CONTEXT: Serum pituitary antibodies (Pit Abs) and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have been described in pituitary adenomas, but their clinical significance remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess Pit Abs and TILs prevalence in pituitary adenomas and their influence on clinical outcome. DESIGN: This was a prevalence case-control study. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Two hundred ninety-one pituitary adenoma cases (110 non-secreting, 30 ACTH-69 GH-71 prolactin- and 13 TSH-secreting adenoma; 177 operated and 114 untreated), 409 healthy controls, and 14 autoimmune hypophysitis were enrolled in a tertiary referral center. INTERVENTION: Pit Abs were measured using immunofluorescence in all cases and controls (n = 714). The presence of TILs was evaluated using CD45 staining in a subset of adenomas surgically treated (n = 72). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Clinical response of pituitary adenoma after surgery was evaluated. RESULTS: Pit Abs prevalence was higher in adenomas (5.1%) than healthy subjects (0.7%, P < 0.0001) and lower than in autoimmune hypophysitis patients (57%, P < 0.0001). Similarly, TILs prevalence was higher in adenomas than normal pituitary (P = 0.01) and lower than in autoimmune hypophysitis (P < 0.0001). No correlation between Pit Abs and TILs was found (P = 0.78). A poor clinical outcome was more common in adenoma patients with TILs (11 of 18, 61%) than in those without (17 of 54, 31%, P = 0.026). Multivariate regression analysis identified the presence of TILs as independent prognostic factor for persistence/recurrence of pituitary adenoma. CONCLUSIONS: TILs and Pit Abs are present in a significant number of pituitary adenoma patients. Cell-mediated immunity appears to be predictive of a less favorable clinical outcome.
CONTEXT: Serum pituitary antibodies (Pit Abs) and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have been described in pituitary adenomas, but their clinical significance remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess Pit Abs and TILs prevalence in pituitary adenomas and their influence on clinical outcome. DESIGN: This was a prevalence case-control study. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Two hundred ninety-one pituitary adenoma cases (110 non-secreting, 30 ACTH-69 GH-71 prolactin- and 13 TSH-secreting adenoma; 177 operated and 114 untreated), 409 healthy controls, and 14 autoimmune hypophysitis were enrolled in a tertiary referral center. INTERVENTION: Pit Abs were measured using immunofluorescence in all cases and controls (n = 714). The presence of TILs was evaluated using CD45 staining in a subset of adenomas surgically treated (n = 72). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Clinical response of pituitary adenoma after surgery was evaluated. RESULTS: Pit Abs prevalence was higher in adenomas (5.1%) than healthy subjects (0.7%, P < 0.0001) and lower than in autoimmune hypophysitispatients (57%, P < 0.0001). Similarly, TILs prevalence was higher in adenomas than normal pituitary (P = 0.01) and lower than in autoimmune hypophysitis (P < 0.0001). No correlation between Pit Abs and TILs was found (P = 0.78). A poor clinical outcome was more common in adenomapatients with TILs (11 of 18, 61%) than in those without (17 of 54, 31%, P = 0.026). Multivariate regression analysis identified the presence of TILs as independent prognostic factor for persistence/recurrence of pituitary adenoma. CONCLUSIONS: TILs and Pit Abs are present in a significant number of pituitary adenomapatients. Cell-mediated immunity appears to be predictive of a less favorable clinical outcome.
Authors: Y M Keda; I V Krjukova; I A Ilovaiskaia; M S Morozova; O V Fofanova; M B Babarina; E I Marova; Y A Pankov; V I Kandror Journal: J Endocrinol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.286
Authors: C Parker; M Milosevic; T Panzarella; D Banerjee; M Jewett; C Catton; B Tew-George; M Gospodarowicz; P Warde Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Lin Zhang; Jose R Conejo-Garcia; Dionyssios Katsaros; Phyllis A Gimotty; Marco Massobrio; Giorgia Regnani; Antonis Makrigiannakis; Heidi Gray; Katia Schlienger; Michael N Liebman; Stephen C Rubin; George Coukos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-01-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Giao Q Phan; James C Yang; Richard M Sherry; Patrick Hwu; Suzanne L Topalian; Douglas J Schwartzentruber; Nicholas P Restifo; Leah R Haworth; Claudia A Seipp; Linda J Freezer; Kathleen E Morton; Sharon A Mavroukakis; Paul H Duray; Seth M Steinberg; James P Allison; Thomas A Davis; Steven A Rosenberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-06-25 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: I Lupi; L Manetti; V Raffaelli; M Lombardi; M Cosottini; A Iannelli; F Basolo; A Proietti; F Bogazzi; P Caturegli; E Martino Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Jian-Qiang Lu; Benjamin Adam; Andrew S Jack; Anna Lam; Robert W Broad; Constance L Chik Journal: Endocr Pathol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.943
Authors: I Lupi; L Manetti; V Raffaelli; L Grasso; C Sardella; M Cosottini; A Iannelli; M Gasperi; F Bogazzi; P Caturegli; E Martino Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Casey Jo Anne Smith; Sophie Bensing; Vicki E Maltby; Mingdong Zhang; Rodney J Scott; Roger Smith; Olle Kämpe; Tomas Hökfelt; Patricia A Crock Journal: Pituitary Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.107
Authors: I Lupi; V Raffaelli; G Di Cianni; P Caturegli; L Manetti; A M Ciccarone; F Bogazzi; S Mariotti; S Del Prato; E Martino Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.256