
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Endocrinol.
Sec. Pituitary Endocrinology
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1541514
This article is part of the Research Topic Surgery and Management of Pituitary Region Tumours and Their Endocrine Outcomes View all 6 articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The classification of pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs), also known as pituitary adenomas, has progressed significantly since 2004. The PitNET lineage now serves as the foundation of the classification. We investigated the prognostic value of clinicopathological markers in a cohort of patients diagnosed with acromegaly and prolactinomas who underwent transsphenoidal tumor resection.Methods: A total of 50 patients (45 patients with confirmed acromegaly and 5 with prolactinomas) in evidence at 'C. I. Parhon National Institute of Endocrinology (Pituitary and Neuroendocrine Pathology Department, Bucharest, Romania), who underwent tumor resection between 2010 and 2023, was recruited, with a median follow-up time of 7.02 years. Surgical samples were stained for anterior pituitary hormones, ki-67 labeling index, CAM 5.2 expression, and the following transcription factors (TFs): steroidogenic factor (SF-1), T-box family member TBX19 (TPIT) and POU class 1 homeobox 1 (PIT-1). Additionally, somatostatin receptor 5 (SSTR 5) and 2 (SSTR 2) expression was evaluated in all patients.Results: Based on the 2022 WHO classification, the majority of cases were PIT-1 lineage tumors (n=40, 72.7%), followed by TPIT-lineage (n=4, 7.3%), and SF-1 lineage (n=3, 5.5%) and 14.5% (n=4) were classified as tumors with no distinct cell lineage (NDCL). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, the postoperative GH value was independently associated with the outcome (HR 1.042, 95% CI 1.004-1.081, p=0.030), as well as the postoperative PRL value (HR 1.95% CI 1,1.001, p=0.019), the ki-67 labelling index (HR 2.43, p=0.026). Other factors associated with the success of the treatment were the postoperative tumor diameter (HR 1.038 95% CI 0.997-1.080, p=0.068) and the expression of SSTRs 2 and 5. Combining the four parameters, ki-67, SSTR 2, SSTR 5, GH, IGF-1 and the maximal tumor diameter, we established a prediction model with an AUC of 0.924 and relatively high sensitivity and specificity.A clear classification system that can guide clinical and neurosurgical management of patients with GH-and PRL-secreting PitNETs is not currently available, but certain clinicopathological factors can be used to predict patient prognosis. In our study, somatostatin receptor expression, ki-67, and postoperative values of GH and IGF-1, as well as the maximal postoperative tumor diameter, were the strongest predictors of outcome.
Keywords: pituitary tumor, 2022 WHO classification, Acromegaly, Prolactinoma, prognostic factors
Received: 07 Dec 2024; Accepted: 10 Mar 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Dumitriu-Stan, Burcea, Dobre, Nastase, Ceausu, Raica and Poiana. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Roxana-Ioana Dumitriu-Stan, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
Iulia Florentina Burcea, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.