Literature DB >> 26106414

Temozolomide Therapy for Aggressive Pituitary Tumors: Results in a Small Series of Patients from Argentina.

Oscar D Bruno1, Lea Juárez-Allen1, Silvia B Christiansen2, Marcos Manavela3, Karina Danilowicz3, Carlos Vigovich3, Reynaldo M Gómez3.   

Abstract

We evaluated results of temozolomide (TMZ) therapy in six patients, aged 34-78 years, presenting aggressive pituitary tumors. In all the patients tested O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) immunoexpression in surgical specimens was absent. Patients received temozolomide 140-320 mg/day for 5 days monthly for at least 3 months. In two patients minimum time for evaluation could not be reached because of death in a 76-year-old man with a malignant prolactinoma and of severe neutro-thrombopenia in a 47-year-old woman with nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma. In two patients (a 34-year-old acromegalic woman and a 39-year-old woman with Nelson's syndrome) no response was observed after 4 and 6 months, respectively, and the treatment was stopped. Conversely, two 52- and 42-year-old women with Cushing's disease had long-term total clinical and radiological remissions which persisted after stopping temozolomide. We conclude that TMZ therapy may be of variable efficacy depending on-until now-incompletely understood factors. Cooperative work on a greater number of cases of aggressive pituitary tumors should be crucial to establish the indications, doses, and duration of temozolomide administration.

Entities:  

Year:  2015        PMID: 26106414      PMCID: PMC4461777          DOI: 10.1155/2015/587893

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Endocrinol        ISSN: 1687-8337            Impact factor:   3.257


1. Introduction

Aggressive pituitary tumors are invasive macroadenomas refractory to surgical and medical treatments, showing tendency to continuous growth and implicating a bad vital prognosis [1]. Until some years ago, no therapies were efficacious in treating that kind of tumors. First publications of treatment with the alkylating agent temozolomide (TMZ) appeared in 2006 [2, 3] and since then, variable responses to this drug have been reported in a limited number of cases with tumor volume reduction and control of the disease in some of them. We present here our experience with the use of temozolomide in six patients with different variants of aggressive pituitary tumors.

2. Patients and Methods

Six patients with intention-to-treat with TMZ, presenting different types of aggressive pituitary tumors, were evaluated. They were 5 women aged 34–52 and one 78-year-old man. They all presented macroadenomas (more than 10 mm) with cavernous sinus invasion, two of them with third par palsies and one with bitemporal hemianopsia. The only male patient had pituitary carcinoma (malignant prolactinoma) with an isolated parietal metastasis which was first biopsied and then surgically excised. All patients had had unsuccessful previous pituitary surgery (from 1 to 5 times), radiotherapy in 3, and conventional drug treatment in 4 of them, aimed at controlling hyperfunction and/or tumor volume (Table 1). The definition of aggressive pituitary tumor was based on clinical grounds (invasive macroadenomas refractory to surgical and medical treatments, showing tendency to continuous growth) as previously stated. We use the denomination pituitary carcinoma when extrapituitary presence of tumor (metastasis) is found. Temozolomide was administered as oral pills in variable doses, from 140 to 320 mg/day for 5 days every month, for at least 3 months before evaluating results. TMZ administration was preceded by the oral intake of ondansetron, as antiemetic prevention. Hematologic and liver function tests were performed before each cycle of therapy. Results of treatment were evaluated by monthly clinical examination and pituitary MRI after at least 3 months of therapy; computerized visual field examination and routine hormone tests were also made, when indicated.
Table 1

Main clinical traits of 6 patients with intention-to-treat with temozolomide.

PatientSexAgeTumor type Number of previous surgeriesRxTPrevious drug therapy
JBM78PRL Ca1YesCAB
SAF47CNFPA3NoCAB
LCF34GH-oma2NoCAB, SSAs
DDOF39NS2YesNone
CMF42CD1NoNone
GMF52CD5YesKNZ

PRLCa: prolactin carcinoma; GH-oma: somatotropinoma; CNFPA: clinically nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma; NS: Nelson' syndrome; CD: Cushing's disease; RxT: radiotherapy; CAB: cabergoline; SSAs: somatostatin analogs; KNZ: ketoconazole.

