ArticleBrain & spine2022
Surgical management of giant pituitary neuroendocrine tumors: Meta-analysis and consensus statement on behalf of the EANS skull base section.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simultaneous combined endonasal and transcranial surgery for large skull base tumors invading multiple regions: combination variations, pros and cons, and surgical results.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Training in endoscopic endonasal surgery: EANS young neurosurgeons committee survey.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Contributing factors to postoperative surgical site infections in pituitary neuroendocrine tumors undergoing endonasal transsphenoidal resection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Endoscope-assisted transcranial surgery for complex pituitary adenoma: a retrospective case series study with propensity score matching.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Diaphragm reconstruction using a TachoSil patch as alternative to intrasellar packing for small focal diaphragm defects in pituitary surgery: a cohort study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Article
- Implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) program in neurosurgery.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Review
- Pituitary surgery outcome in patients 75 years and older: a retrospective study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Endonasal Transplanum-Transtuberculum Approach for Pituitary Adenomas/PitNET: 25 Years of Experience.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery: How we do it. Consensus statement on behalf of the EANS skull base section.Brain & spine · 2023Article
- Case report: Giant pituitary neuroendocrine tumor presented along with acute visual loss due to pituitary apoplexy after receiving COVID-19 vaccination.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Relationship with the diaphragm to predict the surgical outcome in large and giant pituitary adenomas.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 14 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.