4.2 Review

Radically resected pituitary adenomas: prognostic role of Ki 67 labeling index in a monocentric retrospective series and literature review

Journal

PITUITARY
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 267-276

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11102-013-0500-6

Keywords

Pituitary adenoma; Ki-67; Recurrence; Disease-free survival; Complete removal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ki-67 Labeling Index is an immunocytochemical marker of cell proliferation. The correlation of Ki-67 expression with pituitary adenomas recurrence has been investigated and is highly debated. Aim of this study was to evaluate whether Ki-67 correlates with recurrence even in patients with an apparently completely removed pituitary adenoma. We retrospectively reviewed the database of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary Disease Unit at the Catholic University of Rome, collected between 2003 and 2011. Inclusion criteria were: patients who underwent surgery at the Department of Neurosurgery with an apparently complete removal of a pituitary adenoma; Ki-67 histological evaluation by the same operator and values of < 3 %. All patients underwent endocrine evaluation of the hypothalamic-pituitary function, ophthalmologic and neuro-radiological examinations, during the preoperative period and follow-up. Out of 490 patients recorded on the database of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary Disease Unit at the Catholic University of Rome, 191 cases met the inclusion criteria. Recurrence was observed in 49 cases (25.7 % of the patients who had undergone radical excision). Optional cut-off value was identified at Ki-67 values of 1.50 %. This was associated with worse disease-free survival time, even after correction for age at treatment, gender, positivity to p53, functional classification and Knosp grading. Ki-67 labeling index may be useful in postoperative management, even in patients who underwent radical PA removal. We suggest a Ki-67 cut-off value of 1.5 % to plan an adequate clinical follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available