KES
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Endocrinol Metab > Volume 39(6); 2024 > Article
-
Original ArticleHypothalamus and pituitary gland Genetic Landscape and Clinical Manifestations of Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1 in a Korean Cohort: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis
Keypoint
- This multicenter retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 117 patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia, or MEN1, treated at three tertiary centers in Korea.
- This study shed light on the clinical and genetic characteristics of MEN1 among the Korean population.
- These insights underscore the importance of genetic analysis in the diagnosis and management of MEN1, as well as the need for comprehensive and multidisciplinary approaches to treating this multifaceted disease. -
Boram Kim1*
, Seung Hun Lee2*, Chang Ho Ahn3, Han Na Jang4, Sung Im Cho5, Jee-Soo Lee5, Yu-Mi Lee6, Su-Jin Kim7,8, Tae-Yon Sung6, Kyu Eun Lee7,8, Woochang Lee9, Jung-Min Koh2, Moon-Woo Seong5,8, Jung Hee Kim10 -
Endocrinology and Metabolism 2024;39(6):956-964.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3803/EnM.2024.2008
Published online: November 18, 2024
1Department of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
2Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
3Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
4Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
5Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
6Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
7Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
8Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
9Department of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
10Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Corresponding authors: Moon-Woo Seong. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Korea Tel: +82-2-2072-4180, Fax: +82-2-747-0359, E-mail: mwseong@snu.ac.kr
- Jung Hee Kim. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Korea Tel: +82-2-2072-4839, Fax: +82-2-764-2199, E-mail: jhee1@snu.ac.kr
- *These authors contributed equally to this work.
• Received: April 9, 2024 • Revised: July 8, 2024 • Accepted: July 24, 2024
Copyright © 2024 Korean Endocrine Society
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 559 Views
- 35 Download
ABSTRACT
-
Background
- Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by tumors in multiple endocrine organs, caused by variants in the MEN1 gene. This study analyzed the clinical and genetic features of MEN1 in a Korean cohort, identifying prevalent manifestations and genetic variants, including novel variants.
-
Methods
- This multicenter retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 117 MEN1 patients treated at three tertiary centers in Korea between January 2012 and September 2022. Patient demographics, tumor manifestations, outcomes, and MEN1 genetic testing results were collected. Variants were classified using American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and French Oncogenetics Network of Neuroendocrine Tumors propositions (TENGEN) guidelines.
-
Results
- A total of 117 patients were enrolled, including 55 familial cases, with a mean age at diagnosis of 37.4±15.3 years. Primary hyperparathyroidism was identified as the most common presentation (84.6%). The prevalence of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) was 77.8% (n=91) and 56.4% (n=66), respectively. Genetic testing revealed 61 distinct MEN1 variants in 101 patients, with 18 being novel. Four variants were reclassified according to the TENGEN guidelines. Patients with truncating variants (n=72) exhibited a higher prevalence of PitNETs compared to those with non-truncating variants (n=25) (59.7% vs. 36.0%, P=0.040).
-
Conclusion
- The association between truncating variants and an increased prevalence of PitNETs in MEN1 underscores the importance of genetic characterization in guiding the clinical management of this disease. Our study sheds light on the clinical and genetic characteristics of MEN1 among the Korean population.
- Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is a rare autosomal dominant disorder characterized by the development of tumors in multiple endocrine organs, including the parathyroids, pancreatic islets, anterior pituitary (3Ps), and others [1,2]. This disorder is caused by variants in the MEN1 gene at locus 11q13.1 [3], which encodes menin, a 610-amino-acid protein expressed ubiquitously with nuclear localization. Menin acts as a tumor suppressor, and functions in transcriptional and epigenetic regulation [4]. Its loss-of-function leads to the enhanced proliferation of endocrine cells. MEN1 syndrome exhibits a high degree of penetrance, with nearly all variant carriers manifesting clinical symptoms by the age of 50 [5]. However, the phenotype of this disease can vary significantly among individuals, even among those within the same family, suggesting that additional genetic, epigenetic, or environmental factors may influence disease severity [6,7].
