Maria Elfving1, Margareta Nilsson2, Camilla Borghammar3, Ashkan Tamaddon2, Eva-Marie Erfurth4, Pia C Sundgren2,5,6, Peter Siesjö7. 1. Skåne University Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences, Pediatrics, Pediatric Endocrinology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 2. Skåne University Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences, Medical Imaging and Physiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 3. Skåne University Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences, Pediatrics, Pediatric Endocrinology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. camilla.borghammar@med.lu.se. 4. Skåne University Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences, Endocrinology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 5. Department of Clinical Sciences, Radiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 6. Lund Bioimaging Center, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 7. Skåne University Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences, Neurosurgery, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: No consensus exists regarding follow-up recommendations for suspected pituitary microadenoma in children. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated the growth potential of pituitary solid and cystic lesions <10 mm in children and evaluated the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements. METHODS: The children included were <18 years at first pituitary MRI and radiologically diagnosed with a non-functioning microadenoma or cyst <10 mm. Lesion size at first and latest MRI as well as all individual MRI examinations were re-evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 74 children, median age 12 years (range 3-17), had a non-functioning microadenoma, probable microadenoma, or cyst. Of these, 55 underwent repeated MRI (median 3, range 2-7) with a median follow-up of 37 months (range 4-189). None of the pituitary lesions without hormonal disturbances increased significantly during follow-up. Two radiologists agreed that no lesion could be identified in 38/269 (14%) MRI examinations, and in 51/231 (22%) they disagreed about lesion location. In 34/460 (7%) MRI measurements size differed >2 mm, which had been considered significant progression. CONCLUSION: Non-functioning pituitary microadenoma in children has small size variations, often below the spatial resolution of the scanners. We suggest lesions <4 mm only for clinical follow-up, lesions 4-6 mm for MRI after 2 years and ≥7 mm MRI after 1 and 3 years, with clinical follow-up in between. If no progression, further MRI should only be performed after new clinical symptoms or hormonal disturbances.
PURPOSE: No consensus exists regarding follow-up recommendations for suspected pituitary microadenoma in children. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated the growth potential of pituitary solid and cystic lesions <10 mm in children and evaluated the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements. METHODS: The children included were <18 years at first pituitary MRI and radiologically diagnosed with a non-functioning microadenoma or cyst <10 mm. Lesion size at first and latest MRI as well as all individual MRI examinations were re-evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 74 children, median age 12 years (range 3-17), had a non-functioning microadenoma, probable microadenoma, or cyst. Of these, 55 underwent repeated MRI (median 3, range 2-7) with a median follow-up of 37 months (range 4-189). None of the pituitary lesions without hormonal disturbances increased significantly during follow-up. Two radiologists agreed that no lesion could be identified in 38/269 (14%) MRI examinations, and in 51/231 (22%) they disagreed about lesion location. In 34/460 (7%) MRI measurements size differed >2 mm, which had been considered significant progression. CONCLUSION: Non-functioning pituitary microadenoma in children has small size variations, often below the spatial resolution of the scanners. We suggest lesions <4 mm only for clinical follow-up, lesions 4-6 mm for MRI after 2 years and ≥7 mm MRI after 1 and 3 years, with clinical follow-up in between. If no progression, further MRI should only be performed after new clinical symptoms or hormonal disturbances.
Authors: M Mercè Fernández-Balsells; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Amelia Barwise; Juan F Gallegos-Orozco; Anu Paul; Melanie A Lane; Julianna F Lampropulos; Inés Natividad; Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez; Paula G Ponce de León-Lovatón; Patricia J Erwin; Jantey Carey; Victor M Montori Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Federica Guaraldi; Helen L Storr; Lucia Ghizzoni; Ezio Ghigo; Martin O Savage Journal: Horm Res Paediatr Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Shereen Ezzat; Sylvia L Asa; William T Couldwell; Charles E Barr; William E Dodge; Mary Lee Vance; Ian E McCutcheon Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860