From Knee Pain Consultation to Pituitary Surgery: The Challenge of Cushing Disease Diagnosis

Abstract

Cushing syndrome (CS) is a rare endocrinological disorder resulting from chronic exposure to excessive cortisol. The term Cushing disease is used specifically when this is caused by excessive secretion of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) by a pituitary tumor, usually an adenoma. This disease is associated with a poor prognosis, and if left untreated, it has an estimated 5-year survival rate of 50%. We present the case of a 66-year-old female patient who received a referral to endocrinology for an evaluation of obesity due to right knee arthropathy. Taking into consideration her age, she was screened for osteoporosis, with results that showed diminished bone density. Considering this, combined with other clinical features of the patient, suspicion turned toward hypercortisolism. Laboratory findings suggested that the CS was ACTH-dependent and originated in the pituitary gland. After a second look at the magnetic resonance imaging results, a 4-mm lesion was identified on the pituitary gland, prompting a transsphenoidal resection of the pituitary adenoma.

Introduction

Chronic excessive exposure to glucocorticoids leads to the diverse clinical manifestations of Cushing syndrome (CS), which has an annual incidence ranging from 1.8 to 3.2 cases per million individuals [1]. The syndrome’s signs and symptoms are not pathognomonic, and some of its primary manifestations, such as obesity, hypertension, and glucose metabolism alterations, are prevalent in the general population [2], making diagnosis challenging. Endogenous CS falls into 2 categories: adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-dependent (80%-85% of cases), mostly due to a pituitary adenoma, or ACTH-independent (15%-20% of cases), typically caused by adrenal adenomas or hyperplasia [3]. Cushing disease (CD) represents a specific form of CS, characterized by the presence of an ACTH-secreting pituitary tumor [1]. Untreated CD is associated with high morbidity and mortality compared to the general population [1], with a 50% survival rate at 5 years [2]. However, surgical removal of a pituitary adenoma can result in complete remission, with mortality rates similar to those of the general population [2]. This article aims to highlight the challenges of suspecting and diagnosing CD and to discuss the current management options for this rare condition.

Case Presentation

A 66-year-old woman received a referral to endocrinology for an evaluation of obesity due to right knee arthropathy. During physical examination, she exhibited a body mass index of 34.3 kg/m2, blood pressure of 180/100, a history of non-insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes mellitus with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 6.9% (nondiabetic: < 5.7%; prediabetic: 5.7% to 6.4%; diabetic: ≥ 6.5%) and hypertension. Additionally, the patient complained of proximal weakness in all 4 limbs.

Diagnostic Assessment

Upon admission, densitometry revealed osteoporosis with T scores of −2.7 in the lumbar spine and −2.8 in the femoral neck. Hypercortisolism was suspected due to concomitant arterial hypertension, central obesity, muscle weakness, and osteoporosis. Physical examination did not reveal characteristic signs of hypercortisolism, such as skin bruises, flushing, or reddish-purple striae. Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) screening yielded a value of 8.98 nmol/L (0.3255 mcg/dL) (reference value [RV] 0.8-2.7 nmol/L [0.029-0.101 mcg/dL]) and ACTH of 38.1 pg/mL (8.4 pmol/L) (RV 2-11 pmol/L [9-52 pg/mL]). A low-dose dexamethasone suppression test (LDDST) was performed (cutoff value 1.8 mcg/dL [49 nmol/L]), with cortisol levels of 7.98 mcg/dL (220 nmol/L) at 24 hours and 20.31 mcg/dL (560 nmol/L) at 48 hours. Subsequently, a high-dose dexamethasone suppression test (HDDST) was conducted using a dose of 2 mg every 6 hours for 2 days, for a total dose of 16 mg, revealing cortisol levels of 0.0220 nmol/L (0.08 ng/mL) at 24 hours and 0.0560 nmol/L (0.0203 ng/mL) at 48 hours, alongside 24-hour urine cortisol of 0.8745 nmol/L (0.317 ng/mL) (RV 30-145 nmol/24 hours [approximately 11-53 μg/24 hours]) [4].

These findings indicated the presence of endogenous ACTH-dependent hypercortisolism of pituitary origin. Consequently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was requested, but the results showed no abnormalities. Considering ectopic ACTH production often occurs in the lung, a high-resolution chest computed tomography scan was performed, revealing no lesions.

Treatment

Upon reassessment, the MRI revealed a 4-mm adenoma, prompting the decision to proceed with transsphenoidal resection of the pituitary adenoma.

Outcome and Follow-Up

The histological analysis revealed positive staining for CAM5.2, chromogranin, synaptophysin, and ACTH, with Ki67 staining at 1%. At the 1-month follow-up assessment, ACTH levels were 3.8 pmol/L (17.2 pg/mL) and morning cortisol was 115.8621 nmol/L (4.2 mcg/dL) (RV 5-25 mcg/dL or 140-690 nmol/L). Somatomedin C was measured at 85 ng/mL (RV 70-267 ng/mL) and prolactin at 3.5 ng/mL (RV 4-25 ng/mL). At the 1-year follow-up, the patient exhibited a satisfactory postoperative recovery. However, she developed diabetes insipidus and secondary hypothyroidism. Arterial hypertension persisted. Recent laboratory results indicated a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of 5.4%. Medications at the time of follow-up included prednisolone 5 milligrams a day, desmopressin 60 to 120 micrograms every 12 hours, losartan potassium 50 milligrams every 12 hours, and levothyroxine 88 micrograms a day.

Discussion

CD is associated with high mortality, primarily attributable to cardiovascular outcomes and comorbidities such as metabolic and skeletal disorders, infections, and psychiatric disorders [1]. The low incidence of CD in the context of the high prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases makes early diagnosis a challenge [2]. This case is relevant for reviewing the diagnostic approach process and highlighting the impact of the availability bias, which tends to prioritize more common diagnoses over rare diseases. Despite the absence of typical symptoms, a timely diagnosis was achieved.

Once exogenous CS is ruled out, laboratory testing must focus on detecting endogenous hypercortisolism to prevent misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment [5]. Screening methods include 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) for total cortisol load, while circadian rhythm and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function may be evaluated using midnight serum cortisol and LNSC [5]. An early hallmark of endogenous CS is the disruption of physiological circadian cortisol patterns, characterized by a constant cortisol level throughout the day or no significant decrease [2]. Measuring LNSC has proven to be useful in identifying these patients. The LNSC performed on the patient yielded a high result.

