Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36248137›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2022

Surgical management of giant pituitary neuroendocrine tumors: Meta-analysis and consensus statement on behalf of the EANS skull base section.

Giulia Cossu, Emmanuel Jouanneau, Luigi M Cavallo, Sebastien Froelich, Daniele Starnoni, Lorenzo Giammattei, Ethan Harel, Diego Mazzatenta, Micheal Bruneau, Torstein R Meling and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

22 authors at 14 institutions in 9 countries.

Giulia CossuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Emmanuel JouanneauDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hopital Neurologique Pierre Wertheimer, Lyon, France.
Luigi M CavalloDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Naples Federico II, Italy.
Sebastien FroelichDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris, France.
Daniele StarnoniDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Lorenzo GiammatteiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ethan HarelDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Diego MazzatentaIRCCS Institute of Neurological Sciences of Bologna, Bellaria Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Micheal BruneauDepartment of Neurosurgery, UZ Brussel - Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Torstein R MelingDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.
Moncef BerhoumaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hopital Neurologique Pierre Wertheimer, Lyon, France.
Ari G ChackoDepartment of Neurological Science, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamilnadu, India.
Jan F CorneliusDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Dimitrios ParaskevopoulosDepartment of Neurosurgery, Barts Health NHS Trust, St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London Hospital, London, UK.
Henry W S SchroederDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Greifswald, Germany.
Idoya ZazpeServicio de Neurocirugía, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Romain ManetDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hopital Neurologique Pierre Wertheimer, Lyon, France.
Paul A GardnerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Henry DufourDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hopital de la Timone, Marseille, France.
Paolo CappabiancaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Naples Federico II, Italy.
Roy T DanielDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Mahmoud MessererDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
University of Lausanne · CHHôpital Pierre Wertheimer · FRFederico II University Hospital · ITChristian Medical College & Hospital · INComplejo Hospitalario de Navarra · ESHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEHôpital de la Timone · FRHôpital Lariboisière · FRIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversitätsmedizin Greifswald · DEUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity of Pittsburgh · USVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The optimal surgical treatment for giant pituitary neuroendocrine tumors(GPitNETs) is debated. Research question: The aim of this paper is to optimize the surgical management of these patients and to provide a consensus statement on behalf of the EANS Skull Base Section. Material and methods: We constituted a task force belonging to the EANS skull base committee to define some principles for the management of GPitNETs. A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines to perform a meta-analysis on surgical series of GPitNETs. Weighted summary rates were obtained for the pooled extent of resection and according to the surgical technique. These data were discussed to obtain recommendations after evaluation of the selected articles and discussion among the experts. Results: 20articles were included in our meta-analysis, for a total of 1263 patients. The endoscopic endonasal technique was used in 40.3% of cases, the microscopic endonasal approach in 34% of cases, transcranial approaches in 18.7% and combined approaches in 7% of cases. No difference in terms of gross total resection (GTR) rate was observed among the different techniques. Pooled GTR rate was 36.6%, while a near total resection (NTR) was possible in 45.2% of cases. Cavernous sinus invasion was associated with a lower GTR rate (OR: 0.061). After surgery, 35% of patients had endocrinological improvement and 75.6% had visual improvement. Recurrent tumors were reported in 10% of cases. Discussion and conclusion: After formal discussion in the working group, we recommend the treatment of G-PitNETs tumors with a more complex and multilobular structure in tertiary care centers. The endoscopic endonasal approach is the first option of treatment and extended approaches should be planned according to extension, morphology and consistency of the lesion. Transcranial approaches play a role in selected cases, with a multicompartmental morphology, subarachnoid invasion and extension lateral to the internal carotid artery and in the management of residual tumor apoplexy.

Indexed as

ApoplexyEndoscopyGiant PitNETGiant pituitary adenomaSurgeryTranscranial approach

Identifiers

PMID36248137
PMCPMC9560664
OpenAlexW4220867485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.