For determinations of MGMT and marker of cell proliferation Ki67 on pathological specimens, all blocks were formalin buffer fixed and paraffin embedded. Cuts of 3-4 microns were made and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Immunohistochemical determinations for adenohypophyseal hormones GH, FSH, LH, and TSH were made by using rabbit polyclonal Cell Marque (http://www.cellmarque.com/) antibodies whereas for PRL and ACTH, rabbit polyclonal DAKO (http://www.dako.com/) antibodies were employed. Ki67 and O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase Ab-1 (MGMT) were measured by using mouse monoclonal antibodies from Thermo Scientific (http://www.thermoscientific.com/) in a 1 : 20 dilution. Immunostaining for MGMT was considered negative when lower than 10%.

3. Results

Figure 1 shows a MGMT-negative macrocorticotropinoma study of patient GM as compared to a MGMT-positive glioblastoma. Table 2 shows the results of MGMT and Ki67 immunohistochemistry, individual doses administered, length of therapy, and clinical outcome in the six patients.
Figure 1

The upper panel (a) shows a diffuse positive MGMT control (glioblastoma). The lower panel (b) corresponds to a negative MGMT immunostaining of macrocorticotropinoma in patient GM.

Table 2

Results of MGMT and Ki67 immunohistochemistry, doses, length of therapy, and clinical outcome in 6 patients with intention-to-treat with TMZ.

PatientTumor typeMGMTKi67TMZ mg/dMonthsOutcome
JBPRL Ca(−)10%1401Death
SACNFPAND2%1501Failure
LCGH-oma(−)3%3204Failure
DDONelson's(−)1%2406Failure
CMCD(−)6%25013Remission
GMCD(−)4%18029Remission
Drug therapy effect could not be evaluated in patients JB and SA because they failed to complete a 3-month treatment. JB had a malignant prolactinoma with brain metastases which deceased after the first administration of TMZ and SA developed severe thrombocytopenia and neutropenia after the first cycle of therapy. In two more patients TMZ was stopped after 4 (LC) and 6 (DDO) months of treatment, because it was considered ineffective in reducing tumor size. The two last patients having macrocorticotropinoma and Cushing's disease have been reported in detail elsewhere [4]. They showed clinical response after just 3-4 cycles of administration of TMZ with remission of ocular signs, normalization of cortisol alterations, and significant shrinkage (more than 50%) of the tumors, which completely disappeared one year later and, most interestingly, long time (19–30 months) after stopping therapy the patients remained well with no signs of tumor relapse [4].

4. Discussion

Frequency of pituitary tumors appears to be higher than previously suspected, as high as 1 in 1000 of the general population [5, 6]. They are usually benign and in most cases controlled by surgery, radiation, or medical treatments. In 2004 the World Health Organization defined as “atypical” those tumors exhibiting a MIB-1 (Ki-67) proliferative index >3%, strong p53 immunoreactivity, and increased mitotic activity [7]. They make up 15% of resected pituitary tumors [8]. Up to 45% of macroadenomas show signs of invasion of the sphenoid or cavernous sinus [9]. The concept of  “aggressive” pituitary tumors represents a clinical appreciation to designate tumors that may recur quickly after surgery, grow into the cavernous sinus or skull base, and show resistance to the usual therapeutic means. The name pituitary carcinoma is reserved for those tumors with neural or extraneural metastases which make up less than 1% of the totality of pituitary tumors. It has to be emphasized that they do not show histological differences with other aggressive tumors save for the existence of metastases [10]. So called silent pituitary adenomas are tumors, mainly gonadotrope, corticotrope, and somatotrope, having an aggressive behavior, with frequent recurrences which made up 9% in 100 samples studied retrospectively [11]. They can be classified as “silent,” with immunohistochemical evidence but no biochemical or clinical evidence of hormone excess, or “clinically silent” with immunohistochemical and biochemical evidence but no clinical evidence of hormone excess. Temozolomide is an alkylating drug which has been used mainly in the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme but also for colorectal cancer and melanoma [12-14]. This drug has been used for the treatment of pituitary carcinoma and aggressive adenoma from the year 2006 onwards [2, 3]. Its mechanism of action is through sticking an alkyl group to DNA bases, principally guanine, which induces methylation. Subsequently, it provokes the fragmentation of DNA by repairing enzymes in its attempt to replace the alkylated bases [15]. Up to now, around 105 pituitary tumors treated with TMZ have been reported in the literature with variable results (Table 3) [4, 16–53]. More than half (~60%) were aggressive adenomas, the remaining being pituitary carcinomas. Most were functioning tumors, especially corticotropinomas and prolactinomas (~80%). Global efficacy of TMZ therapy oscillated between 55% for aggressive adenomas and 58% for pituitary carcinomas, but it has to be underlined that criteria for efficacy were quite diverse, going from variable reduction to “stabilization” in tumoral size. It has to be remarked that in none of the reported cases a sustained disappearance of tumor after stopping TMZ was described. As far as aggressive macrocorticotropinomas are concerned, we were able to find 37 published cases silent or with overt hypercortisolism. Once again, criteria employed to evaluate response were quite diverse. In just one of those cases [20], the tumor disappeared under treatment but if the patient was treated with a CAPTEM schema (capecitabine plus temozolomide) we cannot know which one of the two drugs was more effective.
Table 3

