Data from A Cohort Study of CNS Tumors in Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1

Résumé fourni par la source

AbstractPurpose: Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is thought to increase the risk of meningioma and ependymoma. Thus, we aimed to describe the frequency, incidence, and specific clinical and histological features of central nervous system (CNS) tumors in the MEN1 population (except pituitary tumors). Experimental Design: The study population included patients harboring CNS tumors diagnosed with MEN1 syndrome after 1990 and followed up in the French MEN1 national cohort. The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) was calculated based on the French Gironde CNS Tumor Registry. Genomic analyses were performed on somatic DNA from seven CNS tumors, including meningiomas and ependymomas from patients with MEN1, and then on 50 sporadic meningiomas and ependymomas. Results: A total of 29 CNS tumors were found among the 1,498 symptomatic patients (2%; incidence = 47.4/100,000 person-years; SIR = 4.5), including 12 meningiomas (0.8%; incidence = 16.2/100,000; SIR = 2.5), 8 ependymomas (0.5%; incidence = 10.8/100,000; SIR = 17.6), 5 astrocytomas (0.3%; incidence = 6.7/100,000; SIR = 5.8), and 4 schwannomas (0.3%; incidence = 5.4/100,000; SIR = 12.7). Meningiomas in patients with MEN1 were benign, mostly meningothelial, with 11 years earlier onset compared with the sporadic population and an F/M ratio of 1/1. Spinal and cranial ependymomas were mostly classified as World Health Organization grade 2. A biallelic MEN1 inactivation was observed in 4/5 ependymomas and 1/2 meningiomas from patients with MEN1, whereas MEN1 deletion in one allele was present in 3/41 and 0/9 sporadic meningiomas and ependymomas, respectively. Conclusions: The incidence of each CNS tumor was higher in the MEN1 population than in the French general population. Meningiomas and ependymomas should be considered part of the MEN1 syndrome, but somatic molecular data are missing to conclude for astrocytomas and schwannomas.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.