Post-operative surveillance for somatotroph, lactotroph and non-functional pituitary adenomas after curative resection: a systematic review

How often should we perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the follow-up of pituitary adenoma?

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the examination of choice for diagnosing and monitoring pituitary adenoma (also known as pituitary neuroendocrine tumor or PitNET), whether treated or not. However, repeating the examination too often (and sometimes unnecessarily) is costly, and worrying data on tissue accumulation (brain, bone, etc.) of gadolinium atoms dissociated from their carrier molecule (chelator) have led European authorities to ban contrast agents based on linear chelators of gadolinium, which are particularly susceptible to rapid dissociation, in favor of chemically more stable macrocyclic chelators. It is therefore important to determine the optimal frequency for pituitary MRI monitoring in order to safely assess the natural history or therapeutic response of pituitary adenomas. The aim of this article is to summarize the most recent data on optimal follow-up intervals depending on the type, size and location of the pituitary tumor and the clinical situation in general, in order to generate monitoring algorithms to guide clinicians.

Genome-Wide DNA Methylation Profiling as a Prognostic Marker in Pituitary Adenomas-A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

The prediction of the regrowth potential of pituitary adenomas after surgery is challenging. The genome-wide DNA methylation profiling of pituitary adenomas may separate adenomas into distinct methylation classes corresponding to histology-based subtypes. Specific genes and differentially methylated probes involving regrowth have been proposed, but no study has linked this epigenetic variance with regrowth potential and the clinical heterogeneity of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. This study aimed to investigate whether DNA methylation profiling can be useful as a clinical prognostic marker.

METHODS

A DNA methylation analysis by Illumina's MethylationEPIC array was performed on 54 pituitary macroadenomas from patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery during 2007-2017. Twelve patients were excluded due to an incomplete postoperative follow-up, degenerated biobank-stored tissue, or low DNA methylation quality. For the quantitative measurement of the tumor regrowth rate, we conducted a 3D volumetric analysis of tumor remnant volume via annual magnetic resonance imaging. A linear mixed effects model was used to examine whether different DNA methylation clusters had different regrowth patterns.

RESULTS

The DNA methylation profiling of 42 tissue samples showed robust DNA methylation clusters, comparable with previous findings. The subgroup of 33 nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas of an SF1-lineage showed five subclusters with an approximately unbiased score of 86%. There were no overall statistically significant differences when comparing hazard ratios for regrowth of 100%, 50%, or 0%. Despite this, plots of correlated survival estimates suggested higher regrowth rates for some clusters. The mixed effects model of accumulated regrowth similarly showed tendencies toward an association between specific DNA methylation clusters and regrowth potential.

CONCLUSION

The DNA methylation profiling of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas may potentially identify adenomas with increased growth and recurrence potential. Larger validation studies are needed to confirm the findings from this explorative pilot study.

Surveillance Imaging Strategies for Pituitary Adenomas: When, How Frequent, and When to Stop

OBJECTIVE

To describe a practical approach of when and how often to perform imaging, and when to stop imaging pituitary adenomas (PAs).

METHODS

A literature review was carried out and recommendations provided are derived largely from personal experience.

RESULTS

Magnetic resonance imaging is the mainstay imaging modality of choice in the assessment, treatment planning, and follow-up of PAs. These adenomas are discovered incidentally during imaging for a variety of unrelated conditions, because of clinical symptoms related to mass effects on the adjacent structures, or during workup for functional alterations of the adenoma. Imaging is also used in the preoperative and postoperative phases of assessment of PAs, for surgical and radiotherapy planning, for postoperative surveillance to assess for adenoma stability and detection of adenoma recurrence, and for surveillance to monitor for adenoma growth in unoperated PAs. Currently, because there are no evidence-based consensus recommendations, the optimal strategy for surveillance imaging of PAs is not clearly established. Younger age, initial adenoma size, extrasellar extension, mass effect, cavernous sinus invasion, functional status, histopathologic characteristics, cost considerations, imaging accessibility, patient preference, and patient contraindications (eg, implanted metallic devices and patient claustrophobia) are all important factors that influence the strategy for surveillance imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a practical approach of performing surveillance imaging strategies for PAs that should be individualized based on clinical presentation, history, adenoma morphology on imaging, and histopathologic characteristics.