Literature update on aggressive pituitary adenomas and carcinomas.

Author, year [reference]Sex/ageTumor typeKi67 (%)MGMTTMZ (mg/m2) & schedule (no. cycles)MRI (% shrinkage)Clinical outcome
Thearle et al., 2011 [16]M/50ACTH SA Ad → Ca → NS31NA200 × 5/28 + CAP (4)Reduced (75)Death

Dillard et al., 2011 [17]M/56ACTH Ad5-6NA150–200 × 5/28 (4)Reduced (60)CR

Annamalai et al., 2012 [18]M/65ACTH Ca5–15Low200 × 5/28 (15)PR of METS“Remained well”

Moshkin et al., 2011 [19]M/46ACTH SA Ad → Ca1–5(+)200 × 5/28 (16)No changeProgression

Zacharia et al., 2014 [20]M/50ACTH Ad<5(−) 150, 5/28 + CAP (30)SDPR
F/46ACTH Ad15–20(−)150, 5/28 + CAP (32)CRCR
M/44ACTH Ad<5(−)150, 5/28 (45) + CAP + A-SSTCRCR

Raverot et al., 2010 [21] M/31ACTH Ca → NS2050 (+)150–200 × 5/28No changeNA
M/49ACTH Ad20<1150–200 × 5/28No changeNA
M/38ACTH Ca1030 (+)150–200 × 5/28SR“Significant response”
F/42ACTH Ad0.50150–200 × 5/28 SR“Significant response”
M/32PRL CaNANA150–200 × 5/28 (24)Reduced (60), disappearance of METSNA
M/52PRL Ad0.530150–200 × 5/28 (8)No changeNA
M/54PRL Ca10150–200 × 5/28 (5)No changeNA
F/30PRL Ca10100150–200 × 5/28 (3)No changeNA

Bush et al., 2010 [22] NANull cell Ad<375 × 21/7 (10)Reduced (20) Stable
NAACTH Ad18<1075 × 21/28 (11)Reduced (80)“Improved”
NANF Ad<310–50 75 × 21/(13)SDSD
NANull cell Ad6>5075 × 21/7 (10)SDSD
NAPRL AdNA<1075 × 21/7 (11)Reduced (80)“Improved”
NANull cell Ca>20>5075 × 21/7 (2)SD × 2 monthsNA
NANull cell Ca>20<1075 × 21/7 (7)ProgressionDeath

Hirohata et al., 2013 [23] M/59NF Ca74.6(+)150–200 × 5/28 (5)PRNA
F/42ACTH Ca3.4(−)150–200 × 5/28 (7)PRNA
F/60PRL Ca18.7(−)150–200 × 5/28 (13)CRNA
M/23NF Ca2.5(+)150–200 × 5/28 (7)SDNA
F/53ACTH Ca (Crooke cell)2.0(+)150–200 × 5/28 (20)CRNA
F/60PRL Ca27.8(+)150–200 × 5/28 (12)PRNA
M/57ACTH Ca10(+)150–200 × 5/28 (8)SDNA
F/73NF Ca5.6(−)150–200 × 5/28 (22)PRNA
M/60PRL Ca40.2(−)150–200 × 5/28 (24)PRNA
F/61NF Ca12.2(+)75 × 6 weeks + RT ProgressionNA
F/66PRL Ad9.4(−)75 × 6 weeks + RTCRNA
F/49PRL Ad3.9(−)NA (3)ProgressionNA
F/45ACTH Ad (Crooke cell)46.8(+)150–200 × 5/28 (11)PRNA

