Volumetry in the Assessment of Pituitary Adenoma Resection: Endoscopy versus Microscopy

Anthony C. Wang, Ashish H. Shah, Charif Sidani, Brandon G. Gaynor, Simon Dockrell, Shelby S. Burks, Zoukaa B Sargi, Roy R Casiano, Jacques Morcos

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Assessment of the extent of resection after surgical resection of pituitary adenomas is most commonly reported in terms of the presence or absence of residual tumor. A quantitative comparison of volumetric resection between endonasal endoscopy (EE) and microsurgery (MS) has rarely been done. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on a consecutive series of 154 patients with pituitary adenomas treated by the same surgeon at a single institution. We employed volumetric analysis pre- and postoperatively on two cohorts of pituitary adenoma patients treated through MS ( n = 37) versus EE approach ( n = 117). Results Volumetric analysis revealed a higher incidence of complete resection (64.4 vs. 56.8%) and mean volume reduction in the EE cohort (92.7 vs. 88.4%), although not significant. Recurrence rates were significantly lower in the EE group (7.7% vs 24.3%, p = 0.015). Subgroup analysis identified that patients with preoperative tumor volumes >1 mL were less likely to recur through EE (7.8 vs. MS: 29.6%; p = 0.0063). A higher incidence of complete resection was also noted in patients with favorable Knosp grades (0–1) (EE: 87.8 vs. MS: 63.2%; p = 0.036). Postoperative complication rates were not significantly different between both techniques. Conclusion Both microscopy and endoscopy are well-tolerated, effective approaches in the treatment of pituitary adenomas. Our series demonstrated that EE may be superior to MS in preventing tumor recurrence and achieving a complete resection in certain subsets of patients. EE provides a slight advantage in tumor control outcomes that may justify the paradigm shift to pure endoscopy at our center.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Neurological Surgery, Part B: Skull Base
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Apr 12 2018

Fingerprint

Pituitary Neoplasms
Endoscopy
Microscopy
Microsurgery
Recurrence
Incidence
Residual Neoplasm
Tumor Burden
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • endoscopy
  • microscopy
  • pituitary adenoma
  • volumetry

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Volumetry in the Assessment of Pituitary Adenoma Resection : Endoscopy versus Microscopy. / Wang, Anthony C.; Shah, Ashish H.; Sidani, Charif; Gaynor, Brandon G.; Dockrell, Simon; Burks, Shelby S.; Sargi, Zoukaa B; Casiano, Roy R; Morcos, Jacques.

In: Journal of Neurological Surgery, Part B: Skull Base, 12.04.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b5ebbfbec7a44435b719ff6d054261ac,
title = "Volumetry in the Assessment of Pituitary Adenoma Resection: Endoscopy versus Microscopy",
abstract = "Background Assessment of the extent of resection after surgical resection of pituitary adenomas is most commonly reported in terms of the presence or absence of residual tumor. A quantitative comparison of volumetric resection between endonasal endoscopy (EE) and microsurgery (MS) has rarely been done. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on a consecutive series of 154 patients with pituitary adenomas treated by the same surgeon at a single institution. We employed volumetric analysis pre- and postoperatively on two cohorts of pituitary adenoma patients treated through MS ( n = 37) versus EE approach ( n = 117). Results Volumetric analysis revealed a higher incidence of complete resection (64.4 vs. 56.8{\%}) and mean volume reduction in the EE cohort (92.7 vs. 88.4{\%}), although not significant. Recurrence rates were significantly lower in the EE group (7.7{\%} vs 24.3{\%}, p = 0.015). Subgroup analysis identified that patients with preoperative tumor volumes >1 mL were less likely to recur through EE (7.8 vs. MS: 29.6{\%}; p = 0.0063). A higher incidence of complete resection was also noted in patients with favorable Knosp grades (0–1) (EE: 87.8 vs. MS: 63.2{\%}; p = 0.036). Postoperative complication rates were not significantly different between both techniques. Conclusion Both microscopy and endoscopy are well-tolerated, effective approaches in the treatment of pituitary adenomas. Our series demonstrated that EE may be superior to MS in preventing tumor recurrence and achieving a complete resection in certain subsets of patients. EE provides a slight advantage in tumor control outcomes that may justify the paradigm shift to pure endoscopy at our center.",
keywords = "endoscopy, microscopy, pituitary adenoma, volumetry",
author = "Wang, {Anthony C.} and Shah, {Ashish H.} and Charif Sidani and Gaynor, {Brandon G.} and Simon Dockrell and Burks, {Shelby S.} and Sargi, {Zoukaa B} and Casiano, {Roy R} and Jacques Morcos",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1055/s-0038-1639618",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Neurological Surgery, Part B: Skull Base",
issn = "2193-6331",
publisher = "Thieme Medical Publishers",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Volumetry in the Assessment of Pituitary Adenoma Resection

T2 - Endoscopy versus Microscopy

AU - Wang, Anthony C.

