ReviewPituitary2026
Cabergoline for non-functioning pituitary adenomas: an update on an old clinical controversy.
Review in Pituitary, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCabergoline has been used off-label for non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) for decades, yet its place in management remains controversial. We reappraised the evidence, emphasizing studies from the last 3-5 years and how contemporary natural-history data influence interpretation of radiological outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a focused PubMed/MEDLINE search from database inception through 27 September 2026, prioritizing comparative studies, recent cohorts, systematic reviews, natural-history studies, translational research, and clinically relevant safety data. Evidence was synthesized narratively.
resultsEarlier studies suggested radiological activity, but the only randomized open-label trial showed primarily a radiological signal, with less growth and more shrinkage, rather than established patient-centered clinical benefit. A 2022 meta-analysis estimated at least 20% shrinkage in 19% and an outcome classified as prevention of progression in 50%. Recent data remain inconsistent: a 2022 multicenter comparison found no clear radiological advantage over observation, a 2024 surgery-naive cohort reported shrinkage/stability/growth in 20%/48%/32%, and 2026 real-world and radiotherapy cohorts have not resolved comparative efficacy. Contemporary natural-history studies show that untreated NFPAs may remain stable, regress, or grow unpredictably. No validated molecular or pathological predictor of cabergoline response has emerged.
conclusionRecent evidence adds context but does not resolve this long-standing controversy or support routine cabergoline therapy for NFPAs. Cabergoline remains off-label and has no established routine role; it should not displace established surveillance, neurosurgical, or radiotherapy strategies. Prospective controlled studies using standardized volumetric imaging and patient-centered outcomes are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42888280What 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.