To assess HPA axis suppressibility, tests such as the overnight and the standard 2-day LDDST [5] use dexamethasone, a potent synthetic corticosteroid with high glucocorticoid receptor affinity and prolonged action, with minimal interference with cortisol measurement [6]. In a normal HPA axis, cortisol exerts negative feedback, inhibiting the secretion of corticotropin-releasing-hormone (CRH) and ACTH. Exogenous corticosteroids suppress CRH and ACTH secretion, resulting in decreased synthesis and secretion of cortisol. In pathological hypercortisolism, the HPA axis becomes partially or entirely resistant to feedback inhibition by exogenous steroids [56]. The LDDST involves the administration of 0.5 mg of dexamethasone orally every 6 hours for 2 days, with a total dose of 4 mg. A blood sample is drawn 6 hours after the last administered dose [6]. Following the LDDST, the patient did not demonstrate suppression of endogenous corticosteroid production.

After diagnosing CS, the next step in the diagnostic pathway involves categorizing it as ACTH-independent vs ACTH-dependent. ACTH-independent cases exhibit low or undetectable ACTH levels, pointing to adrenal origin. The underlying principle is that excess ACTH production in CD can be partially or completely suppressed by high doses of dexamethasone, a response not observed in ectopic tumors [6]. In this case, the patient presented with an ACTH of 38.1 pg/mL (8.4 pmol/L), indicative of ACTH-dependent CD.

Traditionally, measuring cortisol levels and conducting pituitary imaging are standard practices for diagnosis. Recent advances propose alternative diagnostic methods such as positron emission tomography (PET) scans and corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) tests [7]. PET scans, utilizing radioactive tracers, offer a view of metabolic activity in the adrenal glands and pituitary region, aiding in the identification of abnormalities associated with CD. Unfortunately, the availability of the aforementioned tests in the country is limited.

Once ACTH-dependent hypercortisolism is confirmed, identifying the source becomes crucial. A HDDST is instrumental in distinguishing between a pituitary and an ectopic source of ACTH overproduction [26]. The HDDST involves administering 8 mg of dexamethasone either overnight or as a 2-day test. In this case, the patient received 2 mg of dexamethasone orally every 6 hours for 2 days, totaling a dose of 16 mg. Simultaneously, a urine sample for UFC is collected during dexamethasone administration. The HDDST suppressed endogenous cortisol production in the patient, suggesting a pituitary origin.

In ACTH-dependent hypercortisolism, CD is the predominant cause, followed by ectopic ACTH syndrome and, less frequently, an ectopic CRH-secreting tumor [35]. With the pretest probability for pituitary origin exceeding 80%, the next diagnostic step is typically an MRI of the pituitary region. However, the visualization of microadenomas on MRI ranges from 50% to 70%, requiring further testing if results are negative or inconclusive [5]. Initial testing of our patient revealed no pituitary lesions. Following a pituitary location, ACTH-secreting tumors may be found in the lungs. Thus, a high-resolution chest computed tomography scan was performed, which yielded negative findings. Healthcare professionals must keep these detection rates in mind. In instances of high clinical suspicion, repeating or reassessing tests and imaging may be warranted [3], as in our case, ultimately leading to the discovery of a 4-mm pituitary adenoma.

It is fundamental to mention that the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Treatment of CS recommends that, when possible, all patients presenting with ACTH-dependent CS and lacking an evident causal neoplasm should be directed to an experienced center capable of conducting inferior petrosal sinus sampling to differentiate between pituitary and nonpituitary or ectopic cause [8]. However, in this instance, such a referral was regrettably hindered by logistical constraints.

Regarding patient outcomes and monitoring in CD, there is no consensus on defining remission criteria following tumor resection. Prolonged hypercortisolism results in suppression of corticotropes, resulting in low levels of ACTH and cortisol after surgical intervention. Typically, remission is identified by morning serum cortisol values below 5 µg/dL (138 nmol/L) or UFC levels between 28 and 56 nmol/d (10-20 µg/d) within 7 days after surgical intervention. In our case, the patient’s morning serum cortisol was 115.8621 nmol/L (4.2 µg/dL), indicating remission. Remission rates in adults are reported at 73% to 76% in selectively resected microadenomas and at 43% in macroadenomas [8], highlighting the need for regular follow-up visits to detect recurrence.

Following the surgery, the patient experienced diabetes insipidus, a relatively common postoperative occurrence, albeit usually transient [8]. It is recommended to monitor serum sodium levels during the first 5 to 14 days postsurgery for early detection and management. Additionally, pituitary deficiencies may manifest following surgery. In this patient, prolactin levels were compromised, potentially impacting sexual response. However, postoperative somatomedin levels were normal, and gonadotropins were not measured due to the patient’s age group, as no additional clinical decisions were anticipated based on those results. Secondary hypothyroidism was diagnosed postoperatively.

Moving forward, it is important to emphasize certain clinical signs and symptoms for diagnosing CD. The combination of low bone mineral density (Likelihood Ratio [LR] +21.33), central obesity (LR +3.10), and arterial hypertension (LR + 2.29) [9] has a higher positive LR than some symptoms considered “characteristic,” such as reddish-purple striae, plethora, proximal muscle weakness, and unexplained bruising [210]. It is essential to give relevance to the signs the patient may present, emphasizing signs that have been proven to have an increased odds ratio (OR) such as osteoporosis (OR 3.8), myopathies (OR 6.0), metabolic syndrome (OR 2.7) and adrenal adenoma (OR 2.4) [9‐11]. The simultaneous development and worsening of these conditions should raise suspicion for underlying issues. Understanding the evolving nature of CD signs highlights the importance of vigilance during medical examinations, prioritizing the diagnostic focus, and enabling prompt initiation of treatment.

Recognizing the overlap of certain clinical features in CS is fundamental to achieving a timely diagnosis.

Learning Points

  • CS diagnosis is challenging due to the absence of pathognomonic signs and symptoms and the overlap of features present in many pathologies, such as metabolic syndrome.
  • Early detection of CS is crucial, given its association with high morbidity and mortality resulting from chronic exposure to glucocorticoids.
  • Recognizing the combination of low bone mineral density, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes as valuable clinical indicators is key in identifying CS.
  • Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential to achieve a comprehensive diagnostic approach.

Acknowledgments

We extend our gratitude to Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá for providing essential resources and facilities that contributed to the successful completion of this case report. Special acknowledgment is reserved for the anonymous reviewers, whose insightful feedback significantly enhanced the quality of this manuscript during the peer-review process. Their contributions are sincerely appreciated.

Contributors

All authors made individual contributions to authorship. A.B.O. was involved in the diagnosis and management of this patient. M.A.G., J.M.H., and A.B.O. were involved in manuscript drafting and editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final draft.

Funding

This research received no public or commercial funding.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to the current study.

Informed Patient Consent for Publication

Signed informed consent could not be obtained from the patient or a proxy but has been approved by the treating institution.

