4.3 Review

Update on prolactinomas. Part 1: Clinical manifestations and diagnostic challenges

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages 1562-1567

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.03.058

Keywords

Clinical manifestations; Dopamine agonist therapy; Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery; Hyperprolactinemia; Pituitary adenoma; Prolactin; Prolactinoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The authors provide an update on the clinical manifestations and diagnostic challenges of prolactinomas. Prolactinomas are the most common pituitary adenoma seen in clinical practice. Secondary causes of hyperprolactinemia should be ruled out by assessment of the clinical history, including current medications, physical examination, pregnancy test, routine biochemical analysis with a thyroid function test, and neuroimaging, before a confirmatory diagnosis of prolactinoma is made. Prolactinomas are associated with endocrine dysfunction, affecting gonadal function and causing neurological deficits due to mass effect. The progress in elucidating the pathogenesis of prolactinomas and advances in diagnostic methods, including more sensitive diagnostic hormone assays and neuroimaging, have enriched the current diagnostic approach and management. Making the correct diagnosis is crucial to implementing the appropriate therapy. Dopamine agonist therapy remains the first line of treatment for prolactinomas, as it is effective in normalizing serum prolactin levels and reducing tumor size. Surgery is typically indicated for patients who are resistant to medical therapy or intolerant of its adverse side effects, or for those experiencing progressive neurological deficits. Nevertheless, curative surgical resection as a primary mode of treatment for smaller prolactinomas has recently gained attention as an alternative to lifelong dopamine agonist treatment. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available