4.7 Article

Quality of life is decreased after treatment for nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Volume 91, Issue 9, Pages 3364-3369

Publisher

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2006-0003

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Although a reduced quality of life (QoL) has been reported after long-term cure of functioning pituitary adenomas, the effect of successful treatment of nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenoma (NFMA) on QoL has not been fully addressed. Therefore, we evaluated a broad spectrum of QoL parameters in patients successfully treated for NFMA in our center. Design: We conducted a case-control study. Patients and Methods: We assessed QoL in 99 adult patients (mean age, 61.9 yr; range, 24-86 yr) in remission during long-term follow-up after surgical (n = 99) and additional radiotherapeutic (n = 37) treatment for NFMA by four validated health-related questionnaires (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Multidimensional Fatigue Index, Nottingham Health Profile, and Short Form-36). Patient outcomes were compared with 125 controls and with age-adjusted reference values derived from the literature. Results: NFMA patients reported significantly impaired QoL in all questionnaires compared with the 125 controls and the age-adjusted reference values. All subscales of fatigue, assessed using the Multidimensional Fatigue Index (general fatigue, physical fatigue, reduction in activity, reduction in motivation, and mental fatigue) were impaired. The scores in the Nottingham Health Profile pointed toward reduced energy and affected emotional reaction. In several subscales of the Short Form-36 (social functioning, role limitations due to physical problems, role limitations due to emotional problems, and general health perception), NFMA patients reported a reduced QoL. Conclusion: QoL is considerably reduced in patients after successful treatment of NFMA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available