Tuberous Sclerosis is a complex genetic disease that has well-defined clinical criteria. These criteria don't include pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. We represent a rare case of a patient, with a non–functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and concomitant diagnosis of tuberous sclerosis complex, and basement membrane disease. The patient was diagnosed based on typical radiologic findings. We have suggested close monitoring and during follow-up studies, the disease was stable. Interestingly the patient tested negative for Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC), which suggests that she might be a somatic mosaic and the mutation level in blood lymphocytes was below the detection level. Moreover, a heterozygous pathogenic variant p.(Gly774Arg) and a heterozygous likely pathogenic variant p.(Gly1465Asp) were identified in the COL4A4 gene. COL4A4 gene is responsible for causing autosomal dominant basement membrane disease. In this case report, we discuss clinical, radiologic, and genetic aspects of these diseases, as well as optimal treatment and follow-up strategies. Thus, by presenting this case we would like to increase awareness of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in TSC and emphasize the need for follow-up monitoring.

Background: Consolidation systemic therapy (ST) given after concurrent radiotherapy (RT) and ST (RT-ST) is frequently practiced in locally advanced inoperable nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Little is known, however, about the fate of patients achieving different responses after concurrent phases of the treatment. Methods: we searched the English-language literature to identify full-length articles on phase II and Phase III clinical studies employing consolidation ST after initial concurrent RT-ST. We sought information about response evaluation after the concurrent phase and the outcome of these patient subgroups, the patterns of failure per response achieved after the concurrent phase as well as the outcome of these subgroups after the consolidation phase. Results: Eighty-seven articles have been initially identified, of which 20 studies were excluded for various reasons, leaving, therefore, a total of 67 studies for our analysis. Response evaluation after the concurrent phase was performed in 36 (54%) studies but in only 14 (21%) response data were provided, while in 34 (51%) studies patients underwent a consolidation phase regardless of the response. No study provided any outcome (survivals, patterns of failure) as per response achieved after the concurrent phase. Conclusions: Information regarding the outcome of subgroups of patients achieving different responses after the concurrent phase and before the administration of the consolidation phase is still lacking. This may negatively affect the decision-making process as it remains unknown which patients may preferentially benefit from the consolidation of ST.

No abstract

No abstract