- The prevalence of MEN1 is estimated at 1 to 3 in 100,000 individuals worldwide, but the incidence may be underreported due to its rarity and wide spectrum of clinical presentations [8]. The diagnosis of MEN1 is challenging and is based on clinical, familial, and genetic criteria. The primary clinical criterion is the occurrence of two or more MEN1-associated endocrine tumors, familial criterion is the occurrence of one of the MEN1-associated tumors with a first-degree relative with MEN1, and genetic criterion is the identification of a germline MEN1 variant [9,10].
- To date, over 1,500 variants have been identified spanning the entire MEN1 gene [11]. Despite advances in genetic testing, the interpretation of these MEN1 variants remains complex due to their large diversity and their variable impact on protein function. In 2019, the French Oncogenetics Network of Neuroendocrine Tumors (TENGEN) proposed specific adjustments to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines for MEN1, aimed at improving the accuracy of variant classification [12].
- Korea, like other countries, faces challenges in diagnosing and managing MEN1 due to its rarity and the complexity of its genetic basis. Previous studies on the clinical and genetic characteristics of MEN1 in Korea have been small-scale and limited to single-center case series [13-16]. This present study bridges this gap by analyzing the clinical and genetic features of MEN1 patients in Korea through a multicenter approach. It specifically examined the distribution of MEN1 variants and their correlation with clinical presentations, in alignment with the recent TENGEN proposition for interpreting MEN1 variants.
INTRODUCTION
- Study subjects
- We included 117 patients diagnosed with MEN1 at tertiary centers including Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, and Asan Medical Center in Korea between January 2012 and September 2022. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with MEN1 based on the clinical criteria set forth by the international guidelines for MEN1, had a familial occurrence of the disease, or identified with a pathogenic variant (PV) in the MEN1 gene [10]. Clinical data were reviewed from electronic medical records, including sex, age, family history of MEN1, initial symptoms, timing of diagnosis, MEN1 genetic testing results, clinical manifestation, and medical and surgical management. A patient who was identified at first in a family was named index case and a patient who was identified consequently was defined as relative case. A familial case was defined as a patient with at least one first-degree relative with MEN1, whereas a sporadic (non-familial) case was defined by the lack of any family history of the syndrome [10]. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (IRB no.2209-146-1362), followed by the other participating centers. The requirement for informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study and patient data was anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis.
- MEN1 variant analysis
- Genetic testing of MEN1 gene was conducted on genomic DNA extracted from peripheral blood samples of patients using PCR-based Sanger sequencing and/or multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification in accordance with international standards [10]. All variants were described using the reference transcript, NM_130799.2, and classified according to the recommendations of the Human Genome Variation Society nomenclature. Each identified variant was reviewed and then reclassified following the ACMG guidelines and the TENGEN proposal [12,17]. The distribution and frequency of the identified MEN1 variants were visually presented using ProteinPaint [18,19].
- Statistical analysis
- Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic and clinical data, mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, and frequencies for categorical variables. Independent t tests or the Mann-Whitney U test were applied to the analysis of continuous variables, while either the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables as appropriate. The significance of the differences in clinical presentations between familial and sporadic cases, as well as correlations between genetic variants and clinical features, were evaluated. We divided the variants into two groups whether they produce shorter protein, truncating (nonsense, frameshift, canonical splice site, and large deletion) or non-truncating, and analyzed the differences of these groups. All tests were two-tailed, with P values <0.05 considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
METHODS
- Clinical characteristics of the MEN1 patients
- A total of 117 patients were included in the study cohort, of which 84 were index cases and 33 were relative cases (Table 1). Familial cases accounted for 47.0% of the population (55/117), while sporadic cases constituted 53.0% (62/117). The cohort exhibited a female predominance of 59.8% (70/117). The mean age at MEN1 diagnosis was 37.4±15.3 years (range, 3 to 74). Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) emerged as the most prevalent clinical manifestation, observed in 84.6% (99/117) of the patients, with a significant difference noted between familial and sporadic cases (76.4% vs. 91.9%, P=0.020). Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NET) and pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNET) were the next most common, occurring in 77.8% (91/117) and 56.4% (66/117) of the patients, respectively. The mean age of diagnosis was 38.8 years in PHPT, 34.8 years in GEP-NET, and 40.4 years in PitNET, respectively. Among all and index cases, 40.2% (47/117) and 42.9% (36/84) presented the classic triad of PHPT, GEP-NET, and PitNET (Fig. 1). Thymic and adrenal tumors were less frequently observed, in only 7.7% and 13.7% of the patients, respectively. Additionally, four female patients developed breast cancer which has been recently suggested as an MEN1-related tumor. Notably, 3.4% (4/117) of the patients died in their 50s or 60s due to advanced thymic NET (two cases) or GEP-NET (two cases).
- Genetic features of MEN1
- MEN1 variants were identified in 92.7% of familial cases and in 80.6% of sporadic cases. Of the 117 patients in the total cohort, 97 (82.9%) harbored PV or likely pathogenic variants (LPV) of MEN1 (Supplemental Table S1). Three variants (c.235_252del, c.484G>T, and c.694C>T) were classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUSs). Based on the TENGEN recommendations, we were able to reclassify four VUS to LPV (c.442A>C, c.818T>C, c.1253A>G, and c.1663A>T) and two LPV to PV (c.824G>A and c.830C>T). A total of 61 variants were detected in 101 patients across the MEN1 gene (Fig. 2). Twenty-one frameshift (34.4%), 12 nonsense (19.7%), 18 missense (29.5%), five splice site (8.2%), three inframe deletion (4.9%), one large deletion (1.6%), and one intronic variant (1.6%) were detected (Fig. 3). Notably, 18 variants including one VUS (c.235_252del) had not been reported previously, thereby expanding the known genetic landscape of MEN1.
- Phenotype and genotype correlations
- We divided the study patients with PV/LPV of MEN1 into two groups according to variant type, i.e., non-truncating and truncating. Patients who had truncating variants were presenting 3Ps more than those who had non-truncating variants but without statistical significance (P=0.065). There was no significant difference in age at diagnosis between these two groups (Table 2). In addition, no statistical correlations were evident between variant types and clinical presentations except for PitNET, the prevalence of which was higher in the patients with truncating variants (P=0.040). There was no statistical correlation found between the functionality of pitNET or GEP-NET and variant type (P=0.692 and P=0.776).
RESULTS
- This study delineated the clinical and genetic characteristics of MEN1 within a Korean population. Our findings highlight PHPT as the most prevalent clinical presentation among MEN1 patients, consistent with global observations. The identification of 61 MEN1 variants, including 18 novel variants, underscores the genetic diversity of this condition and expands the existing spectrum of known MEN1 variants. Notably, our phenotype-genotype correlation analysis revealed a significant association between truncating variants and the presence of PitNETs, suggesting potential insights into disease pathogenesis and clinical management.
- Although familial cases have been reported to represent about 90% of MEN1 patients [20], our cohort showed less familial cases than sporadic cases. This is likely due to a failure to recognize the disorder within families or a poor work-up of family members [21]. MEN1 variant analysis should be recommended in index cases who meet the clinical criteria or are suspects of this diagnosis, and first-degree relatives of MEN1 should be analyzed as soon as possible, including children [10].
