4.4 Article

Insulinoma: A retrospective study analyzing the differences between benign and malignant tumors

Journal

PANCREATOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 298-303

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2018.01.009

Keywords

Insulinoma; Neuroendocrine tumors; Endocrine pancreas; Insulin; Multiple endocrine neoplasias

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/objectives: Insulinoma is a rare pancreatic tumor and, usually, a benign disease but can be a malignant one and, sometimes, a highly aggressive disease. The aim of this study was to determine differences between benign and malignant tumors. Methods: Retrospective study of 103 patients with insulinoma treated in a tertiary center. It was analyzed demographic, clinical, laboratory, localization and histologic analysis of tumor and follow up data of subjects in order to identify differences between individuals benign and malignant disease. Results: Almost all patients (87%) had a benign tumor and survival rates of 100% following pancreatic tumor surgery. Those with malignant tumors (13%) have a poor prognosis, 77% insulinoma-related deaths over a period of 1-300 months after the diagnosis with a survival rate of 24% in five years. The following factors are associated with an increased risk of malignant disease: duration of symptoms < 24 months, fasting time for the occurrence of hypoglycemia < 8 h, blood plasma insulin concentration > 28 mu U/mL and C-peptide >= 4.0 ng/mL at the glycemic nadir and tumor size >= 2.5 cm. Conclusions: Our data help to base the literature about these tumors, reinforcing that although insulinoma is usually a single benign and surgically treated neoplasia, the malignant one is difficult to treat. We highlight the data that help predict a malignancy behavior of tumor and suggest a long follow up after diagnosis in these cases. (C) 2018 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available