 1.82 | 3.83 | 1.95 | 0.55 | 2.46 | 5.75 | ||||
| D | 1.6 | −2.81 | 2.03 | 4.06 | 2.51 | – | 2.51 | 6.77 | ||||
| E | 2.1 | −3.59 | 1.67 | 3.55 | 1.91 | – | – | – | ||||
| F | 1.0 | −1.74 | 0.85 | 1.78 | 1.86 | 1.69 | 2.82 | 5.04 | ||||
| G | 2.9 | −1.73 | 0.22 | 3.98 | 2.09 | 0.87 | 2.68 | 5.49 | ||||
| H | 0.6 | −4.07 | 2.92 | 4.21 | 3.08 | 0.59 | 3.37 | 8.72 | ||||
| I | 5.5 | −1.72 | – | – | 1.68 | 10.24 | 2.77 | 4.49 | ||||
| J | 4.5 | −1.88 | 0.48 | 7.01 | 1.79 | 9.84 | 2.85 | 5.01 | ||||
| Median | 1.5 | −2.64 | 1.82 | 3.83 | 2.00 | 0.65 | 5.77 | 5.75 |
Dx, diagnosis.
NW, normal weight (first measurement of BMI within normal range).
OB, obesity (first measurement of obesity).
OW, overweight (first measurement of overweight).
UW, underweight (first measurement of underweight at time of tumor diagnosis).
E. underweight, extreme underweight.
*BMI SDS difference between maximum obesity and underweight.
Vertical lines represent a period of 3 months and horizontal lines represent 1 BMI kg/m2.
Bold values distinguish the various time periods.
Descriptive characteristics of the 10 patients.
| Characteristic | N | |
|---|---|---|
| 40.0% | 4/10 | |
| 1.46 | 0.58–3.31 | |
| 9.74 | 5.81–11.25 | |
| 8.10 | 4.63–9.42 | |
| – | 70.0% | 7/10 |
| 30.0% | 3/10 | |
| 30.0% | 3/10 | |
| 20.0% | 2/10 | |
| 40.0% | 4/10 | |
| 0.0% | 0/10 | |
| 80.0% | 8/10 | |
| 60.0% | 6/10 | |
| 1 | 0–5 | |
| 90.0% | 9/10 | |
| 2 | 0–7 | |
| 0.0% | 0/10 | |
| – | 70.0% | 7/10 |
| – | 30.0% | 3/10 |
Figure 2Longitudinal BMI SDS over time. (A) Logistic regression (LOESS) plot of all patients. x-axis: age in years at moment of BMI follow-up, y-axis: BMI SDS corrected for age and gender. Orange beam shows 95% confidence interval. (B) Individualized BMI SDS data for each patient. This figure shows that the regression curve represents most of the patients, with only two outliers observed. Diencephalic syndrome defined as BMI SDS <−1.6 SD. Overweight defined as BMI SDS >+1.6 SD. Legend shows patients in correspondence with .
Figure 3Prevalence of pituitary disorders (anterior pituitary deficiency, CPP, DI). ACTHD, adrenocorticotropic hormone deficiency; CPP, central precocious puberty; DI, diabetes insipidus; GHD, growth hormone deficiency; TSHD, thyroid-stimulating hormone deficiency. The circles of ACTHD and DI are completely overlapping: every child with ACTHD also had DI. None of the children had LH/FSHD. N = 3 had no pituitary disorder. N = 1 had CPP. N = 1 had CPP and TSHD. N = 1 had GHD and TSHD. N = 1 had TSHD, ACTHD and DI. N = 3 children had GHD, TSHD, ACTHD, and DI.
Timeline of events, treatment and pituitary deficiencies in relation to BMI.
| Nr | Age at Dx | Age UW | Sx | CT | TG | Pit def | PP | DI | Age NW | Sx | CT | TG | Pitdef | PP | DI | Age OW | Sx | CT | TG | Pitdef | PP | DI | Age OB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 2.7 | 7.3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| B | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 4.6 | 5.1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| C | 0.4 | 0.4 | B | 1.5 | 2.3 | T | 2.5 | ||||||||||||||||
| D | 1.6 | 1.2 | ? | 1.6 | 2.2 | * | 2.2 | ||||||||||||||||
| E | 2.1 | 2.5 | B | 3.4 | 4.9 | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||||||||||
| F | 1.0 | 1.0 | B | 2.2 | 4.9 | 5.3 | |||||||||||||||||
| G | 2.9 | 3.0 | ? | 3.3 | ? | 3.9 | 4.5 | ||||||||||||||||
| H | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 4.4 | 4.5 | ||||||||||||||||||
| I | 5.5 | 3.8 | – | 5.5 | ? | 12.4 | |||||||||||||||||
| J | 4.5 | 7.0 | ? | 7.5 | ? | 9.8 | ? | 16.0 | |||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
B, biopsy only; Dx, diagnosis; CT, chemotherapy; OB, obesity; OW, overweight; Pit. def, pituitary deficiency; PP, precocious puberty; Sx, surgery; T, targeted therapy only; TG, tumor growth; UW, underweight.
Color-filled boxes correspond with occurrence of events during that time period for that child.
Tumor treatment between underweight and normal weight, normal weight and overweight, and overweight and obesity are shown.
None of the children had been given radiotherapy.
==already had pituitary insufficiency, without further development of new insufficiencies.
* developed pituitary deficiency while having obesity.
? no data available.
Figure 4Longitudinal IGF-1 SDS over time in children with suprasellar LGG presenting with DS. Legend shows patients in correspondence with and . (A) IGF-1 SDS values over time in all patients. x-axis: age in years at time of measurement, y-axis: IGF-1 SDS corrected for age and gender. (B) IGF-1 SDS values over time for patients with GH hypersecretion only (for 1 patient with GH hypersecretion, data on IGF-1 values over time were missing). (C) BMI SDS (x-axis) according to IGF-1 SDS (y-axis) in all patients. Correlation coefficient for BMI-SDS and IGF-1 SDS: −0.37 (p <0.001). Only IGF-1 values without growth hormone treatment or use of somatostatin analogues are shown.