ReviewEndocrine pathology2016
Clinical Impact of the Current WHO Classification of Pituitary Adenomas.
Review in Endocrine pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of remission and recurrence following transsphenoidal surgery for prolactinoma: a single-center experience.Pituitary · 2026Article
- Impact of granulation pattern on surgical and long-term outcomes in Cushing's disease: a comparative study of DGCT and SGCT.Pituitary · 2026Article
- Histopathological and radiological predictors of surgical remission failure in GH-secreting pituitary adenomas.Pituitary · 2026Review
- Endoscopic surgery for noninvasive prolactinomas: A large multicenter, single-arm, retrospective study (PRLomaSaR).Endocrine · 2026Article
- Transcription factor-based classification of pituitary adenomas / PitNETs: a comparative analysis and clinical implications across WHO 2004, 2017 and 2022 in 921 cases.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary management of difficult/aggressive growth-hormone pituitary neuro-endocrine tumors.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
- Article
- The Past, Present, and Future Statuses of Formerly Classified "Atypical Pituitary Adenomas": A Clinicopathological Assessment of 101 Cases in a Cohort of More than 1,000 Pure Endoscopically Treated Patients in Single Center.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2021Article
- Expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) in human pituitary neuroendocrine tumor.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2020Article
- Prolactinomas in males: any differences?Pituitary · 2020Review
- Mammosomatotroph and mixed somatotroph-lactotroph adenoma in acromegaly: a retrospective study with long-term follow-up.Endocrine · 2019Article
- Pituitary Adenoma in Pediatric and Adolescent Populations.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2019Article
- Aggressive somatotrophinomas lacking clinical symptoms: neurosurgical management.Neurosurgical review · 2018Article
- Clinicopathological significance of baseline T2-weighted signal intensity in functional pituitary adenomas.Pituitary · 2018Article
- Pediatric Pituitary Adenoma: Case Series, Review of the Literature, and a Skull Base Treatment Paradigm.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2018Review
- Factors That Predict the Growth of Residual Nonfunctional Pituitary Adenomas: Correlations between Relapse and Cell Cycle Markers.BioMed research international · 2018Article
- Article
- Pathology of GH-producing pituitary adenomas and GH cell hyperplasia of the pituitary.Pituitary · 2017Review
- Emerging Histopathological and Genetic Parameters of Pituitary Adenomas: Clinical Impact and Recommendation for Future WHO Classification.Endocrine pathology · 2016Review
- Prognostic Value of Invasion, Markers of Proliferation, and Classification of Giant Pituitary Tumors, in a Georeferred Cohort in Brazil of 50 Patients, with a Long-Term Postoperative Follow-Up.International journal of endocrinology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
WHO classifications should be used for comparing the results from different groups of pathologist and clinicians by standardized histopathological methods. Our present report describes the important parameters of pituitary adenoma pathology as demand of the WHO classification for correlation to endocrine data and prognosis. The combination of HE stain based structures with immunostainings for pituitary hormones allows subclassification of adenomas as the best method not only for correlations to clinical hyperfunctions but also for statements to the sensitivity of drug therapies (somatostatin analogs, dopamine agonists). GH-, PRL- and ACTH-secreting pituitary adenomas are further classified based on the size and number of their secretory granules by electron microscopy, or as is mostly the case nowadays by cytokeratin staining pattern, into densely and sparsely granulated. Granulation pattern may be considered for the prediction of treatment response in patients with GH-secreting adenomas, since the sparsely granulated subtype was shown to be less responsive to somatostatin analog treatment. For prognosis, it is important to identify aggressive adenomas by measurements of the Ki-67 index, of the number of mitoses, and of nuclear expression of p53. Among the criteria for atypical adenomas, high Ki-67 labeling index and invasive character are the most important adverse prognostic factors. Promising molecular markers have been identified that might supplement the currently used proliferation parameters. For defining atypical adenomas in a future histopathological classification system, we propose to provide the proliferative potential and the invasive character separately.
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.