ReviewBrain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland)2025
Practical approaches to diagnosing PitNETs/adenomas based on cell lineage.
Review in Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Racial and ethnic differences in presentation and postoperative recovery after transsphenoidal surgery for cushing disease.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Transcription Factor-Based Classification of Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors: Practical Immunohistochemical Algorithms, Molecular Correlates, and Diagnostic Challenges in the 5th WHO Era.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Corticotroph Tumour Type Influences Clinical Behaviour in Patients With Nonfunctioning Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumours.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2026Article
- The 5th Edition of the WHO Classification of Pituitary Tumors: Strengths and limitations.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reply to letter by Melmed et al.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Practical approaches to diagnosing PitNETs/adenomas based on cell lineage.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolution of classification systems of pituitary adenomas (now PitNETs) has culminated in the use of transcription factor (TF) immunohistochemistry (IHC), forming a cell lineage-based system. However, several issues remain to be addressed, including the additional financial and logistic burden of undertaking the complete array of anterior pituitary hormones and TF IHC. To that end, several groups have suggested algorithms to minimise the number of tests performed, with varying levels of diagnostic accuracy. Although the proportion of null cell tumours has decreased following the use of TFs, "multilineage" tumours have been reported and characterised using transcriptomic signatures, most prominently the PIT1-SF1 co-expressing PitNETs, which do not bear a position in the present system of classification. In this review, we examine the proposed practical approaches to the diagnosis of PitNETs. We review the literature on reported PitNET types that challenge the existing classification system, such as those that express multiple TFs, with their potential clinical implications. Finally, we assess limitations in the present system, such as the lack of a standardised system for IHC interpretation, that need to be addressed in the future.
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.