Non-functioning pituitary microadenoma in children and adolescents: Is follow-up with diagnostic imaging necessary?

1Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: No consensus exists regarding follow-up recommendations for suspected pituitary microadenoma in children. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated the growth potential of pituitary solid and cystic lesions <10 mm in children and evaluated the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements. Methods: The children included were <18 years at first pituitary MRI and radiologically diagnosed with a non-functioning microadenoma or cyst <10 mm. Lesion size at first and latest MRI as well as all individual MRI examinations were re-evaluated. Results: In total, 74 children, median age 12 years (range 3–17), had a non-functioning microadenoma, probable microadenoma, or cyst. Of these, 55 underwent repeated MRI (median 3, range 2–7) with a median follow-up of 37 months (range 4–189). None of the pituitary lesions without hormonal disturbances increased significantly during follow-up. Two radiologists agreed that no lesion could be identified in 38/269 (14%) MRI examinations, and in 51/231 (22%) they disagreed about lesion location. In 34/460 (7%) MRI measurements size differed >2 mm, which had been considered significant progression. Conclusion: Non-functioning pituitary microadenoma in children has small size variations, often below the spatial resolution of the scanners. We suggest lesions <4 mm only for clinical follow-up, lesions 4–6 mm for MRI after 2 years and ≥7 mm MRI after 1 and 3 years, with clinical follow-up in between. If no progression, further MRI should only be performed after new clinical symptoms or hormonal disturbances.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Borghammar, C., Tamaddon, A., Erfurth, E. M., Sundgren, P. C., Siesjö, P., Elfving, M., & Nilsson, M. (2023). Non-functioning pituitary microadenoma in children and adolescents: Is follow-up with diagnostic imaging necessary? Endocrine, 79(1), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-022-03212-7

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free