METHODS:The clinical diagnosis of MEN1 was made in accordance with the Consensus on multiple endocrine neoplasias. Mutation analysis of the entire MEN1 tumor suppressor gene and genetic screening of at-risk family members were performed by direct sequencing. To analyze the implementation of genetic diagnosis, the studied patients were separated into 3 groups: MEN1 index cases (group I), clinically diagnosed MEN1 cases (group II), and genetically diagnosed MEN1 cases (group III). RESULTS: In total, 154 individuals were clinically and genetically studied. We identified 12 different MEN1 mutations. Fifty-two MEN1 cases were identified: 13 in group I, 28 in group II, and 11 in group III. The mean age in group III (27.0 years) was significantly lower than in groups I (39.5 years) and II (42.4 years; P = 0.03 and P = 0.01, respectively). Patients in groups I and II mostly presented 2 or 3 MEN1-related tumors, while 81.8% of those in group III presented 1 or no MEN1-related tumor. Additionally, in group III, 45.4% of cases were asymptomatic, and no metastasis or death was verified. Surveillance for MEN1 mutations allowed the exclusion of 102 noncarriers, including a case of MEN1 phenocopy. CONCLUSION: Our data supports the benefits of clinical and genetic screening for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 in the management of this syndrome.

OBJECTIVENon-pituitary tumors have been reported in a subset of patients harboring germline mutations in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor-interacting protein (AIP) gene. However, no detailed investigations of non-pituitary tumors of AIP-mutated patients have been reported so far.PATIENTSWe examined a MEN1- and p53-negative mother-daughter pair with acromegaly due to somatotropinoma. Subsequently, the mother developed a large virilizing adrenocortical carcinoma and a grade II B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.DESIGNMutational analysis was performed by automated sequencing. Loss-of-heterozygosity (LOH) analysis was carried out by sequencing and microsatellite analysis. AIP expression was assessed through quantitative PCR (qPCR) and immunohistochemistry.RESULTSThe functional inactivating mutation c.241C>T (R81X), which blocks the AIP protein from interacting with phosphodiesterase 4A (PDE4A), was identified in the heterozygous state in the leukocyte DNA of both patients. Analyzing the tumoral DNA revealed that the AIP wild-type allele was lost in the daughter’s somatotropinoma and the mother’s adrenocortical carcinoma. Both tumors displayed low AIP protein expression levels. Low AIP gene expression was confirmed by qPCR in the adrenocortical carcinoma. No evidence of LOH was observed in the DNA sample from the mother’s B-cell lymphoma, and this tumor displayed normal AIP immunostaining.CONCLUSIONSOur study presents the first molecular analysis of non-pituitary tumors in AIP-mutated patients. The finding of AIP inactivation in the adrenocortical tumor suggests that further investigation of the potential role of this recently identified tumor suppressor gene in non-pituitary tumors, mainly in those tumors in which the cAMP and the 11q13 locus are implicated, is likely to be worthwhile.