Beyond MEN1, When to Think About MEN4? Retrospective Study on 5600 Patients in the French Population and Literature Review.

CONTEXT: Germline CDKN1B variants predispose patients to multiple endocrine neoplasia type 4 (MEN4), a rare MEN1-like syndrome, with <100 reported cases since its discovery in 2006. Although CDKN1B mutations are frequently suggested to explain cases of genetically negative MEN1, the prevalence and phenotype of MEN4 patients is poorly known, and genetic counseling is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of MEN4 in MEN1-suspected patients and characterize the phenotype of MEN4 patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational nationwide study. Narrative review of literature and variant class reassessment. PATIENTS: We included all adult patients with class 3/4/5 CDKN1B variants identified by the laboratories from the French Oncogenetic Network on Neuroendocrine Tumors network between 2015 and 2022 through germline genetic testing for MEN1 suspicion. After class reassessment, we compared the phenotype of symptomatic patients with class 4/5 CDKN1B variants (ie, with genetically confirmed MEN4 diagnosis) in our series and in literature with 66 matched MEN1 patients from the UMD-MEN1 database. RESULTS: From 5600 MEN1-suspected patients analyzed, 4 with class 4/5 CDKN1B variant were found (0.07%). They presented with multiple duodenal NET, primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) and adrenal nodule, isolated PHPT, PHPT, and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. We listed 29 patients with CDKN1B class 4/5 variants from the literature. Compared with matched MEN1 patients, MEN4 patients presented lower NET incidence and older age at PHPT diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of MEN4 is low. PHPT and pituitary adenoma represent the main associated lesions, NETs are rare. Our results suggest a milder and later phenotype than in MEN1. Our observations will help to improve genetic counseling and management of MEN4 families.

Correction to: Phenotypic characteristics and prognosis of inpatients with COVID-19 and diabetes: the CORONADO study.

The authors regret a mistake in Table 1.

Phenotypic characteristics and prognosis of inpatients with COVID-19 and diabetes: the CORONADO study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a life-threatening infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Diabetes has rapidly emerged as a major comorbidity for COVID-19 severity. However, the phenotypic characteristics of diabetes in COVID-19 patients are unknown. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide multicentre observational study in people with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19 in 53 French centres in the period 10-31 March 2020. The primary outcome combined tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission. Age- and sex-adjusted multivariable logistic regressions were performed to assess the prognostic value of clinical and biological features with the endpoint. ORs are reported for a 1 SD increase after standardisation. RESULTS: The current analysis focused on 1317 participants: 64.9% men, mean age 69.8 ± 13.0 years, median BMI 28.4 (25th-75th percentile: 25.0-32.7) kg/m2; with a predominance of type 2 diabetes (88.5%). Microvascular and macrovascular diabetic complications were found in 46.8% and 40.8% of cases, respectively. The primary outcome was encountered in 29.0% (95% CI 26.6, 31.5) of participants, while 10.6% (9.0, 12.4) died and 18.0% (16.0, 20.2) were discharged on day 7. In univariate analysis, characteristics prior to admission significantly associated with the primary outcome were sex, BMI and previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers, but not age, type of diabetes, HbA1c, diabetic complications or glucose-lowering therapies. In multivariable analyses with covariates prior to admission, only BMI remained positively associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.28 [1.10, 1.47]). On admission, dyspnoea (OR 2.10 [1.31, 3.35]), as well as lymphocyte count (OR 0.67 [0.50, 0.88]), C-reactive protein (OR 1.93 [1.43, 2.59]) and AST (OR 2.23 [1.70, 2.93]) levels were independent predictors of the primary outcome. Finally, age (OR 2.48 [1.74, 3.53]), treated obstructive sleep apnoea (OR 2.80 [1.46, 5.38]), and microvascular (OR 2.14 [1.16, 3.94]) and macrovascular complications (OR 2.54 [1.44, 4.50]) were independently associated with the risk of death on day 7. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATIONS: In people with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19, BMI, but not long-term glucose control, was positively and independently associated with tracheal intubation and/or death within 7 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04324736.

Clinical characteristics and outcome of acromegaly induced by ectopic secretion of growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH): a French nationwide series of 21 cases.

CONTEXT: Ectopic GHRH secretion is a rare cause of acromegaly, and case reports are mainly isolated. SETTING: From the registry of the sole laboratory performing plasma GHRH assays in France, we identified cases of ectopic GHRH secretion presenting with acromegaly between 1983 and 2008. PATIENTS: Twenty-one patients aged 14-77 yr were identified from 12 French hospitals. Median GHRH was 548 (270-9779) ng/liter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included description of tumor features and outcome and the relation between plasma GHRH values and tumor site, size, and spread. RESULTS: The primary neuroendocrine tumor was identified for 20 of 21 patients (12 pancreatic, seven bronchial, one appendicular). Tumors were large (10-80 mm), identified on computed tomography scan in 18 cases and by endoscopic ultrasound and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy in two. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy had a similar sensitivity to computed tomography scan (81 vs. 86%). Tumors were all well differentiated; 47.6% had metastasized at the time of diagnosis of acromegaly. After a median follow-up of 5 yr, 85% of patients were alive. Ninety-one percent of patients whose tumor was completely removed were considered in remission, and most had normalized plasma GHRH. The remaining patients were treated with somatostatin analogs: IGF-I normalized except for one patient who required pegvisomant, but GHRH levels remained elevated. No correlations were found between GHRH levels and tumor site or size or the existence of metastases. Identification of increased plasma GHRH during follow-up was an accurate indicator of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of endocrine tumors responsible for GHRH secretion appears relatively good. Plasma GHRH assay is an accurate tool for diagnosis and follow-up.