2007
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-970160
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Developing Effective Screening Strategies in Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 1 (MEN 1) on the Basis of Clinical and Sequencing Data of German Patients with MEN 1

Abstract: In view of the morbidity and frequency in familial cases an effective screening programme should aim at an early diagnosis of GEP particularly when truncating, especially nonsense mutations are found.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
21
1
10

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
4
21
1
10
Order By: Relevance
“…Although this interpretation was obviously not proved, the authors considered that this gender difference was due to a clinical bias. Recently, an overall female predominance was also observed in four MEN1 studies from the United States (nZ233), from the United Kingdom (nZ220), from Germany (nZ301), and from Finland (nZ82), showing proportions of women of 54, 57, 59, and 57%, thus very close to our figures of 58% (12,26,27,30). The 2007 study from Finland was particularly interesting because the cohort was constituted during a comparable period of time (1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001) and was exclusively made of patients with ascertained MEN1 mutations.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although this interpretation was obviously not proved, the authors considered that this gender difference was due to a clinical bias. Recently, an overall female predominance was also observed in four MEN1 studies from the United States (nZ233), from the United Kingdom (nZ220), from Germany (nZ301), and from Finland (nZ82), showing proportions of women of 54, 57, 59, and 57%, thus very close to our figures of 58% (12,26,27,30). The 2007 study from Finland was particularly interesting because the cohort was constituted during a comparable period of time (1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001) and was exclusively made of patients with ascertained MEN1 mutations.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…These large cohorts comprised more than 200 MEN1 patients. period of MEN1 diagnosis), and in Germany (nZ306: 1980-2006 period of MEN1 diagnosis) (9,12,26,27). The multicenter aspect of this study reduces the risk of bias encountered in single-center cohorts, which may select patients through a specific aspect of the disease such as the age of the patient, or the organ involved (duodeno-pancreas, pituitary, parathyroid glands, etc.).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In historical series, ulcer disease due to gastrinoma was the most important cause of MEN1-related death (Ballard et al 1964), while this presently is malignant dpNETs (Schaaf et al 2007, Goudet et al 2010. In patients with MEN1-related dpNETs, estimated 10-year survival is 75% (Carty et al 1998, Kouvaraki et al 2006.…”
Section: Epidemiologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…NETs associated with MEN1 are lung NETs, thymic NETs (thNETs), gastrin NETs, and dpNETs. MEN1-related NETs are an important cause of morbidity and presently malignant dpNETs and thNETs are the main cause of MEN1-related death (Schaaf et al 2007, Goudet et al 2010.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…al. 9 These patients tended to have familial, rather than sporadic, GEP-NETs, and they possessed truncating mutations. 9 Another example is familial isolated primary hyperparathyroidism.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%