4.2 Review

Thyrotropin-secreting pituitary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and management

期刊

PITUITARY
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 79-88

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11102-018-0921-3

关键词

Endoscopy; Pituitary adenoma; SITSH; Thyrotropin secreting adenoma; Transsphenoidal; TSH-secreting adenoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTSH-secreting pituitary adenomas are rare pituitary tumors. An efficient treatment is essential to limit the mortality and morbidity in untreated patients. The aim of this study is to summarize the evidence about the postoperative outcomes and management of this rare pathology.MethodsA systematic search and meta-analysis of surgical series was performed.ResultsOur analysis included 23 articles (536 patients). No sex difference was observed and mean age at diagnosis was 45years. Hyperthyroidism was reportedly clinical in 67% and biochemical in 90% of patients. Co-secretion of other pituitary hormones was present in 42% of cases. Macroadenomas were found in 79% of patients, showing in 44% and 30% of cases respectively extrasellar extension and cavernous sinus invasion. The pooled rate of postoperative biochemical remission was 69.7% and a gross total resection (GTR) was observed in 54% of patients. The extent of resection was significantly increased in microadenomas (p<0.001) and cavernous sinus invasion was predictive of lower GTR rate (p<0.001). A biochemical remission was achieved in 66% of patients after adjuvant radiation therapy and in 76% after adjuvant medical treatment. The combination of both allowed remission in 67% of cases. At final follow-up the overall biochemical remission rate was significantly improved (85.8%) when compared to the postoperative biochemical remission (p<0.001).ConclusionWhen compared to the early postoperative period, at last follow-up biochemical remission was significantly greater (p<0.001). GTR was achieved in half of patients; the size of tumor and cavernous sinus invasion determined the extent of resection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据