Effectiveness of Combined First-Line Medical Treatment in Acromegaly with Prolactin Co-secretion.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the response to first-line medical treatment in treatment-naive acromegaly patients with pure growth hormone (GH)-secreting pituitary adenoma (GH-PA) and those with GH and prolactin co-secreting PA (GH&PRL-PA). DESIGN: Retrospective multicentric study of acromegaly patients followed from 2003 to 2023 in 33 tertiary Spanish hospitals with at least six months of first-line medical treatment. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, first-line medical treatment strategies, and outcomes were analysed. We employed a multiple logistic regression full model to estimate the impact of some baseline characteristics on disease control after each treatment modality. RESULTS: Of the 144 patients included, 72.9% had a GH-PA, and 27.1% had a GH&PRL-PA. Patients with GH&PRL-PA were younger (43.9 ± 15.0 vs. 51.9 ± 12.7 years; p < 0.01) and harboring more frequently macroadenomas (89.7% vs. 72.1%, p = 0.03). First generation somatostatin receptor ligand (fgSRL) as monotherapy was given to 106 (73.6%) and a combination treatment with fgSRL and cabergoline in the remaining 38 (26.4%). Patients with GH&PRL-PA received more frequently a combination therapy (56.4% vs. 15.2%; p < 0.01). After 6 months of treatment, in the group of patients under fgSRL as monotherapy, those patients with GH&PRL-PA had worse control compared to GH-PAs (29.4% vs. 55.1%, p = 0.04). However, these differences in the rate of disease control between both groups disappeared when both received combination treatment with fgSRL and cabergoline. CONCLUSION: In GH&PRL-PA the biochemical control achieved with fgSRL as monotherapy is substantially worse than in patients harboring GH-PA, supporting the inclusion of cabergoline as first line medical treatment in combination with fgSRLs in these subgroups of patients.

Pegvisomant and pasireotide in PRL and GH co-secreting vs GH-secreting Pit-NETs.

The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of second-line therapies in patients with acromegaly caused by a growth hormone (GH) and prolactin (PRL) co-secreting pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (GH&PRL-Pit-NET) compared to their efficacy in patients with acromegaly caused by a GH-secreting pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (GH-Pit-NET). This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients with acromegaly on treatment with pasireotide and/or pegvisomant. Patients were classified in two groups: GH&PRL-Pit-NETs when evidence of hyperprolactinemia and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for GH and PRL was positive or if PRL were >200 ng/dL regardless of the PRL-IHC and GH-Pit-NETs when the previously mentioned criteria were not met. A total of 28 cases with GH&PRL-Pit-NETs and 122 with GH-Pit-NETs met the inclusion criteria. GH&PRL-Pit-NETs presented at a younger age, caused hypopituitarism, and were invasive more frequently than GH-Pit-NETs. There were 124 patients treated with pegvisomant and 49 with pasireotide at any time. The efficacy of pegvisomant for IGF-1 normalization was of 81.5% and of pasireotide of 71.4%. No differences in IGF-1 control with pasireotide and with pegvisomant were observed between GH&PRL-Pit-NETs and GH-Pit-NETs. All GH&PRL-Pit-NET cases treated with pasireotide (n = 6) and 82.6% (n = 19/23) of the cases treated with pegvisomant normalized PRL levels. No differences in the rate of IGF-1 control between pegvisomant and pasireotide were detected in patients with GH&PRL-Pit-NETs (84.9% vs 66.7%, P = 0.178). We conclude that despite the more aggressive behavior of GH&PRL-Pit-NETs than GH-Pit-NETs, no differences in the rate of IGF-1 control with pegvisomant and pasireotide were observed between both groups, and both drugs have shown to be effective treatments to control IGF-1 and PRL hypersecretion in these tumors.

Differences between GH and PRL co-secreting and GH-secreting pituitary adenomas. A series of 604 cases.

PURPOSE: To evaluate differences in clinical presentation and in surgical outcomes between growth hormone-secreting pituitary adenomas (GH-PAs) and GH and prolactin co-secreting pituitary adenomas (GH&PRL-PAs). METHODS: Multicenter retrospective study of 604 patients with acromegaly submitted to pituitary surgery. Patients were classified into two groups according to serum PRL levels at diagnosis and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for PRL: a) GH&PRL-PAs when PRL levels were above the upper limit of normal and IHC for GH and PRL was positive or PRL levels were >100ng/and PRL IHC was not available (n=130) and b) GH-PAs who did not meet the previously mentioned criteria (n=474). RESULTS: GH&PRL-PAs represented 21.5% (n=130) of patients with acromegaly. The mean age at diagnosis was lower in GH&PRL-PAs than in GH-PAs (P<0.001). GH&PRL-PAs were more frequently macroadenomas (90.6% vs. 77.4%, P=0.001) and tended to be more invasive (33.6% vs. 24.7%, P=0.057) than GH-PAs. Furthermore, they had presurgical hypopituitarism more frequently (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.83-4.38). IGF-1 upper limit of normality (ULN) levels at diagnosis were lower in patients with GH&PRL-PAs (median 2.4 [IQR 1.73-3.29] vs. 2.7 [IQR 1.91-3.67], P=0.023). There were no differences in the immediate (41.1% vs 43.3%, P=0.659) or long-term post-surgical acromegaly biochemical cure rate (53.5% vs. 53.1%, P=0.936) between groups. However, there was a higher incidence of permanent arginine-vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) (7.3% vs. 2.4%, P=0.011) in GH&PRL-PAs patients. CONCLUSIONS: GH&PRL-PAs are responsible for 20% of acromegaly cases. These tumors are more invasive, larger and cause hypopituitarism more frequently than GH-PAs and are diagnosed at an earlier age. The biochemical cure rate is similar between both groups, but patients with GH&PRL-PAs tend to develop permanent postsurgical AVP-D more frequently.