| Literature DB >> 25396071 |
Jayesh P Thawani1, Robert L Bailey1, Carrie M Burns2, John Y K Lee1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Examining the pathologic progression of a pituitary adenoma from the point of a prepubescent child to an adult with gigantism affords us an opportunity to consider why patients may develop secretory or functioning tumors and raises questions about whether therapeutic interventions and surveillance strategies could be made to avoid irreversible phenotypic changes. CASE DESCRIPTION: A patient underwent a sublabial transsphenoidal resection for a clinically non-functioning macroadenoma in 1999. He underwent radiation treatment and was transiently given growth hormone (GH) supplementation as an adolescent. His growth rapidly traversed several percentiles and he was found to have elevated GH levels. The patient became symptomatic and was taken for a second neurosurgical procedure. Pathology and immunohistochemical staining demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of somatotroph cells and dense granularity; he was diagnosed with a functional somatotroph adenoma.Entities:
Keywords: Gigantism; growth hormone; non-functional adenoma; pituitary adenoma; somatotroph adenoma
Year: 2014 PMID: 25396071 PMCID: PMC4228498 DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.143277
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Neurol Int ISSN: 2152-7806
Figure 1MR imaging. (a) Pre-operative from 5/1999. (b) Recurrent adenoma, 2008. (c) MRI s/p endoscopic endonasal approach (2nd operation), 2009. (d) Recent MRI, 12/2012
Clinical and developmental characteristics of patient
Figure 2Growth chart. (a) Stature with age. (b) Weight with age. The CDC growth chart for males (age 2-20) is indicated by percentile. Percentiles are indicated as P where P3 represents the third percentile and so forth
Figure 3Non-functioning adenoma and recurrent, functioning adenoma. (a) Histological examination from the first resection showed sheets of a uniform population of neoplastic cells with loss of the normal adenohypophysis architecture, ×200. (b) Several cells stained positive for GH immunohistochemistry (sparse granulation), 200×. Second resection after 9 years showed similar histological features HandE, ×200 (c) and a more diffuse positivity for GH immunohistochemistry (dense granulation), ×200 (d)