Most cases of sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism present disturbances in a single parathyroid gland and the surgery of choice is adenomectomy. Conversely, hyperparathyroidism associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (hyperparathyroidism/multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1) is an asynchronic, asymmetrical multiglandular disease and it is surgically approached by either subtotal parathyroidectomy or total parathyroidectomy followed by parathyroid auto-implant to the forearm. In skilful hands, the efficacy of both approaches is similar and both should be complemented by prophylactic thymectomy. In a single academic center, 83 cases of hyperparathyroidism/ multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 were operated on from 1987 to 2010 and our first surgical choice was total parathyroidectomy followed by parathyroid auto-implant to the non-dominant forearm and, since 1997, associated transcervical thymectomy to prevent thymic carcinoid. Overall, 40% of patients were given calcium replacement (mean intake 1.6 g/day) during the first months after surgery, and this fell to 28% in patients with longer follow-up. These findings indicate that several months may be needed in order to achieve a proper secretion by the parathyroid auto-implant. Hyperparathyroidism recurrence was observed in up to 15% of cases several years after the initial surgery. Thus, long-term follow-up is recommended for such cases. We conclude that, despite a tendency to subtotal parathyroidectomy worldwide, total parathyroidectomy followed by parathyroid auto-implant is a valid surgical option to treat hyperparathyroidism/multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Larger comparative systematic studies are needed to define the best surgical approach to hyperparathyroidism/multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1.

BACKGROUND: The molecular mechanisms involved in the genesis of the adrenocortical lesions seen in MEN1 syndrome (ACL-MEN1) remain poorly understood; loss of heterozygosity at 11q13 and somatic mutations of MEN1 are not usually found in these lesions. Thus, additional genes must be involved in MEN1 adrenocortical disorders. Overexpression of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide receptor has been shown to promote adrenocortical tumorigenesis in a mice model and has also been associated with ACTH-independent Cushing syndrome in humans. However, to our knowledge, the status of glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide receptor expression in adrenocortical lesions in MEN1 has not been previously investigated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide receptor expression in adrenocortical hyperplasia associated with MEN1 syndrome. MATERIALS/METHODS: Three adrenocortical tissue samples were obtained from patients with previously known MEN1 germline mutations and in whom the presence of a second molecular event (a new MEN1 somatic mutation or an 11q13 loss of heterozygosity) had been excluded. The expression of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide receptor was quantified by qPCR using the DDCT method, and b-actin was used as an endogenous control. RESULTS: The median of glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide receptor expression in the adrenocortical lesions associated with MEN1 syndrome was 2.6-fold (range 1.2 to 4.8) higher than the normal adrenal controls (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The current study represents the first investigation of glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide receptor expression in adrenocortical lesions without 11q13 loss of heterozygosity in MEN1 syndrome patients. Although we studied a limited number of cases of MEN1 adrenocortical lesions retrospectively, our preliminary data suggest an involvement of glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide receptor overexpression in the etiology of adrenocortical hyperplasia. New prospective studies will be able to clarify the exact role of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide receptor in the molecular pathogenesis of MEN1 adrenocortical lesions.

OBJETIVOS: Realizar rastreamentos clínico e gênico para Neoplasia Endócrina Múltipla tipo 1 (NEM1) e analisar seu impacto no seguimento clínico desses pacientes no Hospital das Clínicas, SP. MÉTODOS: O diagnóstico clínico de NEM1 foi realizado de acordo com o Consenso sobre neoplasias endócrinas múltiplas. A análise genética para identificação de mutações foi realizada por sequenciamento automático de todas as regiões codificadoras e fronteiras exon/intron do gene MEN1. Os casos afetados foram sub-divididos em 3 grupos e analisados separadamente: casos-índices (grupo I), familiares diagnosticados clinicamente (grupo II) e genicamente (grupo III). RESULTADOS: Um total de 154 casos participou desse estudo, sendo 52 diagnosticados com NEM1: 13 do grupo I, 28 do grupo II e 11 do grupo III. A idade média ao diagnóstico no grupo III (27 anos) foi significativamente menor que a dos grupos I (39,5 anos; p = 0,03) e II (42,4 anos; p = 0,01). A maioria dos pacientes dos grupos I e II apresentou 2 ou 3 tumores, enquanto que 81,8% dos casos do grupo III apresentavam 1 ou nenhum tumor relacionado à NEM1. Além disto, 45,4% dos casos do grupo III eram assintomáticos, não sendo observados nenhuma metástase ou óbito. Os demais 102 familiares sob-risco estudados não herdaram mutação MEN1 e foram excluídos do rastreamento clínico. Um caso de fenocópia NEM1 foi também localizado. DISCUSSÃO: Nossos dados demonstraram importantes benefícios no seguimento dos pacientes NEM1, obtidos pela implementação dos rastreamentos clínico e gênico para essa doença.

PURPOSE: To perform clinical and genetic screening for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) in patients at the Academic Hospital of the University of São Paulo School of Medicine, and to analyze its impact on clinical management of patients with MEN1. 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.