4.4 Review

Pituitary tumors in patients with MEN1 syndrome

期刊

CLINICS
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 43-48

出版社

HOSPITAL CLINICAS, UNIV SAO PAULO
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2012(Sup01)09

关键词

Pituitary Neoplasms; Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1; Review; Genetics

资金

  1. Jarislowsky and Lloyd Carr Harris foundations
  2. FAPESP (Sao Paulo State Research Foundation)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We briefly review the characteristics of pituitary tumors associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 is an autosomal-dominant disorder most commonly characterized by tumors of the pituitary, parathyroid, endocrine-gastrointestinal tract, and pancreas. A MEDLINE search for all available publications regarding multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 and pituitary adenomas was undertaken. The prevalence of pituitary tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 may vary from 10% to 60% depending on the studied series, and such tumors may occur as the first clinical manifestation of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 in 25% of sporadic and 10% of familial cases. Patients were younger and the time between initial and subsequent multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 endocrine lesions was significantly longer when pituitary disease was the initial manifestation of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Tumors were larger and more invasive and clinical manifestations related to the size of the pituitary adenoma were significantly more frequent in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 than in subjects with non-multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Normalization of pituitary hypersecretion was much less frequent in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 than in subjects with non-multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Pituitary tumors in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 syndrome tend to be larger, invasive and more symptomatic, and they tend to occur in younger patients when they are the initial presentation of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1.

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