Data Availability Statement

Restrictions apply to the availability of some or all data generated or analyzed during this study to preserve patient confidentiality or because they were used under license. The corresponding author will on request detail the restrictions and any conditions under which access to some data may be provided.

References

1

Hakami
OA

,

Ahmed
S

,

Karavitaki
N

.

Epidemiology and mortality of Cushing’s syndrome

.

Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab

.

2021

;

35

(

1

):

101521

.

2

Nieman
LK

,

Biller
BMK

,

Findling
JW

, et al.

The diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline

.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab

.

2008

;

93

(

5

):

1526

1540

.

3

Gutiérrez Restrepo
J

,

Latorre Sierra
G

,

Campuzano Maya
G

.

Síndrome de cushing

.

Med Lab

.

2009

;

15

:

411

430

.

4

Petersenn
S

,

Newell-Price
J

,

Findling
JW

, et al.

High variability in baseline urinary free cortisol values in patients with Cushing’s disease

.

Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)

.

2014

;

80

(

2

):

261

269

.

5

Lila
AR

,

Sarathi
V

,

Jagtap
VS

,

Bandgar
T

,

Menon
P

,

Shah
NS

.

Cushing’s syndrome: stepwise approach to diagnosis

.

Indian J Endocrinol Metab

.

2011

;

15

(

Suppl4

):

S317

S321

.

6

Dogra
P

,

Vijayashankar
NP

.

Dexamethasone suppression test. In: StatPearls StatPearls Publishing; 2024

. Accessed January 29, 2024. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542317/

7

Müller
OA

,

Dörr
HG

,

Hagen
B

,

Stalla
GK

,

von Werder
K

.

Corticotropin releasing factor (CRF)-stimulation test in normal controls and patients with disturbances of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis

.

Klin Wochenschr

.

1982

;

60

(

24

):

1485

1491

.

8

Nieman
LK

,

Biller
BMK

,

Findling
JW

, et al.

Treatment of Cushing’s syndrome: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline

.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab

.

2015

;

100

(

8

):

2807

2831

.

9

Aron
DC

.

Cushing’s syndrome: why is diagnosis so difficult?
Rev Endocr Metab Disord

.

2010

;

11

(

2

):

105

116

.

10

Braun
LT

,

Vogel
F

,

Zopp
S

, et al.

Whom should we screen for cushing syndrome? the Endocrine Society practice guideline recommendations 2008 revisited

.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab

.

2022

;

107

(

9

):

e3723

e3730

.

11

Schneider
HJ

,

Dimopoulou
C

,

Stalla
GK

,

Reincke
M

,

Schopohl
J

.

Discriminatory value of signs and symptoms in Cushing’s syndrome revisited: what has changed in 30 years?
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)

.

2013

;

78

(

1

):

153

154

.

Abbreviations

 

  • ACTH

    adrenocorticotropic hormone

  • CD

    Cushing disease

  • CRH

    corticotropin-releasing hormone

  • CS

    Cushing syndrome

  • HDDST

    high-dose dexamethasone suppression test

  • HPA

    hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal

  • LDDST

    low-dose dexamethasone suppression test

  • LNSC

    late-night salivary cortisol

  • MRI

    magnetic resonance imaging

  • OR

    odds ratio

  • RV

    reference value

  • UFC

    urinary free cortisol

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Navigating the Surgical Landscape: A Comprehensive Analysis of Endoscopic vs. Microscopic Transsphenoidal Pituitary Surgery Outcomes

Abstract

Pituitary surgery, a critical intervention for various pituitary disorders, has sparked ongoing debates regarding the preference between endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal approaches. This systematic review delves into the outcomes associated with these techniques, taking into account the recent advancements in neurosurgery. The minimally invasive nature of endoscopy, providing improved visualization and reduced morbidity, stands in contrast to the well-established track record of the conventional microscopic method. Examining outcomes for disorders such as Cushing’s disease and acromegaly, the review synthesizes evidence from Denmark, Bulgaria, and China. Noteworthy advantages of endoscopy encompass higher resection rates, shorter surgery durations, and fewer complications, endorsing its effectiveness in pituitary surgery. While emphasizing the necessity for prospective trials, the review concludes that endoscopic approaches consistently showcase favorable outcomes, influencing the ongoing discourse on the optimal surgical strategies for pituitary disorders.

Introduction & Background

Pituitary surgery is a critical intervention for various pituitary disorders, and the choice between endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal approaches has been a subject of ongoing debate within the medical community. This systematic review aims to explore and analyze the outcomes associated with endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. As advancements in surgical techniques continue to shape the field of neurosurgery, understanding the comparative effectiveness of these two approaches becomes imperative. The endoscopic approach, characterized by its minimally invasive nature, has gained popularity for pituitary surgery in recent years [1]. Proponents argue that it provides enhanced visualization, improved maneuverability, and reduced patient morbidity. On the other hand, traditional microscopic transsphenoidal surgery has been the conventional method for decades, known for its familiarity among surgeons and established track record [2].

Several studies have investigated the outcomes of these approaches in treating pituitary disorders, including but not limited to Cushing’s disease, pituitary adenomas, and other tumors. For instance, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Chen et al. compared endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal surgery specifically for Cushing’s disease, shedding light on the effectiveness of these approaches in managing this specific condition [3]. Moreover, Møller et al. reported promising results for endoscopic pituitary surgery based on the experiences of experienced microscopic pituitary surgeons, indicating a potential shift towards the adoption of the endoscopic technique [1]. Guo et al. conducted a meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of microscopic and endoscopic surgery for treating pituitary disorders, contributing valuable insights into the overall efficacy of these approaches [4].

This review aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on pituitary surgery by providing a comprehensive analysis of the outcomes associated with endoscopic versus microscopic transsphenoidal approaches. By synthesizing the existing evidence, we strive to offer valuable insights that can guide both clinicians and researchers in making informed decisions regarding the optimal surgical approach for pituitary disorders.

Review

Materials and methods

This systematic review strictly adheres to the established Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, employing a comprehensive approach to investigate the outcomes of endoscopic versus microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. The subsequent sections delineate the criteria for study inclusion, the search strategy utilized, and the methodology employed for data synthesis.

Search Strategy

We conducted a meticulous search across prominent electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify pertinent articles. Our search strategy comprised a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords related to pituitary surgery, encompassing both endoscopic and microscopic approaches. Boolean operators (AND, OR) were strategically employed to refine the search and identify studies meeting our predetermined inclusion criteria. The search string used for PubMed was (“Outcomes” OR “Treatment Outcome” OR “Surgical Outcome”) AND (“Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Pituitary Surgery” OR “Endoscopic Pituitary Surgery” OR “Endoscopic Hypophysectomy”) AND (“Microscopic Transsphenoidal Pituitary Surgery” OR “Microscopic Pituitary Surgery” OR “Microscopic Hypophysectomy” OR “Endoscopy”[Mesh] OR “Endoscopy, Surgical”[Mesh] OR “Transsphenoidal Hypophysectomy”[Mesh] OR “Microsurgery”[Mesh] OR “Microscopic Hypophysectomy”[Mesh]).

