ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Endocrinol.

Sec. Pituitary Endocrinology

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1571598

This article is part of the Research TopicSurgery and Management of Pituitary Region Tumours and Their Endocrine OutcomesView all 8 articles

Comparison of the clinical and prognostic characteristics of patients with different pathological types in acromegaly

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Department of Endocrinology, Endocrine and Metabolic Disease Medical Center, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
  • 2Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Metabolic Diseases, Nanjing, China
  • 3Department of Endocrinology, Endocrine and Metabolic Disease Medical Center, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, nan, China
  • 4Department of Pathology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Context: Acromegaly is caused by somatotroph tumors. Recently, the WHO recommended the use of transcription factors (TFs) together with pituitary hormones to accurately classify the subtypes.Objective: This study aims to evaluate differences in the clinical and prognostic characteristics of acromegaly patients with different pathological types.A retrospective study was conducted on 94 acromegaly patients who underwent surgical treatment. Patients were classified into two groups on the basis of TFs expression by IHC. PIT1 tumors were positive only for PIT1, and PIT1/SF1 tumors were positive for both PIT1 and SF1. Additionally, on the basis of the expression of GH and PRL by IHC, PIT1 tumors were further subdivided into GH positive tumors (those positive for only GH) and GH/PRL positive tumors (those positive for both GH and PRL). Differences in clinical and prognostic features among the pathological groups were evaluated.Results: PIT1/SF1 tumors represented 30.9% (n = 29) of the acromegaly patients in this cohort. PIT1/SF1 tumors had a higher baseline IGF-1 index (2.77±0.73 vs. 2.39±0.74, P = 0.024) than PIT1 tumors. Despite the higher proportion of postoperative GH < 1 μg/L, the biochemical remission rate of PIT1/SF1 tumors (30.8% vs. 27.6%, P = 0.812) was similar to that of PIT1 tumors. Compared with those with GH positive tumors, patients with GH/PRL positive tumors were younger at diagnosis (42.50±13.36 vs. 49.05±11.69, P = 0.046), and the proportion of male patients was higher (50.0% vs. 23.3%, P = 0.048). Furthermore, patients with GH/PRL positive tumors had a significantly higher postoperative GH level [7.30 (3.18-11.08) vs. 2.49 (1.57-6.84), P = 0.011] and IGF-1 index (1.82±0.94 vs. 1.31±0.63, P = 0.011) during follow-up. The biochemical remission rate in GH/PRL positive tumors was lower, but the difference was not statistically significant (18.2% vs. 37.2%, P = 0.159).PIT1/SF1 tumors represent approximately 30.0% of acromegaly patients. Despite higher baseline IGF-1 levels, the clinical and prognostic features of patients with PIT1/SF1 tumors are similar to those of patients with PIT1 tumors. GH/PRL positive tumors, characterized by their earlier age at diagnosis and male predominance, tend to exhibit a lower biochemical remission rate compared to GH positive tumors.

Keywords: Acromegaly, PIT1/SF1 tumor, GH/PRL positive tumor, Clinical Characteristics, prognosis

Received: 05 Feb 2025; Accepted: 15 Apr 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Chong, Lou, Chen, Wenji, 张, Zhang, Yang and Li. 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: Ping Li, Department of Endocrinology, Endocrine and Metabolic Disease Medical Center, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

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

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