Losa et al., 2010 [24] M/64ACTH AdNANA150–200 × 5/28ProgressionDeath
M/52ACTH Cd1(−)150–200 × 5/28“Response”Required GC therapy
F/55ACTH Ad → NS5(−)150–200 × 5/28SDNA
F/53ACTH Ad2.5(+)150–200 × 5/28ProgressionNo change
M/62PRL Ad9(−)150–200 × 5/28SDNA
F/57PRL AdNANoninformative150–200 × 5/28“Response”“Improved”

Moyes et al., 2009 [25]F/64ACTH Ad → NS“High”(−)200 × 5/28 (6)“Marked shrinkage”“Improved”

Takeshita et al., 2009 [26]F/46ACTH Ca → NS~3<5 (−)150–200 × 5/28 (23)CR tumor + METSRequired GC therapy

Curtò et al., 2010 [27]M/42ACTH Ca2–18<5 (−)150–200 × 5/28 (17)Reduced (>90) “Improved”

Mohammed et al., 2009 [28] F/43ACTH AdNA(−)150–200 × 5/28 (12)PR“Improved”
M/60ACTH Ca → NSNA(+)150–200 × 5/28 (12)PR“Improved”

Bode et al., 2010 [29]NAACTH Ca → NSNANA150 × 5/28PRNA

Jouanneau et al., 2012 [30]NASA → CaNANA200 × 5/28NRNA

Asimakopoulou et al., 2014 [31]F/55ACTH Ad (Crooke cell)1NA150–200 × 5/28CRCR

Bengtsson et al., 2015 [32] F/71ACTH Ad5090150–200 × 5/28SDNA
F/31GH Ad79–100150–200 × 5/28 (6)Reduced (50)Regrowth after TMZ stop
F/13GH Ad595150–200 × 5/28NANA
M/33PRL-GH Ad2310150–200 × 5/28 (3)Reduced (35)SD 25 months after TMZ
M/22PRL Ad890150–200 × 5/28 (15)Reduced (25)Death
M/34PRL Ad69–100150–200 × 5/28 (4)Stable 40 m after TMZ PR
M/45PRL Ad2100150–200 × 5/28 (5)ProgressionPR
M/55PRL Ad1020150–200 × 5/28 (11)Reduced (66)Death
M/60PRL Ad29150–200 + CAB (21)Reduced (80)Death
M/68PRL AdNA150–200 × 5/28ProgressionDeath
M/23PRL Ad41100150–200 × 5/28 (4)ProgressionDeath
M/22NF Ad 29150–200 × 5/28 (12)Reduced (55)SD 69 m after TMZ
M/45NF Ad2100150–200 × 5/28 (18)Reduced (28) NA
F/52NF Ad1090150–200 × 5/28 (5)ProgressionDeath
M/59NF Ad1090150–200 × 5/28 (6)ProgressionDeath
M/57NF Ad3.395150–200 × 5/28ProgressionDeath
M/51ACTH Ca800–60150–200 × 5/28NADeath
M/62ACTH Ca (NS)1095150–200 × 5/28NALost to follow-up
M/70ACTH Ca709150–200 × 5/28NANA
M/46GH Ca6090150–200 × 5/28NADeath
F/40GH Ca209150–200 × 5/28CRCR after 48 months
F/49PRL-GH Ca59150–200 × 5/28CRCR after 91 months
F/32PRL Ca2050150–200 × 5/28NADeath
F/59PRL Ca10NA150–200 × 5/28NAPR

Vieira Neto et al., 2013 [33]F/54GH S Ca2.668150–200 × 5/28SDNA

Morokuma et al., 2012 [34]M/58NF Ca/NEM-17.6(−)75/d × 42 days; then 192 × 5/28 + RT (20)“Visibly declined”“Improved”

Zhong et al., 2014 [35]F/30NF Ad20NA200/d × 5/4 consecutive weeks/2 months + RT (4)CRNA

Syro et al., 2009 [36]M/70Gn Ad2–630–>50200 × 5/28 (6)“Minor reduction” and intratumoral necrosisDeath