Eligibility Criteria

Stringent inclusion criteria were predefined to ensure the selection of high-quality and relevant studies. The included studies focused on investigating the outcomes of endoscopic versus microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals within the timeframe from the inception of relevant databases until October 2023 were considered. Exclusion criteria encompassed studies on other interventions, those lacking sufficient data on surgical outcomes, and studies solely involving animal cells. Additionally, only studies in the English language with full-text availability were included, and gray literature was not considered eligible.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two independent reviewers meticulously screened titles and abstracts to identify potentially eligible studies. Subsequently, full-text articles were retrieved and evaluated for adherence to inclusion criteria. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion and consultation with a third reviewer. Relevant data, including study design, patient characteristics, interventions, and surgical outcomes, were systematically extracted using a predefined data extraction form.

Data Analysis

A narrative synthesis approach was employed to summarize findings from included studies due to anticipated heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. Key themes and patterns related to the outcomes of endoscopic versus microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery were identified and presented.

Results

Study Selection Process

Following four database searches, 97 articles were initially identified. After eliminating eight duplicates, the titles and abstracts of the remaining 89 publications were evaluated. Subsequently, 17 potential studies underwent eligibility verification through a thorough examination of their full texts. Ultimately, three articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. No additional studies meeting the eligibility criteria were found during the examination of references in the selected articles. The entire process is visually depicted in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).

PRISMA-flow-diagram-of-the-selection-of-studies-for-inclusion-in-the-systematic-review.
Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram of the selection of studies for inclusion in the systematic review.

PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Characteristics of Selected Studies

Overall, three papers met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one each from Bulgaria and China. One study was an observational study from Denmark. The main findings and characteristics of the included studies are mentioned in the following tables (Table 1 and Table 2).

Author Year Country Study type Sample size No. of participants in the endoscopic group No. of participants in the microscopic group Main findings
Møller et al. [1] 2020 Denmark Observational study 240 45 195 The study comparing endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery revealed that the endoscopic technique exhibited advantages, achieving a higher rate of gross total resection (39% vs. 22%) and shorter surgery duration (86 minutes vs. 106 minutes). Complications within 30 days were lower with the endoscope (17% vs. 27%), and grade II complications or higher were significantly reduced (4% vs. 20%) compared to the microscopic approach. Pituitary function outcomes favored the endoscope, with fewer new deficiencies in the HPA axis (3% vs. 34%) and TSH-dependent deficiencies (15% vs. 38%). The HPG axis also showed better normalization in the endoscopic group (32% vs. 19%). Visual field impairment and postoperative improvement did not significantly differ between the two techniques. Overall, the findings suggest that endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery may offer superior outcomes compared to the microscopic approach, particularly in terms of resection rates and complication profiles.
Vassilyeva et al. [5] 2023 Bulgaria RCT 83 43 40 The study compared endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery in acromegaly patients, revealing comparable demographic profiles between the groups. Endoscopic surgery demonstrated advantages with shorter anesthesia and surgery times, as well as a reduced postoperative hospital stay. Complete tumor removal was more frequent with endoscopic adenomectomy, while microscopic surgery showed a higher rate of sub-total removal. Both techniques led to a tendency for somatic improvement, with more pronounced visual function improvement in the endoscopic group. Complications, such as liquorrhea and endocrine disorders, were generally low, with endoscopic surgery showing mainly mild complications. Disease remission rates were similar between the groups at various follow-up intervals. In conclusion, while both techniques proved effective in achieving remission, endoscopic surgery exhibited favorable outcomes in terms of efficiency and some aspects of complication profiles.
Zhang et al. [6] 2021 China RCT 46 23 23 Endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery for the treatment of Cushing’s disease showed comparable efficacy to microscopic transseptal pituitary surgery but with the added benefits of shorter operative time, reduced estimated blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications.
Table 1: Summary of the studies included in this systematic review.

RCT: randomized controlled trial; HPA: hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal; TSH: thyroid-stimulating hormone; HPG: hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal

Technique Møller et al. [1] Vassilyeva et al. [5] Zhang et al. [6]
Male-to-female ratio (endoscopic) 25:20 17:26 13:10
Male-to-female ratio (microscopic) 107:88 16:24 12:11
Mean age in years (endoscopic) 61 43.26 55.6
Mean age in years (microscopic) 58 44.12 53.2
Functional tumors (endoscopic) 15 All functional All functional
Non-functional tumors (endoscopic) 29
Functional tumors (microscopic) 69 All functional All functional
Non-functional tumors (microscopic) 115
Microadenoma size (mm) (endoscopic) 4 19
Macroadenoma size (mm) (endoscopic) 39 4
Microadenoma size (mm) (microscopic) 3 18
Macroadenoma size (mm) (microscopic) 37 5
Mean operative time (min) (endoscopic) 86 142 108
Mean operative time (min) (microscopic) 106 176 174
Mean hospital stay (days) (endoscopic) 5 2.8
Mean hospital stay (days) (microscopic) 7 5.1
Postoperative complications (endoscopic) 2 15 3
Postoperative complications (microscopic) 39 10 8
Table 2: Summary of demographics, tumor characteristics, and postoperative outcomes of the studies included in this systematic review.

The quality assessment of the selected studies was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. All three studies included in this study turned out to be of high quality with a rating of 9/9 stars (Table 3).

Author Selection Comparability Outcome Total stars
Møller et al. [1] ★★★★ ★★ ★★★ ★★★★★★★★★
Vassilyeva et al. [5] ★★★★ ★★ ★★★ ★★★★★★★★★
Zhang et al. [6] ★★★★ ★★ ★★★ ★★★★★★★★★
Table 3: Quality assessment of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.

Discussion

This systematic review thoroughly assesses the effectiveness and results of endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery in comparison to microscopic transsphenoidal surgery, with a specific focus on pituitary adenomas, including Cushing’s disease and acromegaly. The results contribute significant insights into the evolving landscape of pituitary surgery, highlighting the benefits and limitations of both surgical techniques.

