Acidophil stem cell pituitary adenoma: a case report and literature review

Annapurni, Anupriya; Rathi, Manjusha

doi:10.1007/s42000-019-00154-0

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, clinical acromegaly has been reported without congruent biochemical findings, raising suspicion of biologically active GH hypersecretion not detected by current assays (Annapurni andRathi, 2019, Horvath et al, 1981). The natural history is characteristically rapid (months to 5 years), with local invasion, relatively low hormonal hypersecretion and resistance to dopamine agonist therapy (Horvath et al, 1981, Annapurni and Rathi, 2019, Huang et al, 2006. In a case series of 15 patients with acidophil stem cell tumours, Horvath et al described immature neoplasms characterised by a single cell type, assumed to be the common committed progenitor of growth hormone and prolactin producing cells (Horvath et al, 1981).…”

Section: Acidophil Stem Cell Tumoursmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Acidophil stem cell tumours are rare, with an overall prevalence of approximately 0.2%. Studies investigating acidophil stem cell tumour biology and prognostication have been limited to a few case series and case reports ( Horvath et al 1981 , Page et al 1996 , Maheshwari et al 2000 , Saeger et al 2007 , Annapurni & Rathi 2019 ). These tumours are thought to derive from the acidophil cell line and have been described as ‘immature’ neoplasms ( Asa 2021 ).…”

Section: Who Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These tumours are thought to derive from the acidophil cell line and have been described as ‘immature’ neoplasms ( Asa 2021 ). Clinical presentation is common with hyperprolactinaemia, whilst few patients exhibit features of acromegaly ( Horvath et al 1981 , Annapurni & Rathi 2019 ). Interestingly, clinical acromegaly has been reported without congruent biochemical findings, raising suspicion of biologically active GH hypersecretion not detected by current assays ( Horvath et al 1981 , Annapurni & Rathi 2019 ).…”

Section: Who Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical presentation is common with hyperprolactinaemia, whilst few patients exhibit features of acromegaly ( Horvath et al 1981 , Annapurni & Rathi 2019 ). Interestingly, clinical acromegaly has been reported without congruent biochemical findings, raising suspicion of biologically active GH hypersecretion not detected by current assays ( Horvath et al 1981 , Annapurni & Rathi 2019 ). The natural history is characteristically rapid (months to 5 years), with local invasion, relatively low hormonal hypersecretion and resistance to dopamine agonist therapy ( Horvath et al 1981 , Huang et al 2006 , Annapurni & Rathi 2019 ).…”

Section: Who Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The evolution in pituitary tumour classification: a clinical perspective

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Pituitary tumours comprise a pathologically and clinically diverse group of neoplasms. Classification frameworks have changed dramatically in the past two decades, reflecting improving understanding of tumour biology. This narrative review examines the evolution of pituitary tumour classification, from a clinical perspective. Results: In 2004, pituitary tumours were classified as ‘typical’ or ‘atypical’, based on the presence of markers of proliferation, Ki67, mitotic count and p53. In 2017, the new WHO marked a major paradigm shift, with a new focus on lineage-based classification, determined by transcription factor and hormonal immunohistochemistry. The terms ‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ were omitted, though the importance of proliferative markers Ki67 and mitotic count were acknowledged. The recent WHO 2022 classification incorporates further refinements, specifically recognising some less common types that may represent less well differentiated tumours. Whilst ‘high risk’ tumour types have been identified, further work is still required to improve prognostication. Conclusions: Recent WHO classifications have marked significant progress in diagnostic evaluation of pituitary tumours, though shortcomings and challenges remain for both clinicians and pathologists in managing these tumours.

show abstract