- Comparing our present result with international cohorts reveals both similarities and unique aspects of MEN1 among the Korean population. The mean age at diagnosis was 37.4 years similar to previous studies [21]. The age at diagnosis was older in sporadic cases than in familial cases (39.6 years vs. 34.8 years), but this difference was not significant. Like studies from Europe and North America, PHPT emerged as the dominant clinical feature, affirming its role as a central component of the MEN1 clinical spectrum. However, the incidence of PHPT in our present study population (84.4%) was relatively lower than in another prior study, which reported a frequency more than 93% of MEN1 patients [8]. This discrepancy might be attributable to the underdiagnosis of PHPT. In MEN1-related PHPT, the degree of hypercalcemia was lower than in sporadic PHPT, and surgical decisions were made more conservatively. Notably also, the prevalence of PHPT in sporadic cases was higher than that in familial cases, implying that patients diagnosed with PHPT at a young age had undergone more aggressive investigations for MEN1.
- GEP-NET was identified in 77.8% of our subjects, slightly higher than the 55% to 70% range reported in other studies of MEN1 cases [8,22]. Consistent with previous research, nonfunctioning GEP-NETs were the most common type in our current cohort, accounting for 67% of cases. However, among functioning GEP-NETs, insulinoma was the most common type (21%) in contrast to other prior reports where gastrinomas predominated (21% to 70%). PitNETs were present in 56% of our current study patients, exceeding the 40% to 47.5% range reported in previous studies [8,22]. Similarly, 56.4% of our present cohort had PitNETs, with prolactinomas (n=30, 45.4%) being the most frequent, followed by nonfunctioning PitNETs (n=23, 34.8%). Thymic NETs occurred in 7.7% of our group, aligning with the 2.0% to 8.2% range noted in earlier research [8,23]. Ye et al. [23] reported in this regard that Asians exhibit a similar sex ratio (59.5%), whereas American/Europeans showed a male predominance (91.9%). Although variants in the JunD interacting domain are known to be associated with thymic NETs and poor outcomes [24], we here observed no specific correlation between genetic variants and thymic NETs.
- The ACMG guidelines are universal for Mendelian diseases but have notable limitations in terms of their nonspecificity for these diseases. ClinGen has therefore been more recently trying to develop gene-specific and disease-specific guidelines [25]. We thus adopted TENGEN recommendations for our variant interpretations in relation to MEN1 and thereby reclassified four missense variants in 11 patients. Of note, in particular, four VUS in nine patients were reclassified as LPVs and this could change the management of these patients in terms of cancer surveillance or family studies. The reclassification of variants via a gene-specific adjustment is therefore to be highly encouraged. We further identified 18 novel variants in our current analyses which underscores the importance of regional genetic studies in capturing the full genetic diversity of MEN1. The diversity of MEN1 variant types, including frameshift, nonsense, and missense variants, aligns with global data, reinforcing the complex mutational landscape of the gene.
- According to diagnostic criteria, nearly 90% of individuals who exhibit classic MEN1 symptoms have identifiable variants in the MEN1 gene. Nonetheless, approximately 10% of families with MEN1 do not show any molecular alterations in this gene. In our present cohort, 13.7% of the patients (n=16) presented with a typical MEN1 phenotype but did not show any variants in the MEN1 gene. These negative results from a genetic testing standpoint could be attributed to several factors, including the presence of undetectable variants with current testing methods, the existence of genetic mosaicism, or variants in other genes that are phenocopies of MEN1. Moreover, the current Sanger sequencing method does not detect deep intronic variants. In addition to this, Coppin et al. [26] have previously reported 12 cases with MEN1 mosaicism with an allele frequency of between 2.3% and 15% using next-generation sequencing. Patients with mosaicism for MEN1 display a phenotype similar to that of a heterozygous PV in the MEN1 gene. Phenocopies can also be a reason for negative genetic tests. Recently, cases of MEN4 caused by loss-of-function variants in cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor 1B (CDKN1B) gene (OMIM#610755) were identified that had similar phenotypes to MEN1 [27]. In addition, CDKI (CDKN1A, 1B, 2A, 2C), cell division cycle 73 (CDC73), calcium-sensing receptor (CASR), adaptor related protein complex 2 subunit sigma 1 (AP2S1), G protein subunit alpha 11 (GNA11), glial cells missing transcription factor 2 (GCM2), RE1 silencing transcription factor (REST), and aryl hydrocarbon receptor-interacting protein (AIP) variants can mimic MEN1-like diseases [28]. Hence, performing more comprehensive genetic analyses, including whole exome or whole genome sequencing, is necessary in MEN1 cases with negative genetic testing results.