The selected studies offer valuable insights into the comparative outcomes. Møller et al.’s observational study in Denmark suggests that endoscopic surgery exhibits superior outcomes with higher gross total resection rates, shorter surgery duration, and fewer complications [1]. Vassilyeva et al.’s RCT in Bulgaria, focusing on acromegaly patients, indicates endoscopic advantages such as shorter anesthesia and surgery times, reduced postoperative stay, and comparable remission rates [5]. Zhang et al.’s RCT in China, specifically for Cushing’s disease, suggests comparable efficacy with added benefits favoring endoscopy [6].

The endoscopic approach has been advocated for its panoramic visualization and superior mobility, which are crucial in resecting tumors while preserving normal structures [7,8]. Studies have shown a higher remission rate in endoscopic procedures for endocrine-active tumors, like growth hormone or adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-secreting adenomas, compared to the microscopic approach [9,10]. Patient comfort and recovery play a significant role in evaluating surgical methods. The endoscopic technique, by avoiding submucosal excision of nasal tissues, typically results in less postoperative pain and rhinological dysfunction. Studies, including ours, have reported shorter operative times and hospital stays with endoscopic surgery, attributed to fewer intraoperative and postoperative complications and a reduced need for wound management [11-13].

Safety is paramount to any surgical intervention. The endoscopic method has shown a decrease in common complications such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, pituitary hormone dysfunction, and diabetes insipidus. Additionally, the endoscopic procedure exhibited fewer complications, which could be attributed to the enhanced visualization allowing for more precise tumor excision and preservation of vital structures [14-16].

In the context of acromegaly patients, the endoscopic technique has demonstrated increased radicality in tumor removal. Our review aligns with these findings, showing a higher rate of total tumor resection in endoscopic patients compared to those undergoing microscopic surgery. This improved outcome is likely due to better illumination and a wider angle of vision provided by endoscopic operations [5,17].

The endoscopic technique has shown a statistically significant improvement in visual function post surgery compared to the microscopic method. However, the frequency of certain postoperative complications, such as intraoperative liquorrhea, was higher in microscopic surgery. These differences underline the importance of the surgical technique in influencing the outcomes and complications of pituitary surgery [5,18].

Despite these findings, it is important to recognize the limitations inherent in these studies. Factors such as tumor size, density, and localization significantly influence surgical outcomes and procedure times. Additionally, the retrospective nature of many studies introduces potential biases, underscoring the need for more prospective, randomized trials for a comprehensive understanding of the long-term outcomes of these techniques.

Conclusions

This systematic review comparing endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery outcomes indicates consistent evidence favoring the endoscopic approach. Notable studies from Denmark, Bulgaria, and China reveal superior results with endoscopic surgery, demonstrating higher resection rates, shorter surgery duration, and fewer complications. Endoscopy’s benefits extend to patient comfort, as evidenced by shorter operative times and hospital stays. Safety considerations also support endoscopy, showing a decrease in common complications such as CSF leaks and hormonal dysfunction. Despite these strengths, the review underscores the need for prospective, randomized trials to address limitations and provide a comprehensive understanding of long-term outcomes.

References

  1. Møller MW, Andersen MS, Glintborg D, Pedersen CB, Halle B, Kristensen BW, Poulsen FR: Endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: a single centre study. Sci Rep. 2020, 10:21942. 10.1038/s41598-020-78823-z
  2. Gao Y, Zhong C, Wang Y, et al.: Endoscopic versus microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma surgery: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2014, 12:94. 10.1186/1477-7819-12-94
  3. Chen J, Liu H, Man S, et al.: Endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for the treatment of pituitary adenoma: a meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2022, 8:806855. 10.3389/fsurg.2021.806855
  4. Guo S, Wang Z, Kang X, Xin W, Li X: A meta-analysis of endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for non-functioning and functioning pituitary adenomas: comparisons of efficacy and safety. Front Neurol. 2021, 12:614382. 10.3389/fneur.2021.614382
  5. Vassilyeva N, Mena N, Kirov K, Diatlova E: Comparative effectiveness of endoscopic and microscopic adenoma removal in acromegaly. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023, 14:1128345. 10.3389/fendo.2023.1128345
  6. Zhang T, Zhang B, Yuan L, Song Y, Wang F: Superiority of endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery to microscopic transseptal pituitary surgery for treatment of Cushing’s disease. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2021, 67:1687-91. 10.1590/1806-9282.20210732
  7. Yadav Y, Sachdev S, Parihar V, Namdev H, Bhatele P: Endoscopic endonasal trans-sphenoid surgery of pituitary adenoma. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2012, 3:328-37. 10.4103/0976-3147.102615
  8. Louis RG, Eisenberg A, Barkhoudarian G, Griffiths C, Kelly DF: Evolution of minimally invasive approaches to the sella and parasellar region. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014, 18:S136-48. 10.1055/s-0034-1395265
  9. Broersen LH, Biermasz NR, van Furth WR, de Vries F, Verstegen MJ, Dekkers OM, Pereira AM: Endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for Cushing’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pituitary. 2018, 21:524-34. 10.1007/s11102-018-0893-3
  10. Torales J, Halperin I, Hanzu F, et al.: Endoscopic endonasal surgery for pituitary tumors. Results in a series of 121 patients operated at the same center and by the same neurosurgeon. Endocrinol Nutr. 2014, 61:410-6. 10.1016/j.endoen.2014.07.002
  11. Zubair A, M Das J: Transsphenoidal hypophysectomy. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL); 2023.
  12. Pan X, Ma Y, Fang M, Jiang J, Shen J, Zhan R: Improvement in the quality of early postoperative course after endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: description of surgical technique and outcome. Front Neurol. 2020, 11:527323. 10.3389/fneur.2020.527323
  13. Aiyer RG, Upreti G: Endoscopic endo-nasal trans-sphenoidal approach for pituitary adenomas: a prospective study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020, 72:36-43. 10.1007/s12070-019-01725-8
  14. Oertel J, Gaab MR, Linsler S: The endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach to sellar lesions allows a high radicality: the benefit of angled optics. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016, 146:29-34. 10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.04.016
  15. Hanson M, Li H, Geer E, Karimi S, Tabar V, Cohen MA: Perioperative management of endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020, 6:84-93. 10.1016/j.wjorl.2020.01.005
  16. Qiao N: Endocrine outcomes of endoscopic versus transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas: a system review and meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018, 169:107-15. 10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.04.009
  17. Nie D, Fang Q, Wong W, Gui S, Zhao P, Li C, Zhang Y: The effect of endoscopic transsphenoidal somatotroph tumors resection on pituitary hormones: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2023, 21:71. 10.1186/s12957-023-02958-2
  18. Butenschoen VM, Schwendinger N, von Werder A, Bette S, Wienke M, Meyer B, Gempt J: Visual acuity and its postoperative outcome after transsphenoidal adenoma resection. Neurosurg Rev. 2021, 44:2245-51. 10.1007/s10143-020-01408-x

From https://www.cureus.com/articles/213241-navigating-the-surgical-landscape-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-endoscopic-vs-microscopic-transsphenoidal-pituitary-surgery-outcomes#!/

Restoration of Intra-patient Variability and Diurnal Range of ACTH with Remission in Cushing’s Disease

The following is a summary of “Diurnal Range and Intra-patient Variability of ACTH Is Restored With Remission in Cushing’s Disease,” published in the November 2023 issue of Endocrinology by Alvarez, et al.