Hagen et al., 2009 [37] F/48PRL Ad to mixed PRL-GH Ad to Ca5(−)150–200 + CAB/STT-AReduced (62)“Improved”
M/60PRL Ad~2(−)150–200 + CABReduced (80)“Improved”
M/20NF Ad~2Few (+)150–200Reduced (55)“Improved”

Mendola et al., 2014 [38]M/58NS Ca10NA160 × 5/28 (1)NoNo change

Strowd et al., 2015 [39]F/44PRL AdNANA150–200 × 5/28 (3 months)“Reduction in tumor size”PR

Ceccato et al., 2015 [40] F/67NF Ad<3NA150–200 × 5/28ProgressionNo change
F/39GH Ad<3NA150–200 × 5/28ProgressionNo change
M/40NF Ad<3NA150–200 × 5/28Decreased (49) NA
M/32ACTH Ad<3NA150–200 × 5/28Decreased (63) No change
M/47NF Ad → ACTH<3NA150–200 × 5/28 + pasireotideDecreased (21)No change

Philippon et al., 2012 [41]M/41PRL Ca/MEN-1NANA200 × 5/28 (24)Decreased (62) “Improved”

Fadul et al., 2006 [42]M/38NF Ca 1NA200 × 5/23 (12)PR PR
M/26PRL Ca10200 × 5/23 (10)PRPR

Kovacs et al., 2007 [43]M/46PRL Ca40–60NA200 × 5/28 (7)“Shrinkage”“Improved”

Cornell et al., 2013 [44]M/40ACTH Ad5–7NA200 × 5/28 (3)ProgressionNo change

Phillips et al., 2012 [45]M/25PRL Ad23NA350 × 5 (1)No changeDeath

Rotondo et al., 2012 [46]F/49Crooke cell Ad5–8(−)85 p.o daily + SRTNANA

Arnold et al., 2012 [47]F/61ACTH CaNANANA (12)“Resolved” PR

Morin et al., 2012 [48]M/22GH Ad3-4NA200 × 5/28 (5)No changeIncreased signs

Whitelaw et al., 2012 [49] M/34PRL Ad15(−)200 × 5/28 (6)“Dramatic reduction”“Significant improvement”
M/32PRL Ad8(−)200 × 5/28 (6)“Substantial reduction”“Significant improvement”
M/13PRL Ad4(−)200 × 5/28 (12)PRPR

Ersen et al., 2012 [50]NAGn AdNATwo zones: (−) and (+), 60%200 × 5/28 (14)SD“Clinical improvement”

Scheithauer et al., 2012 [51]F/13 monthsPituitary blastoma NAVaried from 40 to 60%100 × 5/28 (12 + 6)ProgressionNA

Ortiz et al., 2012 [52]M/38ACTH Ad → CaNAHigh200 × 5/28 (8)No changeProgression

Batisse et al., 2013 [53]M/47GH Ad(−)High200 × 5/28 (3)ProgressionNo significant response

Bruno et al., 2015 [4] F/52ACTH Ad6(−)150–200 × 5/28 (29)CR CR
F/42ACTH Ad4(−)150–200 × 5/28 (12)CRCR

Ad: adenoma; Ca: carcinoma; SA: silent adenoma; NS: Nelson's syndrome; NF: nonfunctioning; PRL: lactotrope; ACTH: corticotrope; GH: somatotrope; Gn: gonadotrope; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; NA: not available; RT: radiotherapy; CR: complete response; PR: partial response; SR: “significant” reduction; METS: metastases; SD: stable disease; CAB: cabergoline; STT-A: somatostatin agonist; CAP: capecitabine; →: change; (og): ongoing.

