4.7 Article

Prospective Study of High-Dose Cabergoline Treatment of Prolactinomas in 150 Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 93, 期 12, 页码 4721-4727

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2007-2758

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Cabergoline fails to normalize hyperprolactinemia in a considerable proportion of prolactinomas, especially macroadenomas. Objective: We examined the effect of individualized high-dose cabergoline treatment on hyperprolactinemia in prolactinomas. Patients: The study included 122 women and 28 men (93 microadenomas and 57 macroadenomas). Forty-seven had undergone transsphenoidal surgery. According to the preceding medical treatment, the participants were separated into untreated (group U; n = 60), intolerant (group I; n = 64), and resistant (group R; n = 26) groups. Interventions: We promptly increased cabergoline dose on the basis of individual prolactin levels. Length of treatment was 1 yr. Results: Cabergoline normalized hyperprolactinemia in all patients except one. The proportion of prolactin normalization in both groups U and I was 83% at 3 months and 95% at 6 months. By contrast, that in group R was 35% at 3 months and 58% at 6 months. Mean cabergoline dose in milligrams per week at the time of prolactin normalization was 2.0 +/- 0.3 in group U, 0.9 +/- 0.1 in group I, and 5.2 +/- 0.6 in group R. Prolactin normalization rate at the 3 mg/wk dose was 84% overall but only 35% in group R. Serum progesterone or testosterone levels, diminished in 122 women or 16 men, respectively, were recovered in all except one resistant and four postmenopausal or panhypopituitary patients. Conclusion: Individualized high-dose cabergoline treatment can normalize hyperprolactinemia and hypogonadism in nearly all prolactinomas irrespective of tumor size or preceding treatments. Hyperprolactinemia could be controlled in poor responders within 1 yr with doses higher than 3 mg/wk. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93: 4721-4727, 2008)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据