World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1440–1447 | Cite as

Preoperative Imaging Overestimates the Tumor Size in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms Associated with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1

  • V. Polenta
  • E. P. Slater
  • P. H. Kann
  • M. B. Albers
  • J. Manoharan
  • A. Ramaswamy
  • A. H. Mahnken
  • D. K. Bartsch
Original Scientific Report

Abstract

Background

Radiological tumor size of non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (Nf-pNENs) associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is a crucial parameter to indicate surgery. The aim of this study was to compare radiological size (RS) and pathologic size (PS) of MEN1 associated with pNENs.

Methods

Prospectively collected data of MEN1 patients who underwent pancreatic resections for pNENs were retrospectively analyzed. RS was defined as the largest tumor diameter measured on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT). PS was defined as the largest tumor diameter on pathological analysis. Student’s t test and linear regression analysis were used to compare the median RS and PS. p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Forty-four patients with a median age of 37 (range 10–68) years underwent primary pancreatic resections for pNENs. Overall, the median RS (20 mm, range 3–100 mm) was significantly larger than the PS (13 mm, range 4–110 mm) (p = 0.001). In patients with pNENs < 20 mm (n = 27), the size difference (median RS 15 mm vs PS 12 mm) was also significant (p = 0.003). However, the only modality that significantly overestimated the PS was EUS (median RS 14 mm vs 11 mm; p = 0.0002). RS overestimated the PS in 21 patients (21 of 27 patients, 78%). Five of 11 patients (12%) with a Nf-pNEN and a RS > 20 mm had in reality a PS < 20 mm. MRI was the imaging technique that best correlated with PS in the total cohort (r = 0.8; p < 0.0001), whereas EUS was the best correlating imaging tool in pNENs < 20 mm (r = 0.5; p = 0.0001).