Doses of temozolomide usually recommended in neurology are adapted to body surface and oscillate from 150 to 200 mg/m2 [54]. Doses employed in our patients were variable, but generally lower than recommended. It has to be underlined that dose amount was mostly determined by availability following individual medical coverage. Interestingly, patients MC and GM who had total remission received fixed doses of 250 mg/d and 180 mg/d, respectively, while, if adapted to body surface area, those figures should have been 291–388 mg/d for MC and 273–364 mg/d for GM. The role that the DNA repairing systems may play in the effectiveness of temozolomide is controversial, especially concerning MGMT. This enzyme can reverse methylation of the guanine residues, thus antagonizing the effect of the drug. It has been reported that a low expression or the absence of this enzyme strongly correlates with the response to TMZ [15]. This has been challenged by other authors, who failed to find such a correlation [21, 23]. It has been proposed that the preservation of another enzyme system, MSH6 (DNA mismatch repair protein), correlated better with the response to TMZ than the absence of MGMT [23, 54]. In our series, the five patients in whom we were able to measure MGMT failed to show a significant expression (less than 5%); two of them having aggressive corticotropinoma had excellent clinical responses to temozolomide. Nevertheless, this does not enable us to extrapolate any conclusions at this respect, since two other MGMT-negative patients who completed the minimum period of treatment failed to show a response. For a more rational use of TMZ several points deserve clarification: What should be the starting and maintenance doses? How can efficacy be defined? How long should the treatment be given? How big is the mutagenic risk? What is the recurrence risk after stopping TMZ? What is the probability of relapse with resistance to TMZ after stopping a successful therapy? In conclusion, although less common, clinically aggressive pituitary tumors are not at all exceptional and pose special therapeutic challenges because surgery and radiotherapy are frequently useless and usual drug therapy is of variable and unpredictable efficacy. So called “silent” tumors appear to be particularly aggressive and, although less frequent, invasive corticotropinomas may present a difficult challenge as well, since besides local complications, they put life at risk because of the metabolic consequences of excess cortisol secretion. Temozolomide may be a salvage drug in selected cases, mainly in prolactinoma and corticotrope tumors. Cooperative work on a greater number of cases of aggressive pituitary tumors should be of the outmost importance to establish the indications, doses, and duration of temozolomide administration.
  53 in total

Review 1.  Temozolomide responsiveness in aggressive corticotroph tumours: a case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  A K Annamalai; A F Dean; N Kandasamy; K Kovacs; H Burton; D J Halsall; A S Shaw; N M Antoun; H K Cheow; R W Kirollos; J D Pickard; H L Simpson; S J Jefferies; N G Burnet; M Gurnell
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.107

2.  Salvage therapy with temozolomide in patients with aggressive or metastatic pituitary adenomas: experience in six cases.

Authors:  Marco Losa; Elena Mazza; Maria Rosa Terreni; Ann McCormack; Anthony J Gill; Micaela Motta; Maria Giulia Cangi; Anna Talarico; Pietro Mortini; Michele Reni
Journal:  Eur J Endocrinol       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 6.664

3.  Aggressive pituitary tumours: the role of temozolomide and the assessment of MGMT status.

Authors:  Ann I McCormack; John A H Wass; Ashley B Grossman
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2011-04-18       Impact factor: 4.686

4.  Long-term response of pituitary carcinoma to temozolomide. Report of two cases.

Authors:  Camilo E Fadul; Andrew L Kominsky; Louise P Meyer; Linda S Kingman; William B Kinlaw; C Harker Rhodes; Clifford J Eskey; Nathan E Simmons
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 5.  Molecular status of pituitary carcinoma and atypical adenoma that contributes the effectiveness of temozolomide.

Authors:  Akira Matsuno; Mineko Murakami; Katsumi Hoya; Shoko M Yamada; Shinya Miyamoto; So Yamada; Jae-Hyun Son; Hajime Nishido; Fuyuaki Ide; Hiroshi Nagashima; Mutsumi Sugaya; Toshio Hirohata; Akiko Mizutani; Hiroko Okinaga; Yudo Ishii; Shigeyuki Tahara; Akira Teramoto; R Yoshiyuki Osamura
Journal:  Med Mol Morphol       Date:  2013-08-17       Impact factor: 2.309

6.  SOM230 (pasireotide) and temozolomide achieve sustained control of tumour progression and ACTH secretion in pituitary carcinoma with widespread metastases.

Authors:  H Bode; M Seiz; A Lammert; M A Brockmann; W Back; H-P Hammes; C Thomé
Journal:  Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 2.949

7.  Temozolomide treatment for aggressive pituitary tumors: correlation of clinical outcome with O(6)-methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation and expression.

Authors:  Zachary M Bush; Janina A Longtine; Tracy Cunningham; David Schiff; John A Jane; Mary Lee Vance; Michael O Thorner; Edward R Laws; M Beatriz S Lopes
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2010-07-28       Impact factor: 5.958

8.  What causes a prolactinoma to be aggressive or to become a pituitary carcinoma?

Authors:  Jana Phillips; Honey E East; Sarah E French; Eugen Melcescu; Robert D Hamilton; William C Nicholas; Jonathan F Fratkin; Andrew D Parent; Gustavo Luzardo; Christian A Koch
Journal:  Hormones (Athens)       Date:  2012 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.885

9.  Prevalence of pituitary adenomas: a community-based, cross-sectional study in Banbury (Oxfordshire, UK).

Authors:  Alberto Fernandez; Niki Karavitaki; John A H Wass
Journal:  Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)       Date:  2009-07-24       Impact factor: 3.478

10.  Long-term remission in an aggressive Crooke cell adenoma of the pituitary, 18 months after discontinuation of treatment with temozolomide.

Authors:  Athina Asimakopoulou; Marinela Tzanela; Ageliki Koletti; George Kontogeorgos; Stylianos Tsagarakis
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2013-12-09
View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  Corticotrophic pituitary carcinoma with cervical metastases: case series and literature review.

Authors:  Frederick Yoo; Edward C Kuan; Anthony P Heaney; Marvin Bergsneider; Marilene B Wang
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 4.107

Review 2.  Is there a role for early chemotherapy in the management of pituitary adenomas?

Authors:  Andrew L Lin; Melissa W Sum; Lisa M DeAngelis
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 3.  How effective is temozolomide for treating pituitary tumours and when should it be used?

Authors:  Carmel Halevy; Benjamin C Whitelaw
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.107

Review 4.  The pituitary TGFβ1 system as a novel target for the treatment of resistant prolactinomas.

Authors:  M Victoria Recouvreux; M Andrea Camilletti; Daniel B Rifkin; Graciela Díaz-Torga
Journal:  J Endocrinol       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 4.286

5.  Corticotroph tumor progression after bilateral adrenalectomy (Nelson's syndrome): systematic review and expert consensus recommendations.

Authors:  Martin Reincke; Adriana Albani; Guillaume Assie; Irina Bancos; Thierry Brue; Michael Buchfelder; Olivier Chabre; Filippo Ceccato; Andrea Daniele; Mario Detomas; Guido Di Dalmazi; Atanaska Elenkova; James Findling; Ashley B Grossman; Celso E Gomez-Sanchez; Anthony P Heaney; Juergen Honegger; Niki Karavitaki; Andre Lacroix; Edward R Laws; Marco Losa; Masanori Murakami; John Newell-Price; Francesca Pecori Giraldi; Luis G Pérez-Rivas; Rosario Pivonello; William E Rainey; Silviu Sbiera; Jochen Schopohl; Constantine A Stratakis; Marily Theodoropoulou; Elisabeth F C van Rossum; Elena Valassi; Sabina Zacharieva; German Rubinstein; Katrin Ritzel
Journal:  Eur J Endocrinol       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 6.664

Review 6.  Treatment of Aggressive Prolactin-Secreting Pituitary Adenomas with Adjuvant Temozolomide Chemotherapy: A Review.

Authors:  Marc Moisi; Aurora S Cruz; Tara Benkers; Steven Rostad; Frances Broyles Broyles; Kevin Yuen; Marc Mayberg
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2016-06-27

Review 7.  Clinical and Pathological Aspects of Silent Pituitary Adenomas.

Authors:  Juliana Drummond; Federico Roncaroli; Ashley B Grossman; Márta Korbonits
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 5.958

8.  Temozolomide therapy for aggressive functioning pituitary adenomas refractory to surgery and radiation: a case series.

Authors:  Justin T Jordan; Julie J Miller; Tucker Cushing; Marlon Seijo; Tracy T Batchelor; Isabel C Arrillaga-Romany; Helen A Shih; Lisa B Nachtigall; Jay S Loeffler; Jorg Dietrich
Journal:  Neurooncol Pract       Date:  2017-05-26

9.  Clinical Efficacy of Temozolomide and Its Predictors in Aggressive Pituitary Tumors and Pituitary Carcinomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mei Luo; Yiheng Tan; Wenli Chen; Bin Hu; Zongming Wang; Diming Zhu; Haosen Jiao; Chengbin Duan; Yonghong Zhu; Haijun Wang
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 4.003

10.  Treatment of aggressive prolactinoma with temozolomide: A case report and review of literature up to date.

Authors:  Cheng Chen; Senlin Yin; Shizhen Zhang; Mengmeng Wang; Yu Hu; Peizhi Zhou; Shu Jiang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.