AU - Shah, Ashish H.

AU - Sidani, Charif

AU - Gaynor, Brandon G.

AU - Dockrell, Simon

AU - Burks, Shelby S.

AU - Sargi, Zoukaa B

AU - Casiano, Roy R

AU - Morcos, Jacques

PY - 2018/4/12

Y1 - 2018/4/12

N2 - Background Assessment of the extent of resection after surgical resection of pituitary adenomas is most commonly reported in terms of the presence or absence of residual tumor. A quantitative comparison of volumetric resection between endonasal endoscopy (EE) and microsurgery (MS) has rarely been done. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on a consecutive series of 154 patients with pituitary adenomas treated by the same surgeon at a single institution. We employed volumetric analysis pre- and postoperatively on two cohorts of pituitary adenoma patients treated through MS ( n = 37) versus EE approach ( n = 117). Results Volumetric analysis revealed a higher incidence of complete resection (64.4 vs. 56.8%) and mean volume reduction in the EE cohort (92.7 vs. 88.4%), although not significant. Recurrence rates were significantly lower in the EE group (7.7% vs 24.3%, p = 0.015). Subgroup analysis identified that patients with preoperative tumor volumes >1 mL were less likely to recur through EE (7.8 vs. MS: 29.6%; p = 0.0063). A higher incidence of complete resection was also noted in patients with favorable Knosp grades (0–1) (EE: 87.8 vs. MS: 63.2%; p = 0.036). Postoperative complication rates were not significantly different between both techniques. Conclusion Both microscopy and endoscopy are well-tolerated, effective approaches in the treatment of pituitary adenomas. Our series demonstrated that EE may be superior to MS in preventing tumor recurrence and achieving a complete resection in certain subsets of patients. EE provides a slight advantage in tumor control outcomes that may justify the paradigm shift to pure endoscopy at our center.

AB - Background Assessment of the extent of resection after surgical resection of pituitary adenomas is most commonly reported in terms of the presence or absence of residual tumor. A quantitative comparison of volumetric resection between endonasal endoscopy (EE) and microsurgery (MS) has rarely been done. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on a consecutive series of 154 patients with pituitary adenomas treated by the same surgeon at a single institution. We employed volumetric analysis pre- and postoperatively on two cohorts of pituitary adenoma patients treated through MS ( n = 37) versus EE approach ( n = 117). Results Volumetric analysis revealed a higher incidence of complete resection (64.4 vs. 56.8%) and mean volume reduction in the EE cohort (92.7 vs. 88.4%), although not significant. Recurrence rates were significantly lower in the EE group (7.7% vs 24.3%, p = 0.015). Subgroup analysis identified that patients with preoperative tumor volumes >1 mL were less likely to recur through EE (7.8 vs. MS: 29.6%; p = 0.0063). A higher incidence of complete resection was also noted in patients with favorable Knosp grades (0–1) (EE: 87.8 vs. MS: 63.2%; p = 0.036). Postoperative complication rates were not significantly different between both techniques. Conclusion Both microscopy and endoscopy are well-tolerated, effective approaches in the treatment of pituitary adenomas. Our series demonstrated that EE may be superior to MS in preventing tumor recurrence and achieving a complete resection in certain subsets of patients. EE provides a slight advantage in tumor control outcomes that may justify the paradigm shift to pure endoscopy at our center.

KW - endoscopy

KW - microscopy

KW - pituitary adenoma

KW - volumetry

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045693802&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045693802&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0038-1639618

DO - 10.1055/s-0038-1639618

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85045693802

JO - Journal of Neurological Surgery, Part B: Skull Base

JF - Journal of Neurological Surgery, Part B: Skull Base

SN - 2193-6331

ER -