Andreassen M, Ilett E, Wiese D, et al. Surgical Management, Preoperative Tumor Localization, and Histopathology of 80 Patients Operated on for Insulinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 Dec 1;104(12):6129-6138.
Full-text for Emory users.
Results: Eighty patients were included. Seven had a malignant tumor. A total of 312 diagnostic examinations were performed: endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS; n = 59; sensitivity, 70%), MRI (n = 33; sensitivity, 58%), CT (n = 55; sensitivity, 47%), transabdominal ultrasonography (US; n = 45; sensitivity, 40%), somatostatin receptor imaging (n = 17; sensitivity, 29%), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT (n = 1; negative), percutaneous transhepatic venous sampling (n = 10; sensitivity, 90%), arterial stimulation venous sampling (n = 20; sensitivity, 65%), and intraoperative US (n = 72; sensitivity, 89%). Fourteen tumors could not be visualized. Invasive methods were used in 7 of these 14 patients and localized the tumor in all cases. Median tumor size was 15 mm (range, 7 to 80 mm). Tumors with malignant vs benign behavior showed less staining for insulin (3 of 7 vs 66 of 73; P = 0.015) and for proinsulin (3 of 6 vs 58 of 59; P < 0.001). Staining for glucagon was seen in 2 of 6 malignant tumors and in no benign tumors (P < 0.001). Forty-three insulinomas stained negative for somatostatin receptor subtype 2a.
Conclusion: Localization of insulinomas requires many different diagnostic procedures. Most tumors can be localized by conventional imaging, including EUS. For nonvisible tumors, invasive methods may be a useful diagnostic tool. Malignant tumors showed reduced staining for insulin and proinsulin and increased staining for glucagon.