 

Distinguishing Cushing’s disease (CD) remission from other conditions using single adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) measurements poses challenges. For a study, researchers sought to analyze changes in ACTH levels before and after transsphenoidal surgery (TSS) to identify trends confirming remission and establish ACTH cutoffs for targeted clinical trials.

A retrospective analysis involved 253 CD patients undergoing TSS at a referral center from 2005 to 2019. Remission outcomes were assessed based on postoperative ACTH levels.

Among 253 patients, 223 achieved remission post-TSS. The remission group exhibited higher ACTH variability at morning (AM) (P = .02) and evening (PM) (< .001) time points compared to the nonremission group. Nonremission cases had a significantly narrower diurnal ACTH range (P < .0001). A ≥50% decrease in plasma ACTH from mean preoperative levels, especially in PM values, predicted remission. Absolute plasma ACTH concentration and the ratio of preoperative to postoperative values were associated with nonremission (adj P < .001 and .001, respectively).

ACTH variability suppression was observed in CD, with remission linked to restored variability. A ≥50% decrease in plasma ACTH may predict CD remission post-TSS. The insights can guide clinicians in developing rational outcome measures for interventions targeting CD adenomas.

Source: academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/108/11/2812/7187942?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Clinical Features, Diagnosis and Treatment Outcomes of Cushing’s Disease In Children: a Multicenter Study

Abstract

Objective

Since Cushing’s disease (CD) is less common in the paediatric age group than in adults, data on this subject are relatively limited in children. Herein, we aim to share the clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic features of paediatric CD cases.

Design

National, multicenter and retrospective study.

Patients

All centres were asked to complete a form including questions regarding initial complaints, physical examination findings, diagnostic tests, treatment modalities and follow-up data of the children with CD between December 2015 and March 2017.

Measurements

Diagnostic tests of CD and tumour size.

Results

Thirty-four patients (M:F = 16:18) from 15 tertiary centres were enroled. The most frequent complaint and physical examination finding were rapid weight gain, and round face with plethora, respectively. Late-night serum cortisol level was the most sensitive test for the diagnosis of hypercortisolism and morning adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) level to demonstrate the pituitary origin (100% and 96.8%, respectively). Adenoma was detected on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 70.5% of the patients. Transsphenoidal adenomectomy (TSA) was the most preferred treatment (78.1%). At follow-up, 6 (24%) of the patients who underwent TSA were reoperated due to recurrence or surgical failure.

Conclusions

Herein, national data of the clinical experience on paediatric CD have been presented. Our findings highlight that presenting complaints may be subtle in children, the sensitivities of the diagnostic tests are very variable and require a careful interpretation, and MRI fails to detect adenoma in approximately one-third of cases. Finally, clinicians should be aware of the recurrence of the disease during the follow-up after surgery.

From https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cen.14980

Pituitary Surgery Outcome in Patients 75 Years and Older

Abstract

Background

As the population ages, the number of elderly patients with an indication for pituitary surgery is rising. Information on the outcome of patients aged over 75 is limited. This study reports a large series assessing the feasibility of surgical resection in this specific age range, focusing on surgical complications and postoperative results.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of patients with pituitary adenomas and Rathke’s cleft cysts was conducted. All patients were aged 75 years or over and treated by a single expert neurosurgical team. A control population included 2379 younger adult patients operated by the same surgeons during the same period.

Results

Between 2008 and 2022, 155 patients underwent surgery. Indication was based on vision impairment in most patients (79%). Median follow-up was 13 months (range: 3–96). The first surgery was performed with an endoscopic transsellar approach, an extended endonasal transtuberculum approach and a microscopic transcranial approach in 96%, 3%, and 1% of patients, respectively. Single surgery was sufficient to obtain volume control in 97% of patients. From Kaplan-Meier estimates, 2-year and 5-year disease control with a single surgery were 97.3% and 86.2%, respectively. Resection higher than 80% was achieved in 77% of patients. No vision worsening occurred. In acromegaly and Cushing’s disease, endocrine remission was obtained in 90% of non-invasive adenomas. Surgical complications were noted in 5% of patients, with 30-day mortality, hematoma, cerebrospinal fluid leak, meningitis, and epistaxis occurring in 0.6%, 0.6%, 1.9%, 0.6%, and 1.3% respectively. New endocrine anterior deficits occurred in only 5%, while no persistent diabetes insipidus was noted. Compared with younger patients, the complication rate was not statistically different.

Conclusions

Surgery beyond the age of 75, mainly relying on an endoscopic endonasal transsellar approach, is effective and safe, provided that patients are managed in tertiary centers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Abbreviations

CSF:
Cerebrospinal fluid
ASA:
American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System

References

  1. Albano L, Losa M, Barzaghi LR, Niranjan A, Siddiqui Z, Flickinger JC, Lunsford LD, Mortini P (2021) Gamma Knife radiosurgery for pituitary tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel) 13(19):4998

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander TD, Chitguppi C, Collopy S et al (2022) Surgical outcomes of endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma resection in elderly versus younger patients. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 83(4):405–410

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  3. Baussart B, Declerck A, Gaillard S (2021) Mononostril endoscopic endonasal approach for pituitary surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 163(3):655–659

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Baussart B, Racy E, Gaillard S (2022) Double pedicled nasoseptal flap for skull base repair after endoscopic expanded endonasal approach. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 164(4):1111–1114

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Baussart B, Venier A, Jouinot A, Reuter G, Gaillard S (2022) Closure strategy for endoscopic pituitary surgery: experience from 3015 patients. Front Oncol 12:1067312

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Biamonte E, Betella N, Milani D, Lasio GB, Ariano S, Radice S, Lavezzi E, Mazziotti G, Lania A (2021) Impact of age on postsurgical outcomes of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. Endocrine 72(3):915–922

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Castinetti F, Nagai M, Dufour H, Kuhn J-M, Morange I, Jaquet P, Conte-Devolx B, Regis J, Brue T (2007) Gamma Knife radiosurgery is a successful adjunctive treatment in Cushing’s disease. Eur J Endocrinol 156(1):91–98