- MEN1 is known for having no genotype-phenotype correlation. However, some reports have demonstrated an association between variant types and clinical presentation. In our current cohort, PitNET was found to be associated with MEN1 truncating variants. Similarly, PitNET has been reported to present a higher risk in Polish patients with MEN1 frameshift variants [29]. Other studies have shown that the prevalence of GEP-NET was higher in patients with frameshift variants [30,31]. These findings support the possibility that MEN1 variant types and clinical phenotypes may have associations, and further studies are needed. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multicenter cohort study of MEN1 in a Korean population. In the case of rare diseases, including MEN1, it will be important in the future to establish a national cohort to better understand the clinical and epidemiological aspects of this syndrome [21,32]. Our present study could serve as a starting point for establishing the Korean MEN cohort.
- Our study had several limitations of note. The retrospective design and the use of de-identified data restricted our ability to provide detailed descriptions for all patients including the detailed information for each tumor and other tumors accompanying MEN1, such as skin tumors and other non-endocrine tumors. In addition, patients who were lost to follow-up might have developed other clinical presentations not observed in our hospitals. Due to the small sample size, we had analyzed the clinical phenotype not according to the disease severity or clinical outcomes, but variant type. In cases with negative genetic testing results, whole exome sequencing or genome sequencing was not conducted. Hence, MEN1 mosaicism, deep intronic variants, and other types of variations with phenocopies such as CDKN1B gene could exist.
- In conclusion, our study sheds light on the clinical and genetic characteristics of MEN1 among the Korean population, revealing both commonalities and unique aspects in comparison to global cohorts. These insights underscore the importance of genetic analysis in the diagnosis and management of MEN1, and advocate for comprehensive and multidisciplinary approaches to treating this multifaceted disease.
DISCUSSION
Supplementary Material
Supplemental Table S1.
-
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Jung Hee Kim is a deputy editor of the journal. But she was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
-
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conception or design: M.W.S., J.H.K. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: B.K., S.H.L., C.H.A., H.N.J., S.I.C., J.S.L., Y.M.L., S.J.K., T.Y.S., K.E.L., W.L., J.M.K., M.W.S., J.H.K. Drafting the work or revising: B.K., S.H.L., M.W.S., J.H.K. Final approval of the manuscript: B.K., S.H.L., M.W.S., J.H.K.
Article information
-
Acknowledgements
- This study was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare of the Republic of Korea (Project No. HI21C0032 and HI22C0049) and the National Research Foundation of Korea by the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning of Korea (NRF-2020R1C1-C1010723).
Fig. 1.Prevalence of the primary hyperparathyroidism, gastroenteropancreatic and pituitary neuroendocrine tumor triad among (A) the total multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) cohort (n=117) and (B) the index cases (n=84).
Fig. 2.Distribution of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) variants in the study cohort. The number of patients with each variant is indicated by the number within each circle, as well as circle size. Red, frameshift; orange, nonsense; green, in frame deletion; blue, missense; purple, canonical splice site; pink, intronic; gray, large deletion.
Fig. 3.Frequency of the types of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) variants in the study cohort (n=61).
