4.2 Article

Clinical outcomes in male patients with lactotroph adenomas who required pituitary surgery: a retrospective single center study

Journal

PITUITARY
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 454-462

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11102-018-0898-y

Keywords

Lactotroph adenomas; Males; Prolactinomas; Corticotroph adenomas; Dopamine agonist resistance; Dopamine agonist intolerance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeLactotroph adenomas (LA) are the most frequently encountered pituitary tumors. Although more frequently observed in women, LAs in men were recently included in a more aggressive category regardless of histological grading, by the WHO. We aimed to perform a rigorous retrospective review of a single center's pre-operative evaluation, patient characteristics and outcomes of male LAs patients requiring pituitary surgery.MethodsA retrospective review, over 11 years, of patients who underwent resection of a pituitary adenoma at a single center was conducted. Predictors of persistent disease in male LAs patients along with a comparison to predictors of silent corticotroph adenomas (SCAs) patients who also underwent surgery at the center was also conducted.ResultsThirty-one male patients with LAs were identified. When compared to SCAs patients, LAs male patients were younger (41 vs. 50years of age, p=0.01). Men with LAs had more invasive tumors (75% vs. 44.7% p=0.02). More LAs in men had residual tumor after surgery than patients with SCA (92.6% vs. 42.1%, p<0.001). Male patients with LAs and patients with SCA had similar rates of requiring additional surgery (28.9% vs. 24.1%, p=NS) and radiation therapy (18.4% vs. 19.4%, p=NS).ConclusionsHigh rates of DA resistance, invasive tumors and postoperative residual disease in male patients with LA who required surgery are shown. Surgery improved optic chiasm compression, PRL level and central hypogonadism but, not surprisingly, failed to normalize other pituitary hormones and/or eliminate need for DA therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available