Comparative effectiveness of endoscopic versus microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for patients with growth hormone secreting pituitary adenoma: An emulated trial

Surgical outcomes in patients with acromegaly: Microscopic vs. endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery

Transsphenoidal resection of growth hormone-secreting pituitary neuroendocrine tumors remains the first-line treatment for acromegaly. This can be performed through microsurgery or endoscopic surgery. For the past decades, endoscopic surgery has become the preferred technique in an increasing number of centers worldwide. However, whether it offers superior clinical outcomes has yet to be determined. In this paper, we performed a narrative review of the literature comparing both techniques in the treatment of acromegaly. We critically assessed available comparative studies from an objective perspective to determine their suitability for defining superiority of either technique. Available evidence displays substantial methodological variations and reports conflicting findings. Although endoscopic surgery provides a wider exposure and enhanced visibility of the surgical field, this does not consistently translate into better clinical outcomes, as most tumors are equally accessible through both techniques. Postoperative outcomes such as remission and complication rates are similar between both techniques. The management of acromegaly should be performed by experienced pituitary neurosurgeons, regardless of the approach. The involvement of a multidisciplinary team in a dedicated pituitary center is critical to ensure optimal outcomes.

Surgical and non-surgical interventions for primary and salvage treatment of growth hormone-secreting pituitary adenomas in adults

BACKGROUND

Growth hormone (GH)-secreting pituitary adenoma is a severe endocrine disease. Surgery is the currently recommended primary therapy for patients with GH-secreting tumours. However, non-surgical therapy (pharmacological therapy and radiation therapy) may be performed as primary therapy or may improve surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical and non-surgical interventions for primary and salvage treatment of GH-secreting pituitary adenomas in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search of all databases was 1 August 2022. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of more than 12 weeks' duration, reporting on surgical, pharmacological, radiation, and combination interventions for GH-secreting pituitary adenomas in any healthcare setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, screened for inclusion, completed data extraction, and performed a risk of bias assessment. We assessed studies for overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We estimated treatment effects using random-effects meta-analysis. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, or in descriptive format when meta-analysis was not possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs that evaluated 445 adults with GH-secreting pituitary adenomas. Four studies reported that they included participants with macroadenomas, one study included a small number of participants with microadenomas. The remaining studies did not specify tumour subtypes. Studies evaluated surgical therapy alone, pharmacological therapy alone, or combination surgical and pharmacological therapy. Methodological quality varied, with many studies providing insufficient information to compare treatment strategies or accurately judge the risk of bias. We identified two main comparisons, surgery alone versus pharmacological therapy alone, and surgery alone versus pharmacological therapy and surgery combined. Surgical therapy alone versus pharmacological therapy alone Three studies with a total of 164 randomised participants investigated this comparison. Only one study narratively described hyperglycaemia as a disease-related complication. All three studies reported adverse events, yet only one study reported numbers separately for the intervention arms; none of the 11 participants were observed to develop gallbladder stones or sludge on ultrasonography following surgery, while five of 11 participants experienced any biliary problems following pharmacological therapy (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life was reported to improve similarly in both intervention arms during follow-up. Surgery alone compared to pharmacological therapy alone may slightly increase the biochemical remission rate from 12 weeks to one year after intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain; 36/78 participants in the surgery-alone group versus 15/66 in the pharmacological therapy group showed biochemical remission. The need for additional surgery or non-surgical therapy for recurrent or persistent disease was described for single study arms only. Surgical therapy alone versus preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery Five studies with a total of 281 randomised participants provided data for this comparison. Preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery may have little to no effect on the disease-related complication of a difficult intubation (requiring postponement of surgery) compared to surgery alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.34; 1 study, 98 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Surgery alone may have little to no effect on (transient and persistent) adverse events when compared to preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery, but again, the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.03; 5 studies, 267 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Concerning biochemical remission, surgery alone compared to preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery may not increase remission rates up until 16 weeks after surgery; 23 of 134 participants in the surgery-alone group versus 51 of 133 in the preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery group showed biochemical remission. Furthermore, the very low-certainty evidence did not suggest benefit or detriment of preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery compared to surgery alone for the outcomes 'requiring additional surgery' (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.06; 1 study, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or 'non-surgical therapy for recurrent or persistent disease' (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.28; 2 studies, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies measured health-related quality of life. None of the eight included studies measured disease recurrence or socioeconomic effects. While three of the eight studies reported no deaths to have occurred, one study mentioned that overall, two participants had died within five years of the start of the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Within the context of GH-secreting pituitary adenomas, patient-relevant outcomes, such as disease-related complications, adverse events and disease recurrence were not, or only sparsely, reported. When reported, we found that surgery may have little or no effect on the outcomes compared to the comparator treatment. The current evidence is limited by the small number of included studies, as well as the unclear risk of bias in most studies. The high uncertainty of evidence significantly limits the applicability of our findings to clinical practice. Detailed reporting on the burden of recurrent disease is an important knowledge gap to be evaluated in future research studies. It is also crucial that future studies in this area are designed to report on outcomes by tumour subtype (that is, macroadenomas versus microadenomas) so that future subgroup analyses can be conducted. More rigorous and larger studies, powered to address these research questions, are required to assess the merits of neoadjuvant pharmacological therapy or first-line pharmacotherapy.