Table 1.Clinical Characteristics of Korean Patients with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1
Table 2.Clinical Characteristics of the 97 Study Patients with MEN1 Pathogenic or Likely Pathogenic Variants
- 1. Hu X, Guan J, Wang Y, Shi S, Song C, Li ZP, et al. A narrative review of multiple endocrine neoplasia syndromes: genetics, clinical features, imaging findings, and diagnosis. Ann Transl Med 2021;9:944.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 2. McDonnell JE, Gild ML, Clifton-Bligh RJ, Robinson BG. Multiple endocrine neoplasia: an update. Intern Med J 2019;49:954–61.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 3. Jamilloux Y, Favier J, Pertuit M, Delage-Corre M, Lopez S, Teissier MP, et al. A MEN1 syndrome with a paraganglioma. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;22:283–5.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 4. Matkar S, Thiel A, Hua X. Menin: a scaffold protein that controls gene expression and cell signaling. Trends Biochem Sci 2013;38:394–402.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 5. Niederle B, Selberherr A, Bartsch DK, Brandi ML, Doherty GM, Falconi M, et al. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 and the pancreas: diagnosis and treatment of functioning and non-functioning pancreatic and duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasia within the MEN1 syndrome: an international consensus statement. Neuroendocrinology 2021;111:609–30.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 6. Lips CJ, Dreijerink KM, Hoopener JW. Variable clinical expression in patients with a germline MEN1 disease gene mutation: clues to a genotype-phenotype correlation. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2012;67 Suppl 1:49–56.ArticlePubMed
- 7. Lips CJ, Dreijerink KM, Links TP, Hoppener JW. Recent results of basic and clinical research in MEN1: opportunities to improve early detection and treatment. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab 2012;7:331–44.ArticlePubMed
- 8. Al-Salameh A, Cadiot G, Calender A, Goudet P, Chanson P. Clinical aspects of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2021;17:207–24.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 9. Turner JJ, Christie PT, Pearce SH, Turnpenny PD, Thakker RV. Diagnostic challenges due to phenocopies: lessons from multiple endocrine neoplasia type1 (MEN1). Hum Mutat 2010;31:E1089–101.ArticlePubMed
- 10. Thakker RV, Newey PJ, Walls GV, Bilezikian J, Dralle H, Ebeling PR, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97:2990–3011.ArticlePubMed
- 11. Concolino P, Costella A, Capoluongo E. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1): an update of 208 new germline variants reported in the last nine years. Cancer Genet 2016;209:36–41.ArticlePubMed
- 12. Romanet P, Odou MF, North MO, Saveanu A, Coppin L, Pasmant E, et al. Proposition of adjustments to the ACMG-AMP framework for the interpretation of MEN1 missense variants. Hum Mutat 2019;40:661–74.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 13. Chung YJ, Hwang S, Jeong JJ, Song SY, Kim SH, Rhee Y. Genetic and epigenetic analysis in Korean patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul) 2014;29:270–9.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 14. Kwon EB, Jeong HR, Shim YS, Lee HS, Hwang JS. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 presenting as hypoglycemia due to insulinoma. J Korean Med Sci 2016;31:1003–6.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 15. Yang MA, Lee WK, Shin HS, Park SH, Kim BS, Kim JW, et al. Neuroendocrine tumors in the stomach, duodenum, and pancreas accompanied by novel MEN1 gene mutation. Korean J Gastroenterol 2017;69:181–6.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 16. Kim SE, Lee NY, Cho WK, Yim J, Lee JW, Kim M, et al. Adrenocortical carcinoma and a sporadic MEN1 mutation in a 3-year-old girl: a case report. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2022;27:315–9.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 17. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 2015;17:405–24.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 18. Zhou X, Edmonson MN, Wilkinson MR, Patel A, Wu G, Liu Y, et al. Exploring genomic alteration in pediatric cancer using ProteinPaint. Nat Genet 2016;48:4–6.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 19. Kim B, Kim MJ, Hur K, Jo SJ, Ko JM, Park SS, et al. Clinical and genetic profiling of nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome in Korean patients by whole-exome sequencing. Sci Rep 2021;11:1163.