In recent years, endocrine disrupting chemicals have gained interest in human physiopathology and more and more studies aimed to explain how these chemicals compounds affect endocrine system. In human populations, the majority of the studies point toward an association between exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals and the disorders affecting endocrine axis. A great number of endocrine disrupting chemicals seem to be able to interfere with the physiology of hypothalamus-pituitary-gonadal axis; however, every endocrine axis may be a target for each EDCs and their action is not limited to a single axis or organ. Several compounds may also have a negative impact on energy metabolic homeostasis altering adipose tissue and promoting obesity, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes. Different mechanism have been proposed to explain these associations but their complexity together with the degree of occupational or environmental exposure, the low standardization of the studies, and the presence of confounding factors have prevented to establish causal relationship between the endocrine disorders and exposure to specific toxicants so far. This manuscript aims to review the state of art of scientific literature regarding the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on endocrine system.

The diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is a challenging task: Symptoms are rarely specific, and clinical manifestations are often evident only when metastases are already present. However, several bioactive substances secreted by NETs can be included for diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive purposes. Expression of these substances differs between different NETs according to the tumor hormone production. Gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) NETs originate from the diffuse neuroendocrine system of the gastrointestinal tract and pancreatic islets cells: These tumors may produce many non-specific and specific substances, such as chromogranin A, insulin, gastrin, glucagon, and serotonin, which shape the clinical manifestations of the NETs. To provide an up-to-date reference concerning the different biomarkers, as well as their main limitations, we reviewed and summarized existing literature.

Gender- and sex- related differences represent a new frontier towards patient-tailored medicine, taking into account that theoretically every medical specialty can be influenced by both of them. Sex hormones define the differences between males and females, and the different endocrine environment promoted by estrogens, progesterone, testosterone, and their precursors might influence both human physiology and pathophysiology. With the term Gender we refer, instead, to behaviors, roles, expectations, and activities carried out by the individual in society. In other words, “gender” refers to a sociocultural sphere of the individual, whereas “sex” only defines the biological sex. In the last decade, increasing attention has been paid to understand the influence that gender can have on both the human physiology and pathogenesis of diseases. Even the clinical response to therapy may be influenced by sex hormones and gender, but further research is needed to investigate and clarify how they can affect the human pathophysiology. The path to a tailored medicine in which every patient is able to receive early diagnosis, risk assessments, and optimal treatments cannot exclude the importance of gender. In this review, we have focused our attention on the involvement of sex hormones and gender on different endocrine diseases.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), by unleashing the anticancer response of the immune system, can improve survival of patients affected by several malignancies, but may trigger a broad spectrum of adverse events, including autoimmune hypophysitis. ICI-related hypophysitis mainly manifests with anterior hypopituitarism, while the simultaneous involvement of both anterior and posterior pituitary (i.e., panhypophysitis) has rarely been described.Case PresentationIn June 2015, a 64-year-old man affected by liver metastases of a uveal melanoma was referred to us due to polyuria and polydipsia. Two months prior, he had started ipilimumab therapy (3 mg/kg iv every 21 days). The treatment was well-tolerated (only mild asthenia and diarrhea were reported). A few days before the fourth cycle, the patient complained of intense headaches, profound fatigue, nocturia, polyuria (up to 10 L urine/daily), and polydipsia. Laboratory tests were consistent with adrenal insufficiency, hypothyroidism, and transient central diabetes insipidus. The pituitary MRI showed an enlarged gland with microinfarcts, while the hypophyseal stalk was normal, and the neurohypophyseal ‘bright signal’ in T1 sequences was not detected. The treatment included dexamethasone (then cortisone acetate at replacement dose), desmopressin, and levothyroxine. Within the next five days, the symptoms resolved, and blood pressure, electrolytes, glucose, and urinalysis were stable within the normal ranges; desmopressin was discontinued while cortisone acetate and levothyroxine were maintained. The fourth ipilimumab dose was entirely administered in the absence of further side effects.ConclusionAs ICIs are increasingly used as anticancer agents, the damage to anterior and/or posterior pituitary can be progressively encountered by oncologists and endocrinologists in their clinical practice. Patients on ICIs and their caregivers should be informed about that risk and be empowered to alert the referring specialists early, at the onset of panhypopituitarism symptoms, including polyuria/polydipsia.

Background: The concomitant presence of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) and medullary TC (MTC) is rare. In this multicentric study, we documented the epidemiological characteristics, disease conditions and clinical outcome of patients with simultaneous MTC/PTC. Methods: We collected data of patients with concomitant MTC/PTC at 14 Italian referral centers. Results: In total, 183 patients were enrolled. Diagnosis was mostly based on cytological examination (n = 58, 32%). At diagnosis, in the majority of cases, both PTC (n = 142, 78%) and MTC (n = 100, 54%) were at stage I. However, more cases of stage II–IV were reported with MTC (stage IV: n = 27, 15%) compared with PTC (n = 9, 5%). Information on survival was available for 165 patients: 109 patients (66%) were disease-free for both PTC and MTC at the last follow-up. Six patients died from MTC. Median time to progression was 123 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 89.3–156.7 months). Overall, 45% of patients were disease-free after >10 years from diagnosis (125 months); this figure was 72.5% for PTC and 51.1% for MTC. Conclusions: When MTC and PTC are concurrent, the priority should be given to the management of MTC since this entity appears associated with the most severe impact on prognosis.