4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Difference in development of medullary thyroid carcinoma among carriers of RET mutations in codons 790 and 791

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 69, 期 2, 页码 259-263

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2008.03215.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Hereditary medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is caused by germ-line mutations in the RET proto-oncogene. Our study addresses the difference in development of MTC between rare mutations in RET codons 790, 791 and 804. Design We evaluated tumour stage, calcitonin levels, biochemical cure rates and associated endocrinopathies in 153 German/Austrian patients with RET 790 (n = 47), 791 (n = 56) and 804 mutations (n = 50), divided into index- and screening groups. Results Age at diagnosis in index-patients did not differ significantly among the three codon groups (medians of 57, 61 and 53 years). Tumour stage at diagnosis was significantly less advanced with codon 791 (n = 22) than 790 (n = 16) and 804 (n = 16) mutations (P = 0.001). In screening patients, age at diagnosis did not differ significantly among the three groups (medians 19, 24 and 32 years). Tumour stage at diagnosis was also significantly less advanced with codon 791 (n = 34) than 790 (n = 31) and 804 (n = 34) (P = 0.032). Preoperative basal calcitonin levels were significantly lower in codon 791 carriers compared to codon 790 carriers, and cure rates were significantly higher in both index (75% vs. 31%; P = 0.03) and screening patients (100% vs. 75%; P = 0.015). Additional endocrinopathies were observed only with codon 791 carriers (four pheochromocytomas and two hyperparathyroidism). Conclusion There is a significant difference in MTC development with less extensive C-cell disease, higher cure rate and more frequent additional endocrinopathies in carriers of RET codon 791 mutations compared with carriers of codons 790 and 804 mutations. This information should be considered when age of prophylactic thyroidectomy is discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据