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 20. Marini F, Carbonell Sala S, Falchetti A, Caramelli D, Brandi ML. The genetic ascertainment of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 syndrome by ancient DNA analysis. J Endocrinol Invest 2008;31:905–9.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 21. Giusti F, Cianferotti L, Boaretto F, Cetani F, Cioppi F, Colao A, et al. Multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 1: institution, management, and data analysis of a nationwide multicenter patient database. Endocrine 2017;58:349–59.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 22. Sakurai A, Suzuki S, Kosugi S, Okamoto T, Uchino S, Miya A, et al. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 in Japan: establishment and analysis of a multicentre database. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2012;76:533–9.ArticlePubMed
- 23. Ye L, Wang W, Ospina NS, Jiang L, Christakis I, Lu J, et al. Clinical features and prognosis of thymic neuroendocrine tumours associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: a single-centre study, systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2017;87:706–16.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 24. Thevenon J, Bourredjem A, Faivre L, Cardot-Bauters C, Calender A, Murat A, et al. Higher risk of death among MEN1 patients with mutations in the JunD interacting domain: a Groupe d’etude des Tumeurs Endocrines (GTE) cohort study. Hum Mol Genet 2013;22:1940–8.PubMed
- 25. Yoon E, Lee JK, Park TK, Chang SA, Huh J, Kim JW, et al. Experience of reassessing FBN1 variants of uncertain significance by gene-specific guidelines. J Med Genet 2023;61:57–60.ArticlePubMed
- 26. Coppin L, Giraud S, Pasmant E, Lagarde A, North MO, LeCollen L, et al. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 caused by mosaic mutation: clinical follow-up and genetic counseling? Eur J Endocrinol 2022;187:K1–6.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 27. Pellegata NS, Quintanilla-Martinez L, Siggelkow H, Samson E, Bink K, Hofler H, et al. Germ-line mutations in p27Kip1 cause a multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome in rats and humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:15558–63.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 28. Brandi ML, Agarwal SK, Perrier ND, Lines KE, Valk GD, Thakker RV. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: latest insights. Endocr Rev 2021;42:133–70.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 29. Soczomski P, Jurecka-Lubieniecka B, Rogozik N, Tukiendorf A, Jarzab B, Bednarczuk T. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 in Poland: a two-centre experience. Endokrynol Pol 2019;70:385–91.ArticlePubMed
- 30. Marini F, Giusti F, Brandi ML. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: extensive analysis of a large database of Florentine patients. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2018;13:205.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 31. Marini F, Giusti F, Fossi C, Cioppi F, Cianferotti L, Masi L, et al. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: analysis of germline MEN1 mutations in the Italian multicenter MEN1 patient database. Endocrine 2018;62:215–33.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 32. Leeuwaarde RS, Herder WW, Valk GD. The need for national registries for rare endocrine tumor syndromes. Endocrine 2017;58:205–6.ArticlePubMedPDF
References
Figure & Data
References
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
PubReader
ePub Link
Cite
XML DownloadGenetic Landscape and Clinical Manifestations of Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1 in a Korean Cohort: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis
Fig. 1. Prevalence of the primary hyperparathyroidism, gastroenteropancreatic and pituitary neuroendocrine tumor triad among (A) the total multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) cohort (n=117) and (B) the index cases (n=84).
Fig. 2. Distribution of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) variants in the study cohort. The number of patients with each variant is indicated by the number within each circle, as well as circle size. Red, frameshift; orange, nonsense; green, in frame deletion; blue, missense; purple, canonical splice site; pink, intronic; gray, large deletion.
Fig. 3. Frequency of the types of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) variants in the study cohort (n=61).
