Phaeochromocytoma and Acromegaly: a unifying diagnosis

Acromegaly Caused by Ectopic Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone Secretion: A Review

INTRODUCTION

Ectopic acromegaly is a rare condition caused most frequently by growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH) secretion from neuroendocrine tumors. The diagnosis is often difficult to establish as its main symptoms do not differ from those of acromegaly of pituitary origin.

OBJECTIVES

To determine most common clinical features and diagnostic challenges in ectopic acromegaly.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A search for ectopic acromegaly cases available in literature was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, and MEDline database. In this article, 127 cases of ectopic acromegaly described after GHRH isolation in 1982 are comprehensively reviewed, along with a summary of current state of knowledge on its clinical features, diagnostic methods, and treatment modalities. The most important data were compiled and compared in the tables.

RESULTS

Neuroendocrine tumors were confirmed in 119 out of 121 patients with histopathological evaluation, mostly of lung and pancreatic origin. Clinical manifestation comprise symptoms associated with pituitary hyperplasia, such as headache or visual field disturbances, as well as typical signs of acromegaly. Other endocrinopathies may also be present depending on the tumor type. Definitive diagnosis of ectopic acromegaly requires confirmation of GHRH secretion from a tumor using either histopathological methods or GHRH plasma concentration assessment. Hormonal evaluation was available for 84 patients (66%) and histopathological confirmation for 99 cases (78%). Complete tumor resection was the main treatment method for most patients as it is a treatment of choice due to its highest effectiveness. When not feasible, somatostatin receptor ligands (SRL) therapy is the preferred treatment option. Prognosis is relatively favorable for neuroendocrine GHRH-secreting tumors with high survival rate.

CONCLUSION

Although ectopic acromegaly remains a rare disease, one should be aware of it as a possible differential diagnosis in patients presenting with additional symptoms or those not responding to classic treatment of acromegaly.

GHRH secretion from a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor causing gigantism in a patient with MEN1

SUMMARY

A male patient with a germline mutation in MEN1 presented at the age of 18 with classical features of gigantism. Previously, he had undergone resection of an insulin-secreting pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (pNET) at the age of 10 years and had subtotal parathyroidectomy due to primary hyperparathyroidism at the age of 15 years. He was found to have significantly elevated serum IGF-1, GH, GHRH and calcitonin levels. Pituitary MRI showed an overall bulky gland with a 3 mm hypoechoic area. Abdominal MRI showed a 27 mm mass in the head of the pancreas and a 6 mm lesion in the tail. Lanreotide-Autogel 120 mg/month reduced GHRH by 45% and IGF-1 by 20%. Following pancreaticoduodenectomy, four NETs were identified with positive GHRH and calcitonin staining and Ki-67 index of 2% in the largest lesion. The pancreas tail lesion was not removed. Post-operatively, GHRH and calcitonin levels were undetectable, IGF-1 levels normalised and GH suppressed normally on glucose challenge. Post-operative fasting glucose and HbA1c levels have remained normal at the last check-up. While adolescent-onset cases of GHRH-secreting pNETs have been described, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of ectopic GHRH in a paediatric setting leading to gigantism in a patient with MEN1. Our case highlights the importance of distinguishing between pituitary and ectopic causes of gigantism, especially in the setting of MEN1, where paediatric somatotroph adenomas causing gigantism are extremely rare.

LEARNING POINTS

It is important to diagnose gigantism and its underlying cause (pituitary vs ectopic) early in order to prevent further growth and avoid unnecessary pituitary surgery. The most common primary tumour sites in ectopic acromegaly include the lung (53%) and the pancreas (34%) (1): 76% of patients with a pNET secreting GHRH showed a MEN1 mutation (1). Plasma GHRH testing is readily available in international laboratories and can be a useful diagnostic tool in distinguishing between pituitary acromegaly mediated by GH and ectopic acromegaly mediated by GHRH. Positive GHRH immunostaining in the NET tissue confirms the diagnosis. Distinguishing between pituitary (somatotroph) hyperplasia secondary to ectopic GHRH and pituitary adenoma is difficult and requires specialist neuroradiology input and consideration, especially in the MEN1 setting. It is important to note that the vast majority of GHRH-secreting tumours (lung, pancreas, phaeochromocytoma) are expected to be visible on cross-sectional imaging (median diameter 55 mm) (1). Therefore, we suggest that a chest X-ray and an abdominal ultrasound checking the adrenal glands and the pancreas should be included in the routine work-up of newly diagnosed acromegaly patients.

