Magnetic resonance imaging grading of pituitary macroadenoma - SIPAP classification revisited.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is regarded as the modality of choice in diagnosis of pituitary macroadenomas. Since surgery is the first line therapy for all pituitary adenomas, simple and reproducible MRI classification based on major directions of tumour growth is an essential tool. SIPAP MRI classification for pituitary adenoma describes tumor extension in parasellar, suprasellar, infrasellar, anterior and posterior directions. We, therefore, evaluated reproducibility of SIPAP classification in reporting of pituitary adenomas. Methods: Forty-nine patients with biopsy-proven pituitary macroadenoma were graded according to SIPAP classification. Data was analyzed using Stata version 15. Interobserver variability was calculated using Cohen's Kappa. Comparison between grading before and after treatment was performed by Chi-square test. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Individual tumour extensions according to SIPAP for pre- and post-operative grading showed significant difference (p-value <0.001), except for anterior extension. For suprasellar extension, 67.3 % patients had pre-operative grade-3 and 63.3 % had post-operative grade-0. For infrasellar extension, 51.0 % had pre-operative grade-2 and 71.4 % had post-operative grade-0. Anterior, posterior and parasellar extensions showed increased frequency in grade-0 in post-operative stage compared to pre-operative. Substantial inter-observer agreement was achieved for Superior, Inferior, Anterior and Posterior extent with all Kappa statistics values above 0.7 (p-value <0.001). Conclusion: We propose incorporating simple and objective SIPAP classification in routine MR reporting for ideal pituitary tumour delineation, relationship to juxtasellar structures and tumour size, hence facilitating greater success rate in surgical and subsequent clinical management.

Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy.

Objective: This study is the first to examine the influence of e-cigarette emission phrasing on perceived harm of secondhand exposure, and whether harm perception was associated with support for a tobacco-free campus policy. Participants: In the fall 2018 and spring 2019 semesters, 52 sections of a college English course (N = 791 students) were cluster randomized to one of three conditions ("vapor," "aerosol," or "chemicals") assessing harm of secondhand exposure to e-cigarette emissions. Methods: Regression models adjusted for demographic characteristics, tobacco use, and other potential confounders. Results: Compared to the "vapor" condition, "chemicals" and "aerosol" conditions were associated with increased odds of perceiving secondhand exposure to e-cigarettes to be harmful/very harmful (AOR = 2.0, p < 0.01). Greater perceived harm of secondhand e-cigarette exposure was associated with increased odds of supporting a tobacco-free campus policy (AOR = 2.22, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.