Cargando…

Joint approach based on clinical and imaging features to distinguish non-neoplastic from neoplastic pituitary stalk lesions

PURPOSE: Distinguishing non-neoplastic pituitary stalk lesions (non-NPSLs) from neoplastic pituitary stalk lesions (NPSLs) is a major concern in guiding treatment for a thickened pituitary stalk. Our study aimed to aid provide preoperative diagnostic assistance by combining clinical and magnetic res...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Ji Ye, Park, Ji Eun, Shim, Woo Hyun, Jung, Seung Chai, Choi, Choong Gon, Kim, Sang Joon, Kim, Jeong Hoon, Kim, Ho Sung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5687750/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29140989
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187989
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Distinguishing non-neoplastic pituitary stalk lesions (non-NPSLs) from neoplastic pituitary stalk lesions (NPSLs) is a major concern in guiding treatment for a thickened pituitary stalk. Our study aimed to aid provide preoperative diagnostic assistance by combining clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings to distinguish non-NPSLs from NPSLs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited 158 patients with thickened pituitary stalk lesions visible on MRI. Laboratory findings included hypopituitarism, diabetes insipidus (DI), and hyperprolactinemia. MR images were assessed for anterior–posterior thickness (mm), diffuse pituitary stalk thickening, cystic changes, a high T1 signal, and glandular or extrasellar involvement. A diagnostic model was developed using a recursive partitioning logistic regression analysis. The model was validated in an independent dataset comprising 63 patients, and its diagnostic performance was compared with that of the original radiological reports. RESULTS: A univariate analysis found significant associations of DI (P = 0.006), absence of extrasellar involvement (P = 0.002), and lower stalk thickness (P = 0.031) with non-NPSLs. A diagnostic model was created using the following parameters (in order of priority): 1) lack of extrasellar involvement, 2) stalk thickness < 5.3 mm, and 3) presence of DI. The diagnostic performance (area under the curve; AUC) of this model in the independent set was 0.813, representing a significant improvement over the original radiological reports (AUC: 0.713, P = 0.029). CONCLUSION: The joint diagnostic approach based on clinical and imaging-based factors robustly distinguished non-NPSLs from NPSLs. This approach could guide treatment strategies and prevent unnecessary surgery in patients with non-NPSL.