ArticleActa endocrinologica (Bucharest, Romania : 2005)
FROM 'NULL CELL ADENOMA' TO REFINED DIAGNOSIS: PITFALLS IN PITUITARY MASS EVALUATION.
Article in Acta endocrinologica (Bucharest, Romania : 2005). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Null cell adenoma (NCA) of the pituitary gland, once considered a distinct subtype of non-functioning pituitary tumors, has been substantially redefined with the advent of transcription factor (TF) immunostaining. The updated WHO classifications emphasize cell lineage differentiation, significantly narrowing the true spectrum of NCAs. Objective: To underscore the diagnostic challenges and potential misclassification of NCAs by presenting two illustrative cases and reviewing the evolving diagnostic approach. Methods: We describe two diagnostically complex cases initially classified as NCAs due to negative anterior pituitary hormone and TF immunostaining. Both demonstrated atypical clinical features, such as rapid progression and elevated Ki-67 indices, prompting further pathological reassessment. Results: In the first case, follow-up surgeries and additional immunohistochemistry revealed a posterior pituitary tumor-spindle cell oncocytoma. In the second, reevaluation identified hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) metastasis to the pituitary. These findings highlight the necessity of considering posterior pituitary tumors and metastases in the differential diagnosis of NCAs, especially when clinical or imaging findings suggest alternative etiologies. Conclusion: NCAs must be regarded as a diagnosis of exclusion. Accurate classification depends on thorough clinicopathological correlation, multidisciplinary collaboration, and the use of expanded immunohistochemical panels. Recognition of rare mimickers is crucial for guiding appropriate treatment and improving outcomes.
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.