Current and Future Perspectives of Microscopic and Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery for Pituitary Adenomas: A Narrative Review

Transsphenoidal resection remains the standard treatment for most pituitary adenomas. However, the ideal surgical approach to safely access these lesions, either microsurgical or endoscopic, continues to be debated. Since the introduction of endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery, centers around the world have increasingly adopted this technique, experiencing a shift away from the conventional microsurgical approach. Large series reporting the efficacy and safety of endoscopic surgery have fueled a growing interest in comparing clinical outcomes between both approaches. Still, proving superiority of either surgical approach remains an elusive task due to the inherent drawbacks of surgical observational studies, as we are still faced with a growing body of evidence reporting conflicting results. Thus, a comprehensive discussion regarding the reach and limitations of both techniques becomes necessary. In this narrative review, we perform a critical appraisal of the literature and provide an expert opinion on the state-of-the-art in transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas. The advantages and limitations of each approach are assessed and compared from a technical standpoint, and their reported outcomes evaluated in the framework of this transition phase. Available evidence should be interpreted in light of individual patient characteristics and within the context of each medical center, taking into consideration the known impact that surgical expertise and multidisciplinary management hold on clinical outcomes.

Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance

Observational (nonexperimental) studies that aim to emulate a randomized trial (ie, the target trial) are increasingly informing medical and policy decision-making, but it is unclear how these studies are reported in the literature. Consistent reporting is essential for quality appraisal, evidence synthesis, and translation of evidence to policy and practice.

Objective

To assess the reporting of observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial.

Evidence Review

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for observational studies published between March 2012 and October 2022 that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial of a health or medical intervention. Two reviewers double-screened and -extracted data on study characteristics, key predefined components of the target trial protocol and its emulation (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, treatment assignment, outcome[s], follow-up, causal contrast[s], and analysis plan), and other items related to the target trial emulation.

Findings

A total of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial were included. These studies included 26 subfields of medicine, and 168 (84%) were published from January 2020 to October 2022. The aim to emulate a target trial was explicit in 70 study titles (35%). Forty-three studies (22%) reported use of a published reporting guideline (eg, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). Eighty-five studies (43%) did not describe all key items of how the target trial was emulated and 113 (57%) did not describe the protocol of the target trial and its emulation.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this systematic review of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial, reporting of how the target trial was emulated was inconsistent. A reporting guideline for studies explicitly aiming to emulate a target trial may improve the reporting of the target trial protocols and other aspects of these emulation attempts.

Multidisciplinary management of difficult/aggressive growth-hormone pituitary neuro-endocrine tumors

Growth Hormone-secreting adenomas exhibits variable biological behavior and heterogeneous natural history, ranging from small adenomas and mild disease, to invasive and aggressive neoplasms with more severe clinical picture. Patients not cured or controlled after neurosurgical and first-generation somatostatin receptor ligands (SRL) therapy could require multiple surgical, medical and/or radiation treatments to achieve disease control. To date, no clinical, laboratory, histopathological, or neuroradiological markers are able to define the aggressiveness or predict the disease prognosis in patients with acromegaly. Therefore, the management of these patients requires careful evaluation of laboratory assessments, diagnostic criteria, neuroradiology examinations, and neurosurgical approaches to choose an effective and patient-tailored medical therapy. A multidisciplinary approach is particularly useful in difficult/aggressive acromegaly to schedule multimodal treatment, which includes radiation therapy, chemotherapy with temozolomide and other, recent emerging treatments. Herein, we describe the role of the different members of the multidisciplinary team according to our personal experience; a flow-chart for the therapeutic approach of difficult/aggressive acromegaly patients is proposed.

Low-rank fusion convolutional neural network for prediction of remission after stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with acromegaly: a proof-of-concept study

Artificial intelligence approaches to analyze pathological images (pathomic) for outcome prediction have not been sufficiently considered in the field of pituitary research. A total of 5,504 Hematoxylin & Eosin-stained pathology image tiles from 58 acromegalic patients with a good or poor outcome were integrated with other clinical and genetic information to train a low-rank fusion convolutional neural network (LFCNN). The model was externally validated in 1,536 patches from an external cohort. The primary outcome was the time to the first endocrine remission after SRS. The median time of initial endocrine remission was 43 months [IQR: 13-60 months] after SRS, and the 24-month initial cumulative remission rate was 57.9% [IQR: 46.4-72.3%]. The patient-wise accuracy of the LFCNN model in predicting the primary outcome was 92.9% in the internal test dataset, and the sensitivity and specificity were 87.5% and 100.0%, respectively. The LFCNN model was a strong predictor of initial cumulative remission in the training cohort (HR 9.58, 95% CI 3.89-23.59; p < 0.001) and was higher than that of established prognostic markers. The predictive value of LFCNN model was further validated in an external cohort (HR 9.06, 95% CI 1.14-72.25; p = 0.012). In this proof-of-concept study, clinically and genetically useful prognostic markers were integrated with digital images to predict endocrine outcomes after SRS in patients with active acromegaly. The model considerably outperforms established prognostic markers and can potentially be used by clinicians to improve decision-making regarding adjuvant treatment choices. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.