Cargando…
Are dopamine agonists still the first-choice treatment for prolactinoma in the era of endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: For prolactinoma patients, dopamine agonists (DAs) are indicated as the first-line treatment and surgery is an adjunctive choice. However, with the development of surgical technique and equipment, the effect of surgery has improved. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and sa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8994364/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35395837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41016-022-00277-1 |
_version_ | 1784684093055696896 |
---|---|
author | Cai, Xiangming Zhu, Junhao Yang, Jin Tang, Chao Cong, Zixiang Ma, Chiyuan |
author_facet | Cai, Xiangming Zhu, Junhao Yang, Jin Tang, Chao Cong, Zixiang Ma, Chiyuan |
author_sort | Cai, Xiangming |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: For prolactinoma patients, dopamine agonists (DAs) are indicated as the first-line treatment and surgery is an adjunctive choice. However, with the development of surgical technique and equipment, the effect of surgery has improved. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of surgery versus DAs in patients with different types of prolactinomas. METHODS: A systematic search of literature using Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trial databases was conducted until July 12, 2019. Prolactinoma patients treated with DAs (bromocriptine or cabergoline) or surgery (microscopic or endoscopic surgery) were included. Outcomes included the biochemical cure rate, recurrence rate, prolactin level, improvement rates of symptoms, and incidence rates of complications. A random-effects model was used to pool the extracted data. Qualitative comparisons were conducted instead of quantitative comparison. RESULTS: DAs were better than surgery in terms of the biochemical cure rate (0.78 versus 0.66), but surgery had a much lower recurrence rate (0.19 versus 0.57). Full advantages were not demonstrated in improvement rates of symptoms and incidence rates of complications with both treatment options. In microprolactinoma patients, the biochemical cure rate of endoscopic surgery was equal to the average cure rate of DAs (0.86 versus 0.86) and it surpassed the biochemical cure rate of bromocriptine (0.86 versus 0.76). In macroprolactinoma patients, endoscopic surgery was slightly higher than bromocriptine (0.66 versus 0.64) in terms of the biochemical cure rate. CONCLUSION: For patients with clear indications or contraindications for surgery, choosing surgery or DAs accordingly is unequivocal. However, for patients with clinical equipoise, such as surgery, especially endoscopic surgery, in microprolactinoma and macroprolactinoma patients, we suggest that neurosurgeons and endocrinologists conduct high-quality clinical trials to address the clinical equipoise quantitatively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41016-022-00277-1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8994364 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89943642022-04-10 Are dopamine agonists still the first-choice treatment for prolactinoma in the era of endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis Cai, Xiangming Zhu, Junhao Yang, Jin Tang, Chao Cong, Zixiang Ma, Chiyuan Chin Neurosurg J Research BACKGROUND: For prolactinoma patients, dopamine agonists (DAs) are indicated as the first-line treatment and surgery is an adjunctive choice. However, with the development of surgical technique and equipment, the effect of surgery has improved. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of surgery versus DAs in patients with different types of prolactinomas. METHODS: A systematic search of literature using Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trial databases was conducted until July 12, 2019. Prolactinoma patients treated with DAs (bromocriptine or cabergoline) or surgery (microscopic or endoscopic surgery) were included. Outcomes included the biochemical cure rate, recurrence rate, prolactin level, improvement rates of symptoms, and incidence rates of complications. A random-effects model was used to pool the extracted data. Qualitative comparisons were conducted instead of quantitative comparison. RESULTS: DAs were better than surgery in terms of the biochemical cure rate (0.78 versus 0.66), but surgery had a much lower recurrence rate (0.19 versus 0.57). Full advantages were not demonstrated in improvement rates of symptoms and incidence rates of complications with both treatment options. In microprolactinoma patients, the biochemical cure rate of endoscopic surgery was equal to the average cure rate of DAs (0.86 versus 0.86) and it surpassed the biochemical cure rate of bromocriptine (0.86 versus 0.76). In macroprolactinoma patients, endoscopic surgery was slightly higher than bromocriptine (0.66 versus 0.64) in terms of the biochemical cure rate. CONCLUSION: For patients with clear indications or contraindications for surgery, choosing surgery or DAs accordingly is unequivocal. However, for patients with clinical equipoise, such as surgery, especially endoscopic surgery, in microprolactinoma and macroprolactinoma patients, we suggest that neurosurgeons and endocrinologists conduct high-quality clinical trials to address the clinical equipoise quantitatively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41016-022-00277-1. BioMed Central 2022-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8994364/ /pubmed/35395837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41016-022-00277-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Cai, Xiangming Zhu, Junhao Yang, Jin Tang, Chao Cong, Zixiang Ma, Chiyuan Are dopamine agonists still the first-choice treatment for prolactinoma in the era of endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Are dopamine agonists still the first-choice treatment for prolactinoma in the era of endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Are dopamine agonists still the first-choice treatment for prolactinoma in the era of endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Are dopamine agonists still the first-choice treatment for prolactinoma in the era of endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Are dopamine agonists still the first-choice treatment for prolactinoma in the era of endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Are dopamine agonists still the first-choice treatment for prolactinoma in the era of endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | are dopamine agonists still the first-choice treatment for prolactinoma in the era of endoscopy? a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8994364/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35395837 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41016-022-00277-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT caixiangming aredopamineagonistsstillthefirstchoicetreatmentforprolactinomaintheeraofendoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zhujunhao aredopamineagonistsstillthefirstchoicetreatmentforprolactinomaintheeraofendoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT yangjin aredopamineagonistsstillthefirstchoicetreatmentforprolactinomaintheeraofendoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tangchao aredopamineagonistsstillthefirstchoicetreatmentforprolactinomaintheeraofendoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT congzixiang aredopamineagonistsstillthefirstchoicetreatmentforprolactinomaintheeraofendoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT machiyuan aredopamineagonistsstillthefirstchoicetreatmentforprolactinomaintheeraofendoscopyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |