ArticleEndocrine pathology2006
Expression of proliferation markers in human pituitary incidentalomas.
Article in Endocrine pathology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ki67 in endocrine neoplasms: to count or not to count, this is the question! A systematic review from the English language literature.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2020Pooled it
- Pituitary incidentaloma: a Pituitary Society international consensus guideline statement.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2025Review
- An Overview of Pituitary Incidentalomas: Diagnosis, Clinical Features, and Management.Cancers · 2022Review
- Evaluation of the potential of the Ki67 index to predict tumor evolution in patients with pituitary adenoma.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2019Article
- Phospho-histone H3 (pHH3) immuno-reactivity as a prognostic marker in non-functioning pituitary adenomas.Pituitary · 2012Article
- Pituitary incidentalomas--how often is too often?Journal of medicine and lifeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to immunohistochemically assess the proliferation activity of pituitary incidentalomas. A series of 52 incidentalomas studied included 22 gonadotroph cell adenomas, 21 null cell adenomas, and 9 clinically silent adenomas (identified as functioning by immunohistochemistry). We also analyzed the differences in proliferation activity between 43 non-functioning pituitary incidentalomas (not including 9 silent adenomas), and 43 symptomatic non-functioning adenomas (NFAs) that caused visual disturbance. Cell proliferation markers were immunostained using monoclonal Ki-67 (MIB-1) antibody and monoclonal anti-topoisomerase II alpha (Topo-II alpha) antibody. The average of MIB-1 labeling indices in pituitary incidentalomas was 0.61% +/- 0.06%. Overall, both MIB-1 and Topo-II alpha labeling indices of the incidentalomas were significantly lower than those of symptomatic NFAs. There were no significant differences in immunopositivity between the two groups based on gender, age, or subtype. The MIB-1 index of the smallest adenoma group in pituitary incidentalomas was significantly lower than in symptomatic NFAs, while the Topo-II alpha incidentaloma was significantly lower than in symptomatic NFAs. Our findings suggest that small or less invasive pituitary incidentalomas should be observed with follow-up MRI. Large or invasive incidentalomas should be surgically treated if the patients show visual disturbances, hypopituitarism, or pituitary apoplexy during the follow-up period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.