Case Report: Novel likely pathogenic MEN1 mosaic mutation in the family with MEN-1 syndrome

Résumé fourni par la source

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN-1; OMIM 131100) is a rare, autosomal dominant syndrome caused by heterozygous inactivating mutations in the MEN1 tumor suppressor gene (11q13; OMIM 613733). MEN-1 is characterized by polyglandular pathology, which typically involves the parathyroid glands (90%), pancreas (30-80%) and anterior pituitary (15-50%). To date, over 1,600 pathogenic MEN1 variants have been documented, including nonsense, frameshift, and splice-site mutations, as well as rare large deletions. While germline mutation detection rates reach 70-90% in clinically diagnosed probands, approximately 10-30% of phenotypically confirmed MEN-1 families test negative by conventional sequencing, suggesting possible regulatory region defects, deep intronic mutations, or mosaic variants. In cases where MEN1 germline testing is negative despite a clinical MEN-1 phenotype, somatic mosaicism should be considered. We investigated a familial cohort presenting with primary hyperparathyroidism, multifocal pancreatic and pituitary neuroendocrine neoplasms – a triad strongly suggestive of MEN-1. Using a multi-tissue sequencing approach, we analyzed DNA extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes and parathyroid adenomas tissue via both Sanger sequencing and next-generation sequencing (NGS) with high coverage. While conventional Sanger analysis failed to detect a mutation, targeted NGS revealed a novel, likely pathogenic MEN1 variant present at low allele frequency (5-15%), consistent with postzygotic mosaicism. The variant was classified as pathogenic per ACMG/AMP guidelines and correlated with disease manifestations in affected tissues. These findings demonstrate that high-coverage NGS of multiple tissues is critical for identifying low-level mosaic MEN1 mutations missed by standard testing. Alternative screening methods are required for patients with strong clinical indications of MEN-1 and/or a family history, but negative germline test results, one such method is NGS with high coverage.

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