4.6 Article

Morphometric changes correlate with poor psychological outcomes in patients with acromegaly

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 174, 期 1, 页码 41-50

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-15-0888

关键词

-

资金

  1. Capital Health Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Acromegaly is frequently associated with altered facial appearance at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, acromegaly is also associated with adverse psychological outcomes. We conducted a single-centre, cross-sectional study comparing patients with growth hormone vs non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFA) to assess the association between morphometric changes and psychological outcomes and illness perception of patients with acromegaly. Methods: A seven-step scale was developed to grade morphometric changes based on facial photographs. In addition, all patients were asked to drawan image of their own body and an image of what they considered to be an average healthy body and complete seven psychological questionnaires. We recruited 55 consecutive patients in each of the two groups who had undergone surgery with or without radiation therapy (RT). Results: Our data showed that the clinician-ratedmorphometric scale was highly reliable in assessing facial changes, with 93/99 (Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.95 (0.93-0.97)) graded as similar by independent raters. The mean (S.D.) grading for Acro and NFA patients on the clinician-ratedmorphometric scalewere 3.5 (1.3) and 0.41 (0.35) respectively (P < 0.0001). A higher clinician-rated morphometric score was also predictive of a poorer score on the drawing test. Conclusions: Our study demonstratesa correlation between physical changes associated with acromegaly and poor psychological outcomes, whereas no such correlation existed with modes of therapy, disease control status, RT, malignancy, initial or recent GH/IGF1 or secondary hormonal deficiency. Our data support the utility of the morphometric scale as a clinical tool for grading facial changes.

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

4.6
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