Conclusion

Preoperative imaging, especially EUS, frequently overestimates the size of MEN1-pNENs, especially those with a PS < 20 mm. This should be considered when indicating surgery in MEN1 patients with small Nf-pNENs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all patients who participated in our screening program.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Brandi ML (2000) Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 1(4):275–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trump D, Farren B, Wooding C et al (1996) Clinical studies of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). QJM 89(9):653–669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marx S, Spiegel AM, Skarulis MC et al (1998) Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: clinical and genetic topics. Ann Intern Med 129(6):484–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carney JA (2005) Familial multiple endocrine neoplasia: the first 100 years. Am J Sur Pathol 29(2):254–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thakker RV (2014) Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) and type 4 (MEN4). Mol Cell Endocrinol 386(1–2):2–15CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandrasekharappa SC, Guru SC, Manickam P et al (1997) Positional cloning of the gene for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Science 276(5311):404–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thakker RV, Newey PJ, Walls GV et al (2012) Clinical practice guidelines for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97(9):2990–3011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tonelli F, Giudici F, Giusti F et al (2012) Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Cancers 4(2):504–522CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waldmann J, Fendrich V, Habbe N et al (2009) Screening of patients with endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN-1): a critical analysis of its value. World J Surg 33(6):1208–1218. doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-9983-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomas-Marques L, Murat A, Delemer B et al (2006) Prospective endoscopic ultrasonographic evaluation of the frequency of non functioning pancreaticoduodenal endocrine tumors in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Am J Gastroenterol 101:266–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carty SE, Helm AK, Amico JA et al (1998) The variable penetrance and spectrum of manifestations of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Surgery 124(6):1106–1113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Triponez F, Dosseh D, Goudet P et al (2006) Epidemiology data on 108 MEN 1 patients from the GTE with isolated nonfunctioning tumors of the pancreas. Ann Surg 243(2):265–272CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goudet P, Murat A, Binquet C et al (2010) Risk factors and causes of death in MEN1 disease. A GTE (Groupe d’Etude des Tumeurs Endocrines) cohort study among 758 patients. World J Surg 34(2):249–255. doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-0290-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Falconi M, Eriksson B, Kaltsas G et al (2016) ENETS consensus guidelines update for the management of patients with functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Neuroendocrinology 103(2):153–171CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vinik AI, Woltering EA, Warner RR et al (2010) NANETS consensus guidelines for the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumor. Pancreas 39(6):713–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Partelli S, Tamburrino D, Lopez C et al (2016) Active surveillance versus surgery of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms ≤2 cm in MEN1 patients. Neuroendocrinology 103(6):779–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baur AD, Pavel M, Prasad V et al (2016) Diagnostic imaging of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNEN): tumor detection, staging, prognosis, and response to treatment. Acta Radiol Open 57(3):260–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kann P, Bittinger F, Engelbach M et al (2001) Endosonography of insulin-secreting and clinically non-functioning neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas: criteria for benignancy and malignancy. Eur J Med Res 6(9):385–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kann PH, Wirkus B, Keth A et al (2003) Pitfalls in endosonographic imaging of suspected insulinomas: pancreatic nodules of unknown dignity. Eur J Endocrinol 148(5):531–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kann PH, Balakina E, Ivan D et al (2006) Natural course of small, asymptomatic neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: an endoscopic ultrasound imaging study. Endocr Relat Cancer 13(4):1195–1202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kann PH, Kann B, Fassbender WJ et al (2006) Small neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1): least significant change of tumor diameter as determined by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 114(7):361–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bartsch DK, Slater EP, Albers MB et al (2014) Higher risk of aggressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in MEN1 patients with MEN1 mutations affecting the CHES1 interacting MENIN domain. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99(11):2387–2391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crippa S, Bassi C, Salvia R et al (2007) Enucleation of pancreatic neoplasms. Br J Surg 94(10):1254–1259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klöppel G, Perren A, Heitz PU (2004) The gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine cell system and its tumors: the WHO classification. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1014:13–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jeffery NN, Douek N, Guo DY et al (2011) Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses. BMC Urol 11:2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Irani J, Humbert M, Lecocq B et al (2001) Renal tumor size: comparison between computed tomography and surgical measurements. Eur Urol 39(3):300–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kelsey CR, Schefter T, Nash SR et al (2005) Retrospective clinicopathologic correlation of gross tumor size of hepatocellular carcinoma: implications for stereotactic body radiotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol 28(6):576–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Doherty GM, Olson JA, Frisella MM et al (1998) Lethality of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. World J Surg 22(6):581–586. doi: 10.1007/s002689900438 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Triponez F, Goudet P, Dosseh D et al (2006) Is surgery beneficial for MEN 1 patients with small (<2 cm), non-functioning pancreaticoduodenal endocrine tumor? An analysis of 65 patients from GTE. World J Surg 30(5):654–662. doi: 10.1007/s00268-005-0354-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Norton JA, Fraker DL, Alexander HR et al (1999) Surgery to cure the Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. N Engl J Med 341(9):635–644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Norton JA (2005) Surgical treatment and prognosis of gastrinoma. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 19(5):799–805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Imamura M, Takahashi K (1993) Use of selective secretin injection test to guide surgery in patients with Zollinger Ellison syndrome. World J Surg 17(4):433–438. doi: 10.1007/BF01655100 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Skogseid B, Eriksson B, Lundgvist G et al (1991) Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: a 10 years prospective screening study in four kindreds. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 73(2):281–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bartsch DK, Langer P, Wild A et al (2000) Pancreaticoduodenal endocrine tumors in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: surgery or surveillance? Surgery 128(6):958–966CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morrow EH, Norton JA (2009) Surgical management of Zollinger-Ellison syndrome; state of the art. Surg Clin North Am 89(5):1091–1103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lopez CL, Albers MB, Bollmann C et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus open pancreatic surgery in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. World J Surg 40(7):1729–1736. doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3456-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    You YN, Thompson GB, Young WF Jr et al (2007) Pancreatoduodenal surgery in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: operative outcomes, long-termfunction, and quality of life. Surgery 142(6):829–836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gauger PG, Scheiman JM, Wamsteker EJ et al (2003) Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in screening and treatment of pancreatic endocrine tumours in asymptomatic patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Br J Surg 90(6):748–754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Langer P, Kann PH, Fendrich V et al (2004) Prospective evaluation of imaging procedures for the detection of pancreaticoduodenal endocrine tumours (PETs) in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN 1). World J Surg 28(12):1317–1322. doi: 10.1007/s00268-004-7642-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Asselt SJ, Brouwers AH, van Dullemen HM et al (2015) EUS is superior for detection of pancreatic lesions compared with standard imaging in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Gastrointest Endosc 81(1):159–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dou TH, Thomas DH, O’Connel D et al (2015) Technical note: simulation of 4DCT tumor motion measurement errors. Med Phys 42(10):6084–6089CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Haraldsdòttir KH, Jònsson P, Halldòrsdòttir AB et al (2017) Tumor size of invasive breast cancer on magnetic resonance imaging and conventional imaging (mammogram/ultrasound): comparison with pathological size and clinical implications. Scand J Surg 106(1):68–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Polenta
    • 1
    • 5
  • E. P. Slater
    • 1
  • P. H. Kann
    • 2
  • M. B. Albers
    • 1
  • J. Manoharan
    • 1
  • A. Ramaswamy
    • 3
  • A. H. Mahnken
    • 4
  • D. K. Bartsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular SurgeryPhilipps-University MarburgMarburgGermany
  2. 2.Division EndocrinologyPhilipps-University MarburgMarburgGermany
  3. 3.Institute of PathologyPhilipps-University MarburgMarburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyPhilipps-University MarburgMarburgGermany
  5. 5.Department of General SurgeryOspedali Riuniti AnconaAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations