Liang Lv1, Yong Jiang1, Senlin Yin1, Yu Hu1, Cheng Chen1, Weichao Ma1, Shu Jiang1, Peizhi Zhou2. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Pituitary Adenoma Multidisciplinary Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Pituitary Adenoma Multidisciplinary Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. peizhizhou@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although well-documented from pathological aspect, the clinical features and outcomes of acromegaly with mammosomatotroph (MSA) and mixed somatotroph-lactotroph adenoma (MSLA) are seldom reported. Thus, in this study, we analyzed and reported the clinical data about MSAs and MSLAs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients with acromegaly in our institution during 2008-2017. Growth hormone (GH)-secreting adenomas were categorized into pure somatotroph adenoma (PSA), MSA and MSLA based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Clinical information and treatment outcomes during follow-up were analyzed by univariate and multivariate methods. RESULTS: Among 94 patients within this cohort, PSAs, MSAs, and MSLAs accounted for 53, 28 and 13 cases, respectively. MSAs often had smaller size, lower frequency of cavernous sinus invasion and higher gross total resection (GTR) rate. MSLAs were characterized by bigger tumor size, higher frequency of preoperative hyperprolactinemia, and lower GTR rate. Thus, MSLAs had worse long-term biological remission rate than MSAs and PSAs (15.4% vs. 50.0% and 26.4%, p = 0.0371). Gender (male, OR = 0.784, p = 0.011) and tumor volume (OR = 0.784, p = 0.020) were independent predictors for long-term biological remission in binary logistic regression. Subgroup analyses indicated that postoperative nadir GH level (GH-7, HR = 1.242, p = 0.001) was the only risk factor for tumor recurrence for patients with GTR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide valuable insights into clinicopathological features of acromegaly. MSAs were relatively smaller lesions with better prognosis. MSLAs were more aggressive with massive size, invasiveness and preoperative hyperprolactinemia. Tumor size and GH-7 were significantly associated with biological remission and tumor relapse after GTR, respectively.
PURPOSE: Although well-documented from pathological aspect, the clinical features and outcomes of acromegaly with mammosomatotroph (MSA) and mixed somatotroph-lactotroph adenoma (MSLA) are seldom reported. Thus, in this study, we analyzed and reported the clinical data about MSAs and MSLAs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients with acromegaly in our institution during 2008-2017. Growth hormone (GH)-secreting adenomas were categorized into pure somatotroph adenoma (PSA), MSA and MSLA based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Clinical information and treatment outcomes during follow-up were analyzed by univariate and multivariate methods. RESULTS: Among 94 patients within this cohort, PSAs, MSAs, and MSLAs accounted for 53, 28 and 13 cases, respectively. MSAs often had smaller size, lower frequency of cavernous sinus invasion and higher gross total resection (GTR) rate. MSLAs were characterized by bigger tumor size, higher frequency of preoperative hyperprolactinemia, and lower GTR rate. Thus, MSLAs had worse long-term biological remission rate than MSAs and PSAs (15.4% vs. 50.0% and 26.4%, p = 0.0371). Gender (male, OR = 0.784, p = 0.011) and tumor volume (OR = 0.784, p = 0.020) were independent predictors for long-term biological remission in binary logistic regression. Subgroup analyses indicated that postoperative nadirGH level (GH-7, HR = 1.242, p = 0.001) was the only risk factor for tumor recurrence for patients with GTR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide valuable insights into clinicopathological features of acromegaly. MSAs were relatively smaller lesions with better prognosis. MSLAs were more aggressive with massive size, invasiveness and preoperative hyperprolactinemia. Tumor size and GH-7 were significantly associated with biological remission and tumor relapse after GTR, respectively.
Authors: Katja Kiseljak-Vassiliades; Nichole E Carlson; Manuel T Borges; B K Kleinschmidt-DeMasters; Kevin O Lillehei; Janice M Kerr; Margaret E Wierman Journal: Endocrine Date: 2014-08-17 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Marco Losa; Carmine Antonio Donofrio; Marco Gemma; Lina Raffaella Barzaghi; Pietro Mortini Journal: Pituitary Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.107
Authors: Laurence Katznelson; Edward R Laws; Shlomo Melmed; Mark E Molitch; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Andrea Utz; John A H Wass Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Marvin Bergsneider; Leili Mirsadraei; William H Yong; Noriko Salamon; Michael Linetsky; Marilene B Wang; David L McArthur; Anthony P Heaney Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Daniela Esposito; Oskar Ragnarsson; Daniel Granfeldt; Tom Marlow; Gudmundur Johannsson; Daniel S Olsson Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Mark Sherlock; Raoul C Reulen; Aurora Aragon-Alonso; John Ayuk; Richard N Clayton; Michael C Sheppard; Michael M Hawkins; Andrew S Bates; Paul M Stewart Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 5.958