Graphical abstract
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Graphical abstract
Genetic Landscape and Clinical Manifestations of Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1 in a Korean Cohort: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis
| Characteristic | All (n=117) | Familial case (n=55) | Sporadic case (n=62) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female sex | 70 (59.8) | 36 (65.5) | 34 (54.8) | 0.242 |
| Age, yr | 45.7±15.5 | 43.8±17.3 | 47.4±13.5 | 0.277 |
| Age at MEN1 diagnosis | 37.4±15.3 | 34.8±16.9 | 39.6±13.4 | 0.089 |
| MEN1 variant | 97 (82.9) | 49 (89.1) | 48 (77.4) | 0.058 |
| PHPT | 99 (84.6) | 42 (76.4) | 57 (91.9) | 0.020 |
| First manifestation | 72 (61.5) | 32 (58.2) | 40 (64.5) | 0.696 |
| GEP-NET | 91 (77.8) | 39 (70.9) | 52 (83.9) | 0.092 |
| First manifestation | 26 (22.2) | 14 (25.4) | 12 (19.4) | 0.533 |
| Nonfunctioning | 59 | 29 | 30 | |
| Gastrinoma | 9 | 2 | 7 | |
| Insulinoma | 19 | 7 | 12 | |
| Somatostatinoma | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
| Pituitary NET | 66 (56.4) | 30 (54.5) | 36 (58.1) | 0.702 |
| First manifestation | 18 (15.4) | 8 (14.6) | 10 (16.1) | 1.000 |
| Nonfunctioning | 23 | 13 | 10 | |
| Prolactinoma | 30 | 13 | 17 | |
| Acromegaly | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Cushing | 4 | 2 | 2 | |
| Unknown | 6 | 0 | 6 | |
| Thymic NET | 9 (7.7) | 4 (7.3) | 5 (8.1) | 1.000 |
| Adrenal tumor | 16 (13.7) | 6 (10.9) | 10 (16.1) | 0.374 |
| Nonfunctioning | 15 | 6 | 9 | |
| Functioning | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Death | 4 (3.4) | 3 (5.5) | 1 (1.6) | 0.341 |
| Characteristic | All (n=97) | Non-truncating variant (n=25) | Truncating variant (n=72) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female sex | 59 (60.8) | 17 (6.8) | 42 (58.3) | 0.394 |
| Age, yr | 45.4±15.7 | 49.0±13.3 | 44.1±16.4 | 0.175 |
| Age at MEN1 diagnosis | 36.9±15.4 | 41.8±15.1 | 35.1±15.3 | 0.061 |
| Family history | 49 (50.5) | 10 (40.0) | 39 (54.2) | 0.222 |
| PHPT | 83 (85.6) | 20 (80.0) | 63 (87.5) | 0.344 |
| GEP-NET | 76 (78.4) | 19 (76.0) | 57 (79.2) | 0.740 |
| Nonfunctioning | 48 | 11 | 37 | |
| Gastrinoma | 8 | 2 | 6 | |
| Insulinoma | 16 | 5 | 11 | |
| Somatostatinoma | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Unknown | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| Pituitary NET | 52 (53.6) | 9 (36.0) | 43 (59.7) | 0.040 |
| Nonfunctioning | 18 | 4 | 14 | |
| Prolactinoma | 23 | 2 | 21 | |
| Acromegaly | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| Cushing disease | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| Unknown | 5 | 1 | 4 | |
| Thymic NET | 5 (5.15) | 1 (4.0) | 4 (5.6) | 1.000 |
| Adrenal tumor | 13 (13.4) | 5 (20.0) | 8 (11.1) | 0.317 |
| Nonfunctioning | 12 | 5 | 7 | |
| Functioning | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Death | 3 (3.1) | 0 | 3 (4.2) | 0.567 |
Table 1. Clinical Characteristics of Korean Patients with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1
Values are expressed as number (%) or mean±standard deviation. MEN1, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1; PHPT, primary hyperparathyroidism; GEP-NET, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor; NET, neuroendocrine tumor.
Table 2. Clinical Characteristics of the 97 Study Patients with MEN1 Pathogenic or Likely Pathogenic Variants
Values are expressed as number (%) or mean±standard deviation. MEN1, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1; PHPT, primary hyperparathyroidism; GEP-NET, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor; NET, neuroendocrine tumor.
