4.5 Article

CLINICAL COURSE AND OUTCOME OF NONFUNCTIONING PITUITARY ADENOMAS IN THE ELDERLY COMPARED WITH YOUNGER AGE GROUPS

Journal

ENDOCRINE PRACTICE
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 159-164

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4158/EP13182.OR

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) are the most common type of pituitary adenomas diagnosed in older patients. However, there are insufficient data regarding the clinical course, risk of regrowth, and long-term prognosis in elderly versus younger patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study observed 105 adult patients with NFPAs diagnosed between 1995 and 2012. Patients were stratified into 3 age groups: 18 to 44 years (29 patients), 45 to 64 years (38 patients), and 65 years and over (38 patients). The impact of age on presenting symptoms, disease course, and outcome was analyzed. Results: Adenoma size was larger in patients <45 years (mean, 2.9 +/- 1.2 cm) compared to patients aged 45 to 64 years and those >= 65 years old (2.3 +/- 0.9 and 2.5 +/- 0.8 cm, respectively; P = .05), with transsphenoidal surgery being the treatment of choice in all 3 groups (83, 92, and 84%, not significant). After a mean follow-up of 6 years, there were higher recovery rates from hypopituitarism in patients <45 years old (58% vs. 27% and 24%; P = .04). Visual fields improved in most affected patients in each group following surgery (74, 94, and 86%), with a trend toward more full normalization in the youngest age group (58% vs. 44% and 41%; P = .09). There were no significant differences in the risk of remnant growth (29 to 39%), rates of radiation therapy, or need for repeated surgeries. There was no disease-related mortality. Conclusion: Elderly patients with NFPA have lower rates of recovery from hypopituitarism after treatment compared to younger patients, but the rates of regrowth and need for salvage surgery are similar.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available