A history of pituitary pathology

Structure, Function, and Morphology in the Classification of Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors: the Importance of Routine Analysis of Pituitary Transcription Factors

The traditional approach to the diagnosis of primary adenohypophyseal cell proliferations uses hormone immunohistochemistry to classify pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs). The routine application of immunolocalization of pituitary transcription factors (SF1, PIT1, TPIT, ERα, and recently GATA3) along with adenohypophyseal hormones has taught us critical lessons that are discussed in this communication. We point out that appropriate patient care requires accurate diagnosis and is critical in the era of precision medicine. A misdiagnosis can result in far greater health care costs than the cost of accurate tumor classification and may have other unintended consequences. We provide additional insights about confusing findings in genomic studies, emphasizing that high-quality pathology is essential for strong science and translational research.

Pituitary adenomas: historical perspective, surgical management and future directions

Pituitary adenomas are among the most common central nervous system tumors. They represent a diverse group of neoplasms that may or may not secrete hormones based on their cell of origin. Epidemiologic studies have documented the incidence of pituitary adenomas within the general population to be as high as 16.7%. A growing body of work has helped to elucidate the pathogenesis of these tumors. Each subtype has been shown to demonstrate unique cellular changes potentially leading to tumorigenesis. Surgical advancements over several decades have included microsurgery and the employment of the endoscope for surgical resection. These advancements increase the likelihood of gross-total resection and have resulted in decreased patient morbidity.

Histological criteria for atypical pituitary adenomas - data from the German pituitary adenoma registry suggests modifications

INTRODUCTION

The term atypical pituitary adenoma (APA) was revised in the 2004 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of pituitary tumors. However, two of the four parameters required for the diagnosis of APAs were formulated rather vaguely (i.e., "extensive" nuclear staining for p53; "elevated" mitotic index). Based on a case-control study using a representative cohort of typical pituitary adenomas and APAs selected from the German Pituitary Tumor Registry, we aimed to obtain reliable cut-off values for both p53 and the mitotic index. In addition, we analyzed the impact of all four individual parameters (invasiveness, Ki67-index, p53, mitotic index) on the selectivity for differentiating both adenoma subtypes.

METHODS

Of the 308 patients included in the study, 98 were diagnosed as APAs (incidence 2.9 %) and 10 patients suffered from a pituitary carcinoma (incidence 0.2 %). As a control group, we selected 200 group matched patients with typical pituitary adenomas (TPAs). Cut-off values were attained using ROC analysis.

RESULTS

We determined significant threshold values for p53 (≥2 %; AUC: 0.94) and the mitotic index (≥2 mitosis within 10 high power fields; AUC: 0.89). The most reliable individual marker for differentiating TPAs and APAs was a Ki-67-labeling index ≥ 4 % (AUC: 0.98). Using logistic regression analysis (LRA) we were able to show that all four criteria (Ki-67 (p < 0.001); OR 5.2// p53 (p < 0.001); OR 3.1// mitotic index (p < 0.001); OR 2.1// invasiveness (p < 0.001); OR 8.2)) were significant for the group of APAs. Furthermore, we describe the presence of nucleoli as a new favorable parameter for TPAs (p = 0.008; OR: 0.4; CI95 %: 0.18; 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Here we present a proposed rectification of the current WHO classification of pituitary tumors describing an additional marker for TPA and specific threshold values for p53 and the mitotic index. This will greatly help in the reliable diagnosis of APAs and facilitate further studies to ascertain the prognostic relevance of this categorization.