Background In multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are the leading MEN1-related cause of death. Objective To evaluate EUS and 11C-5-hydroxytryptophan positron emission tomography (11C-5-HTP PET), compared with the recommended screening techniques in MEN1 patients for early detection of pNETs. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Tertiary-care university medical center. Patients This study involved 41 patients with a proven MEN1 mutation or with one MEN1 manifestation and a mutation carrier as a first-degree family member, with recent screening by abdominal CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS). Interventions EUS by using a linear Pentax echoendoscope and Hitachi EUB-525 and 11C-5-HTP PET. Main Outcome Measurements Patient-based and lesion-based positivity for pNET was calculated for all imaging techniques. The McNemar test was used to compare the yield of the 4 imaging techniques. Results In 35 of 41 patients, 107 pancreatic lesions were detected in total. EUS detected 101 pancreatic lesions in 34 patients, 11C-5-HTP PET detected 35 lesions in 19 patients, and CT/MRI + SRS detected 32 lesions in 18 patients (P <.001). 11C-5-HTP PET performed similarly to CT/MRI + SRS and better compared with SRS only (13 lesions in 12 patients), both at a patient-based and lesion-based level (P <.05). Limitations Single-center study. Conclusion EUS is superior to CT/MRI + SRS for pancreatic lesion detection in patients with MEN1. In this setting, 11C-5-HTP PET is not useful. We recommend EUS as the first-choice pancreas imaging technique in patients with MEN1. (Clinical trial registration number: NTR1668.),
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Department of Internal Medicine

van Asselt, S., Brouwers, A., van Dullemen, H., van der Jagt, E., Bongaerts, A., Kema, I., … Links, T. (2015). EUS is superior for detection of pancreatic lesions compared with standard imaging in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 81(1), 159–167.e2. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.037