Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22434413›Full record

ReviewEndocrine2012

Clinical implications of growth hormone-secreting tumor subtypes.

Katja Kiseljak-Vassiliades, Shibana Shafi, Janice M Kerr, Tzu L Phang, B K Kleinschmidt-DeMasters, Margaret E Wierman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Endocrine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Acromegaly: a clinical perspective.Clinical diabetes and endocrinology · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A structural and functional acromegaly classification.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2015
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Growth hormone is a cellular senescence target in pituitary and nonpituitary cells.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Katja Kiseljak-VassiliadesDepartment of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
Shibana Shafi
Janice M Kerr
Tzu L Phang
B K Kleinschmidt-DeMasters
Margaret E Wierman
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · US

Funding

Role of the Sterile20 (Ste20)-like kinase MST4 in Pituitary TumorigenesisI01BX001876 · VA · VA EASTERN COLORADO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM · PI WIERMAN, MARGARET E · 2014 to 2017
–
BLRD VA I01 BX001876
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Growth hormone (GH) pituitary tumors are almost always benign adenomas, yet are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Surgical and medical responses of GH tumors are often incomplete, and therefore predictors of residual or recurrent disease are needed. Clinical features, including patient gender, age or size of adenoma, have proven to be unreliable predictors of recurrence. Differing clinical behavior between the two GH tumor subtypes, sparsely granulated (SG) versus densely granulated (DG), has been reported, but has not been used routinely in clinical management. SG tumors are more common in younger patients (<50 years), and are usually larger tumors. SG tumors have been reported to be less responsive to somatostatin analogs (SSA) than DG tumors. The mechanisms underlying these potential differences in tumor behavior, however, are poorly defined. Subsets (up to 50 %) of DG adenomas harbor a gsp mutation that can activate cAMP that provides a theoretical intracellular target for somatostatin therapy. In contrast, some SG tumors have reduced somatostatin receptor expression and mutations in the extracellular domain of the GH receptor that may contribute to SSA resistance. While DG versus SG growth hormone adenomas are readily distinguished by immunohistochemistry, other less common GH adenoma variants still require electron microscopy (EM) for confident subclassification. Whether these less common variants possess unique clinical features is unknown. Research is needed to identify clinically relevant biomarkers of GH pituitary tumors that predict risk of recurrence and response to medical therapy.

Indexed as

AdenomaAdultAnimalsGrowth Hormone-Secreting Pituitary AdenomaHumansMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID22434413
OpenAlexW2002960508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.