ContextMultiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is a hereditary condition characterised by the predisposition to hyperplasia/tumours of endocrine glands. MEN1-related disease, moreover, malignancy related to MEN1, is increasingly responsible for death in up to two-thirds of patients. Although patients undergo radiological and biochemical surveillance, current recommendations for radiological monitoring are based on non-prospective data with little consensus or evidence demonstrating improved outcome from this approach. Here, we sought to determine whether cumulative radiation exposure as part of the recommended radiological screening programme posed a distinct risk in a cohort of patients with MEN1.Patients and study designA retrospective review of 43 patients with MEN1 attending our institution between 2007 and 2015 was performed. Demographic and clinical information including phenotype was obtained for all patients. We also obtained details regarding all radiological procedures performed as part of MEN1 surveillance or disease localisation. An estimated effective radiation dose (ED) for each individual patient was calculated.ResultsThe mean ED for the total patient cohort was 121 mSv, and the estimated mean lifetime risk of cancer secondary to radiation exposure was 0.49%. Patients with malignant neuroendocrine tumours (NETS) had significantly higher ED levels compared to patients without metastatic disease (P < 0.0022).ConclusionsIn MEN1, radiological surveillance is associated with clinically significant exposure to ionising radiation. In patients with MEN1, multi-modality imaging strategies designed to minimise this exposure should be considered.
Treatment of MMR-deficient cortisol-secreting ACC with pembrolizumab may be ineffective due to supraphysiological levels of circulating corticosteroids, which may in turn mask severe drug-induced organ damage.
Summary
A 67-year-old woman presented with a generalised rash associated with weight loss and resting tachycardia. She had a recent diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Biochemical evaluation revealed elevated levels of circulating glucagon and chromogranin B. Cross-sectional imaging demonstrated a pancreatic lesion and liver metastases, which were octreotide-avid. Biopsy of the liver lesion confirmed a diagnosis of well-differentiated grade 2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour, consistent with metastatic glucagonoma. Serial echocardiography commenced 4 years before this diagnosis demonstrated a progressive left ventricular dilatation and dysfunction in the absence of ischaemia, suggestive of glucagonoma-associated dilated cardiomyopathy. Given the severity of the cardiac impairment, surgical management was considered inappropriate and somatostatin analogue therapy was initiated, affecting clinical and biochemical improvement. Serial cross-sectional imaging demonstrated stable disease 2 years after diagnosis. Left ventricular dysfunction persisted, however, despite somatostatin analogue therapy and optimal medical management of cardiac failure. In contrast to previous reports, the case we describe demonstrates that chronic hyperglucagonaemia may lead to irreversible left ventricular compromise. Management of glucagonoma therefore requires careful and serial evaluation of cardiac status.
Learning points:
In rare cases, glucagonoma may present with cardiac failure as the dominant feature. Significant cardiac impairment may occur in the absence of other features of glucagonoma syndrome due to subclinical chronic hyperglucagonaemia.
A diagnosis of glucagonoma should be considered in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, particularly those with other features of glucagonoma syndrome.
Cardiac impairment due to glucagonoma may not respond to somatostatin analogue therapy, even in the context of biochemical improvement.
All patients with a new diagnosis of glucagonoma should be assessed clinically for evidence of cardiac failure and, if present, a baseline transthoracic echocardiogram should be performed. In the presence of cardiac impairment these patients should be managed by an experienced cardiologist.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.