Genetic testing in familial isolated hyperparathyroidism: unexpected results and their implications

Familial hyperparathyroidism is not uncommon in clinical endocrine practice. It encompasses a spectrum of disorders including multiple endocrine neoplasia types 1 (MEN1) and 2A, hyperparathyroidism-jaw tumour syndrome (HPT-JT), familial hypocalciuric hypercalcaemia (FHH), and familial isolated hyperparathyroidism (FIHP). Distinguishing among the five syndromes is often difficult but has profound implications for the management of patient and family. The availability of specific genetic testing for four of the syndromes has improved diagnostic accuracy and simplified family monitoring in many cases but its current cost and limited accessibility require rationalisation of its use. No gene has yet been associated exclusively with FIHP. FIHP phenotypes have been associated with mutant MEN1 and calcium-sensing receptor ( CASR) genotypes and, very recently, with mutation in the newly identified HRPT2 gene. The relative proportions of these are not yet clear. We report results of MEN1, CASR, and HRPT2 genotyping of 22 unrelated subjects with FIHP phenotypes. We found 5 (23%) with MEN1 mutations, four (18%) with CASR mutations, and none with an HRPT2 mutation. All those with mutations had multiglandular hyperparathyroidism. Of the subjects with CASR mutations, none were of the typical FHH phenotype. These findings strongly favour a recommendation for MEN1 and CASR genotyping of patients with multiglandular FIHP, irrespective of urinary calcium excretion. However, it appears that HRPT2 genotyping should be reserved for cases in which other features of the HPT-JT phenotype have occurred in the kindred. Also apparent is the need for further investigation to identify additional genes associated with FIHP.

Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)

Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening. Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years. Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60-90) than for mammography (40%, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94% (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92-95) for mammography, 81% (80-83) for CE MRI (p