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chalif EJ, Couldwell WT, Aghi MK (2022) Effect of facility volume on giant pituitary adenoma neurosurgical outcomes. J Neurosurg 14:1–10

    Google Scholar

  9. Chen SH, Sprau A, Chieng L, Buttrick S, Alam ES, Ali SC, Madhavan K, Sargi ZB, Komotar R (2019) Transsphenoidal approach for pituitary adenomas in elderly patients. World Neurosurg 121:e670–e674

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ciric I, Ragin A, Baumgartner C, Pierce D (1997) Complications of transsphenoidal surgery: results of a national survey, review of the literature, and personal experience. Neurosurgery 40(2):225–236 (discussion 236-237)

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Cossu G, Jouanneau E, Cavallo LM et al (2022) Surgical management of giant pituitary neuroendocrine tumors: meta-analysis and consensus statement on behalf of the EANS skull base section. Brain Spine 2:100878

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  12. Ding D, Mehta GU, Patibandla MR et al (2019) Stereotactic radiosurgery for acromegaly: an international multicenter retrospective cohort study. Neurosurg 84(3):717–725

    Article Google Scholar

  13. Eichberg DG, Di L, Shah AH, Luther E, Richardson AM, Sarkiss CA, Ivan ME, Komotar RJ (2019) Brain tumor surgery is safe in octogenarians and nonagenarians: a single-surgeon 741 patient series. World Neurosurg 132:e185–e192

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Engel JS, Tran J, Khalil N, Hladkowicz E, Lalu MM, Huang A, Wong CL, Hutton B, Dhesi JK, McIsaac DI (2023) A systematic review of perioperative clinical practice guidelines for care of older adults living with frailty. Br J Anaesth 130(3):262–271

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ezzat S, Asa SL, Couldwell WT, Barr CE, Dodge WE, Vance ML, McCutcheon IE (2004) The prevalence of pituitary adenomas: a systematic review. Cancer 101(3):613–619

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Falk Erhag H, Guðnadóttir G, Alfredsson J, Cederholm T, Ekerstad N, Religa D, Nellgård B, Wilhelmson K (2023) The association between the clinical frailty scale and adverse health outcomes in older adults in acute clinical settings – a systematic review of the literature. Clin Interv Aging 18:249–261

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  17. Fleseriu M, Auchus R, Bancos I et al (2021) Consensus on diagnosis and management of Cushing’s disease: a guideline update. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 9(12):847–875

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  18. Frara S, Rodriguez-Carnero G, Formenti AM, Martinez-Olmos MA, Giustina A, Casanueva FF (2020) Pituitary tumors centers of excellence. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 49(3):553–564

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Gaillard S (2014) The transition from microscopic to endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery in high-caseload neurosurgical centers: the experience of Foch Hospital. World Neurosurg 82(6 Suppl):S116-120

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Giustina A, Chanson P, Bronstein MD et al (2010) A consensus on criteria for cure of acromegaly. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95(7):3141–3148

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Gondim JA, Almeida JP, de Albuquerque LAF, Gomes E, Schops M, Mota JI (2015) Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery in elderly patients with pituitary adenomas. J Neurosurg 123(1):31–38

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Horvath B, Kloesel B, Todd MM, Cole DJ, Prielipp RC (2021) The evolution, current value, and future of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System. Anesthesiology 135(5):904–919

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Kinoshita Y, Taguchi A, Tominaga A, Arita K, Yamasaki F (2021) Pseudocapsular resection in elderly patients with non-functioning pituitary adenoma. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 210:106997

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Knosp E, Steiner E, Kitz K, Matula C (1993) Pituitary adenomas with invasion of the cavernous sinus space: a magnetic resonance imaging classification compared with surgical findings. Neurosurgery 33(4):610–617 (discussion 617-618)

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Lee C-C, Sheehan JP (2016) Advances in Gamma Knife radiosurgery for pituitary tumors. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 23(4):331–338

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Leiner T, Nemeth D, Hegyi P, Ocskay K, Virag M, Kiss S, Rottler M, Vajda M, Varadi A, Molnar Z (2022) Frailty and emergency surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne) 9:811524

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Lin H-S, Watts JN, Peel NM, Hubbard RE (2016) Frailty and post-operative outcomes in older surgical patients: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 16(1):157

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  28. Lu VM, Ravindran K, Perry A, Graffeo CS, Dawood HY, Van Gompel JJ, Mekary RA, Smith TR (2020) Recurrence of Rathke’s cleft cysts based on gross total resection of cyst wall: a meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev 43(3):957–966

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Maiuri F, Corvino S, Lorenzetti M, Franca RA, Esposito F, Caro Del Basso De M (2023) Intracranial meningiomas in patients aged ≥80 years: pathological features and surgical problems. World Neurosurg 173:e498–e508

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Marcus HJ, Khan DZ, Borg A et al (2021) Pituitary society expert Delphi consensus: operative workflow in endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma resection. Pituitary 24(6):839–853

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  31. Melmed S (ed) (2017) The pituitary, 4th edn. Elsevier/Academic Press, London, United Kingdom, San Diego

    Google Scholar

  32. Melmed S, Kaiser UB, Lopes MB et al (2022) Clinical biology of the pituitary adenoma. Endocr Rev 43(6):1003–1037

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  33. Memel Z, Chesney K, Pangal DJ, Bonney PA, Carmichael JD, Zada G (2019) Outcomes following transsphenoidal pituitary surgery in the elderly: a retrospective single-center review. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 16(3):302–309

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Messerer M, De Battista JC, Raverot G, Kassis S, Dubourg J, Lapras V, Trouillas J, Perrin G, Jouanneau E (2011) Evidence of improved surgical outcome following endoscopy for nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma removal. Neurosurg Focus 30(4):E11

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Micko A, Oberndorfer J, Weninger WJ, Vila G, Höftberger R, Wolfsberger S, Knosp E (2019) Challenging Knosp high-grade pituitary adenomas. J Neurosurg 132(6):1739–1746

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Minniti G, Esposito V, Piccirilli M, Fratticci A, Santoro A, Jaffrain-Rea M-L (2005) Diagnosis and management of pituitary tumours in the elderly: a review based on personal experience and evidence of literature. Eur J Endocrinol 153(6):723–735

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  37. Minniti G, Filippi AR, Osti MF, Ricardi U (2017) Radiation therapy for older patients with brain tumors. Radiat Oncol 12(1):101

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  38. Minniti G, Scaringi C, Poggi M, Jaffrain Rea ML, Trillò G, Esposito V, Bozzao A, Enrici MM, Toscano V, Enrici RM (2015) Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for large and invasive non-functioning pituitary adenomas: long-term clinical outcomes and volumetric MRI assessment of tumor response. Eur J Endocrinol 172(4):433–441

