4.4 Article

Pituitary apoplexy in non-functioning pituitary adenomas: long term follow up is important because of significant numbers of tumour recurrences

Journal

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 75, Issue 4, Pages 501-504

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2011.04068.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The frequency of pituitary tumour regrowth after an episode of classical pituitary apoplexy is unknown. It is thus unclear whether regrowth, if it occurs, does so less frequently than with non-apoplectic non-functioning pituitary macroadenomas that have undergone surgery without postoperative irradiation. This has important repercussions on follow up protocols for these patients. Design Retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with classical pituitary apoplexy in Oxford in the last 24 years. Measurements MRI/CT scans of the pituitary were performed post-operatively and in those patients who did not receive pituitary irradiation, this was repeated yearly for 5 years and 2 yearly thereafter. Results Thirty-two patients with non-functioning pituitary adenomas who presented with classical pituitary apoplexy were studied. There were 23 men and the mean age was 56.6 years (range 29-85). The mean follow up period was 81 months (range 6-248). Five patients received adjuvant radiotherapy within 6 months of surgery and were excluded from further analysis. In this group, there were no recurrences during a mean follow up of 83 months (range 20-150). In the remaining 27 cases there were 3 recurrences, with a mean of 79 months follow up (range 6-248) occurring 12, 51 and 86 months after surgery. This gives a recurrence rate of 11.1% at a mean follow up of 6.6 years post surgery. All recurrences had residual tumour on the post operative scan. Conclusions Patients with classical pituitary apoplexy may show recurrent pituitary tumour growth and therefore these patients need continued post-operative surveillance if they have not had post-operative radiotherapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available