The 3PAs: An Update on the Association of Pheochromocytomas, Paragangliomas, and Pituitary Tumors

Pituitary adenomas (PA) and pheochromocytomas/paragangliomas (PHEO/PGL) are rare tumors. Although they may co-exist by coincidence, there is mounting evidence that genes predisposing in PHEO/PGL development, may play a role in pituitary tumorigenesis. In 2012, we described a GH-secreting PA caused by an SDHD mutation in a patient with familial PGLs and found loss of heterozygosity at the SDHD locus in the pituitary tumor, along with increased hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) levels. Additional patients with PAs and SDHx defects have since been reported. Overall, prevalence of SDHx mutations in PA is very rare (0.3-1.8% in unselected cases) but we and others have identified several cases of PAs with PHEOs/PGLs, like our original report, a condition which we termed the 3 P association (3PAs). Interestingly, when 3PAs is found in the sporadic setting, no SDHx defects were identified, whereas in familial PGLs, SDHx mutations were identified in 62.5-75% of the reported cases. Hence, pituitary surveillance is recommended among patients with SDHx defects. It is possible that the SDHx germline mutation-negative 3PAs cases may be due to another gene, epigenetic changes, mutations in modifier genes, mosaicism, somatic mutations, pituitary hyperplasia due to ectopic hypothalamic hormone secretion or a coincidence. PA in 3PAs are mainly macroadenomas, more aggressive, more resistant to somatostatin analogues, and often require surgery. Using the Sdhb +/- mouse model, we showed that hyperplasia may be the first abnormality in tumorigenesis as initial response to pseudohypoxia. We also propose surveillance and follow-up approach of patients presenting with this association.

Heterogeneous genetic background of the association of pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma and pituitary adenoma: results from a large patient cohort

CONTEXT

Pituitary adenomas and pheochromocytomas/paragangliomas (pheo/PGL) can occur in the same patient or in the same family. Coexistence of the two diseases could be due to either a common pathogenic mechanism or a coincidence.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the investigation was to study the possible coexistence of pituitary adenoma and pheo/PGL.

DESIGN

Thirty-nine cases of sporadic or familial pheo/PGL and pituitary adenomas were investigated. Known pheo/PGL genes (SDHA-D, SDHAF2, RET, VHL, TMEM127, MAX, FH) and pituitary adenoma genes (MEN1, AIP, CDKN1B) were sequenced using next generation or Sanger sequencing. Loss of heterozygosity study and pathological studies were performed on the available tumor samples.

SETTING

The study was conducted at university hospitals.

PATIENTS

Thirty-nine patients with sporadic of familial pituitary adenoma and pheo/PGL participated in the study.

OUTCOME

Outcomes included genetic screening and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Eleven germline mutations (five SDHB, one SDHC, one SDHD, two VHL, and two MEN1) and four variants of unknown significance (two SDHA, one SDHB, and one SDHAF2) were identified in the studied genes in our patient cohort. Tumor tissue analysis identified LOH at the SDHB locus in three pituitary adenomas and loss of heterozygosity at the MEN1 locus in two pheochromocytomas. All the pituitary adenomas of patients affected by SDHX alterations have a unique histological feature not previously described in this context.

CONCLUSIONS

Mutations in the genes known to cause pheo/PGL can rarely be associated with pituitary adenomas, whereas mutation in a gene predisposing to pituitary adenomas (MEN1) can be associated with pheo/PGL. Our findings suggest that genetic testing should be considered in all patients or families with the constellation of pheo/PGL and a pituitary adenoma.