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  39. Mortini P, Nocera G, Roncelli F, Losa M, Formenti AM, Giustina A (2020) The optimal numerosity of the referral population of pituitary tumors centers of excellence (PTCOE): a surgical perspective. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 21(4):527–536

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  40. Nidadavolu LS, Ehrlich AL, Sieber FE, Oh ES (2020) Preoperative evaluation of the frail patient. Anesth Analg 130(6):1493–1503

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  41. Ostrom QT, Cioffi G, Gittleman H, Patil N, Waite K, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS (2019) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2012–2016. Neuro Oncol 21(Suppl 5):v1–v100

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  42. Pereira MP, Oh T, Joshi RS et al (2020) Clinical characteristics and outcomes in elderly patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery for nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma. Neurosurg Focus 49(4):E19

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  43. Quah BL, Edwards-Bailey A, Gnanalingham K, Pathmanaban O, Vasilopoulos H, Roncaroli F, Kearney T, Balogun J, Karabatsou K (2022) Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for biochemically and clinically non-functioning adenohypophyseal tumours in the elderly: experience from a single UK centre. Endocrine 75(3):872–882

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  44. Robenshtok E, Benbassat CA, Hirsch D, Tzvetov G, Cohen ZR, Iraqi HM, Gorshtein A, Toledano Y, Shimon I (2014) Clinical course and outcome of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas in the elderly compared with younger age groups. Endocr Pract 20(2):159–164

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  45. Saleh A, Thirukumaran C, Mesfin A, Molinari RW (2017) Complications and readmission after lumbar spine surgery in elderly patients: an analysis of 2,320 patients. Spine J 17(8):1106–1112

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  46. Sheehan JM, Douds GL, Hill K, Farace E (2008) Transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma in elderly patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 150(6):571–574 (discussion 574)

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  47. Sheehan JP, Starke RM, Mathieu D et al (2013) Gamma Knife radiosurgery for the management of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas: a multicenter study: clinical article. JNS 119(2):446–456

    Article Google Scholar

  48. Sherlock M, Ayuk J, Tomlinson JW, Toogood AA, Aragon-Alonso A, Sheppard MC, Bates AS, Stewart PM (2010) Mortality in patients with pituitary disease. Endocr Rev 31(3):301–342

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  49. Spina A, Losa M, Mortini P (2019) Pituitary adenomas in elderly patients: clinical and surgical outcome analysis in a large series. Endocrine 65(3):637–645

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  50. Tardivo V, Penner F, Garbossa D, Di Perna G, Pacca P, Salvati L, Altieri R, Grottoli S, Zenga F (2020) Surgical management of pituitary adenomas: does age matter? Pituitary 23(2):92–102

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  51. Thakur JD, Corlin A, Mallari RJ et al (2021) Pituitary adenomas in older adults (≥ 65 years): 90-day outcomes and readmissions: a 10-year endoscopic endonasal surgical experience. Pituitary 24(1):14–26

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  52. Trouillas J, Jaffrain-Rea M-L, Vasiljevic A, Raverot G, Roncaroli F, Villa C (2020) How to classify the pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNET)s in 2020. Cancers (Basel) 12(2):E514

    Article Google Scholar

  53. Tuleasca C, Ducos Y, Leroy H-A, Chanson P, Knafo S, Levivier M, Aghakhani N, Parker F (2020) Transsphenoidal resection for pituitary adenoma in elderly versus younger patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 162(6):1297–1308

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  54. Villa C, Vasiljevic A, Jaffrain-Rea ML et al (2019) A standardised diagnostic approach to pituitary neuroendocrine tumours (PitNETs): a European Pituitary Pathology Group (EPPG) proposal. Virchows Arch 475(6):687–692

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  55. Wilson PJ, Omay SB, Kacker A, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2018) Endonasal endoscopic pituitary surgery in the elderly. J Neurosurg 128(2):429–436

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  56. Yunoue S, Tokimura H, Tominaga A et al (2014) Transsphenoidal surgical treatment of pituitary adenomas in patients aged 80 years or older. Neurosurg Rev 37(2):269–276 (discussion 276-277)

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  57. Zhan R, Ma Z, Wang D, Li X (2015) Pure endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach for nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas in the elderly: surgical outcomes and complications in 158 patients. World Neurosurg 84(6):1572–1578

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  58. Zietlow KE, Wong S, Heflin MT, McDonald SR, Sickeler R, Devinney M, Blitz J, Lagoo-Deenadayalan S, Berger M (2022) Geriatric preoperative optimization: a review. Am J Med 135(1):39–48

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, La Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 47-83 Boulevard de L’Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France

    Marta Garvayo, Vincent Reina, Stephan Gaillard & Bertrand Baussart

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Lausanne and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Marta Garvayo & Mahmoud Messerer

  3. Université Paris Cité, CNRS, INSERM, Institut Cochin, 75014, Paris, France

    Chiara Villa, Anne Jouinot, Jérôme Bertherat, Guillaume Assié & Bertrand Baussart

  4. Department of Neuropathology, La Pitié-Salpêtière University Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France

    Chiara Villa

  5. Department of Endocrinology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Boulogne Billancourt, France

    Mirella Hage & Marie-Laure Raffin-Sanson

  6. Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines UFR Des Sciences de La Santé Simone Veil, Montigny-Le-Bretonneux, France

    Mirella Hage & Marie-Laure Raffin-Sanson

  7. Department of Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Centre de Référence Des Maladies Endocriniennes Rares de La Croissance Et du Développement, CRMERC, Endo-ERN, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France

    Carine Courtillot & Anne Bachelot

  8. Université Paris-Saclay, Inserm, Physiologie Et Physiopathologie Endocriniennes, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Bicêtre, Service d’Endocrinologie Et Des Maladies de La Reproduction, Centre de Référence des Maladies Rares de L’Hypophyse, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

    Peter Kamenicky & Philippe Chanson

  9. Sorbonne University, Endocrine Unit, Reproductive Medicine, Centre de Référence Des Maladies Endocriniennes Rares de La Croissance Et du Développement (CRMERC), Endo-ERN (Id 739527), Saint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France

    Camille Vatier & Sophie Christin-Maitre

  10. Inserm UMRS938, Saint-Antoine Research Center, Sorbonne University, 75012, Paris, France

    Camille Vatier

  11. INSERM UMR-833, Trousseau Hospital, Paris, France

    Sophie Christin-Maitre

  12. Department of Endocrinology, Center of Rare Adrenal Diseases, Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France

    Jérôme Bertherat & Guillaume Assié

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bertrand Baussart.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

From https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00701-023-05809-x