Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26561015›Full record

ArticleEndocrine2016

Giant prolactinomas: are they really different from ordinary macroprolactinomas?

Etual Espinosa, Ernesto Sosa, Victoria Mendoza, Claudia Ramírez, Virgilio Melgar, Moisés Mercado

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endocrine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Long-term Follow-up of 84 Patients With Giant Prolactinomas-A Swedish Nationwide Study.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Fertility issues in aggressive pituitary tumors.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2020
    Review
  18. Review
  19. The Treatment of Refractory Pituitary Adenomas.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019
    Review
  20. Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Etual EspinosaExperimental Endocrinology Unit, Hospital de Especialidades, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, México City, Mexico.
Ernesto SosaEndocrinology Service Hospital de Especialidades, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, México City, Mexico. esosae@yahoo.com.
Victoria MendozaEndocrinology Service Hospital de Especialidades, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, México City, Mexico.
Claudia RamírezExperimental Endocrinology Unit, Hospital de Especialidades, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, México City, Mexico.
Virgilio MelgarABC Hospital Neurological Center, México City, Mexico.
Moisés MercadoExperimental Endocrinology Unit, Hospital de Especialidades, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, México City, Mexico.
Mexican Social Security Institute · MXCentro Médico ABC · MXCentro Medico Nacional Siglo XXI · MXHospital de Especialidades · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Giant prolactinomas (gPRLomas) are rare tumors of the lactotroph defined by an unusually large size (>4 cm) and serum PRL levels >1000 ng/mL. The purpose of this study is to characterize the clinical spectrum of gPRLomas comparing them with non-giant prolactinomas. This is a retrospective study at a large referral center. Data from patients harboring gPRLomas and macroprolactinomas were retrieved from medical records of the Prolactinoma Clinic. Analysis was focused on clinical, biochemical, and tumor volume characteristics, as well as on the response to treatment with dopamine agonists. Among 292 patients with prolactinomas followed between 2008 and 2015, 47 (16 %) met the diagnostic criteria for gPRLomas (42 males). The most common complaint was a visual field defect; headache was reported by 79 % and sexual dysfunction was present in over half of the patients. Median basal PRL level and tumor volume were 6667 ng/mL (3750-10,000) and 32 cm(3) (20-50), respectively; hypogonadotropic hypogonadism was documented in 87 %. Cabergoline treatment resulted in the normalization of PRL levels in 68 % and in the reduction of >50 % in tumor volume in 87 % of the gPRLoma patients. The composite goal of PRL normalization and >50 % tumor reduction was achieved by 55 % (n = 26) of patients with gPRL and by 66 % (n = 100) of patients with no giant macroprolactinomas (p = 0.19). Recovery of hypogonadism and improvement of visual fields defects occurred in 32 % and 68 % of the patients, respectively. Cabergoline treatment was equally effective in patients with gPRLoma and those with macroprolactinomas in regard of achieving treatment goals, although the median CBG dose was slightly higher in the gPRLoma group (2 vs. 1.5 mg/w). Six patients required surgery. Beyond their impressive dimensions and the huge amount of PRL they secrete, the clinical behavior of gPRLoma is not different from macroprolactinomas. These tumors are highly responsive to cabergoline treatment, and pituitary surgery is seldom required.

Indexed as

Tumor BurdenAdultAgedDopamine AgonistsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPituitary NeoplasmsPrognosisProlactinProlactinomaRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultDopamine AgonistsProlactinCabergolineGiant prolactinomaMacroprolactinomaProlactin

Identifiers

PMID26561015
OpenAlexW2245554409

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.