Crooke Cell Adenoma Confers Poorer Endocrinological Outcomes Compared with Corticotroph Adenoma: Results of a Multicenter, International Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Crooke cell adenomas (CCAs) are a rare, aggressive subset of secretory pituitary corticotroph adenomas (sCTAs) found in 5%-10% of patients with Cushing disease. Multiple studies support worse outcomes in CCAs but are limited by small sample size and single-institution databases. We compared outcomes in CCA and sCTA using a multicenter, international retrospective database of high-volume skull base centers. METHODS: Patients surgically treated for pituitary adenoma from January 2017 through December 2020 were included. RESULTS: Among 2826 patients from 12 international centers, 20 patients with CCA and 480 patients with sCTA were identified. No difference in baseline demographics, tumor characteristics, or postoperative complications was seen. Microsurgical approaches (60% CCA vs. 62.3% sCTA) were most common. Gross total resection was higher in CCA patients (100% vs. 83%, P = 0.05). Among patients with gross total resection according to intraoperative findings, fewer CCA patients had postoperative hormone normalization of pituitary function (50% vs. 77.8%, P < 0.01) and remission of hypersecretion by 3-6 months (75% vs. 84.3%, P < 0.01). This was the case despite CCA having better local control rates (100% vs. 96%, P < 0.01) and fewer patients with remnant on magnetic resonance imaging (0% vs. 7.2%, P < 0.01). A systematic literature review of 35 studies reporting on various treatment strategies reiterated the high rate of residual tumor, persistent hypercortisolism, and tumor-related mortality in CCA patients. CONCLUSIONS: This modern, multicenter series of patients with CCA reflects their poor prognosis and reduced postsurgical hormonal normalization. Further work is necessary to better understand the pathophysiology of CCA to devise more targeted treatment approaches.

A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched Assessment of Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Approaches in the Management of Pituitary Adenomas.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is considerable controversy as to which of the 2 operating modalities (microsurgical or endoscopic transnasal surgery) currently used to resect pituitary adenomas (PAs) is the safest and most effective intervention. We compared rates of clinical outcomes of patients with PAs who underwent resection by either microsurgical or endoscopic transnasal surgery. METHODS: To independently assess the outcomes of each modality type, we sought to isolate endoscopic and microscopic PA surgeries with a 1:1 tight-caliper (0.01) propensity score-matched analysis using a multicenter, neurosurgery-specific database. Surgeries were performed between 2017 and 2020, with data collected retrospectively from 12 international institutions on 4 continents. Matching was based on age, previous neurological deficit, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor functionality, tumor size, and Knosp score. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among a pool of 2826 patients, propensity score matching resulted in 600 patients from 9 surgery centers being analyzed. Multivariate analysis showed that microscopic surgery had a 1.91 odds ratio (OR) ( P = .03) of gross total resection (GTR) and shorter operative duration ( P < .01). However, microscopic surgery also had a 7.82 OR ( P < .01) for intensive care unit stay, 2.08 OR ( P < .01) for intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, 2.47 OR ( P = .02) for postoperative syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH), and was an independent predictor for longer postoperative stay (ß = 2.01, P < .01). Overall, no differences in postoperative complications or 3- to 6-month outcomes were seen by surgical approach. CONCLUSION: Our international, multicenter matched analysis suggests microscopic approaches for pituitary tumor resection may offer better GTR rates, albeit with increased intensive care unit stay, CSF leak, SIADH, and hospital utilization. Better prospective studies can further validate these findings as matching patients for outcome analysis remains challenging. These results may provide insight into surgical benchmarks at different centers, offer room for further registry studies, and identify best practices.