Preoperative Imaging Assessment of Patients with Suspected Nonfunctioning Pituitary Adenomas
Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) and the AANS/CNS Tumor Section
Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS)
2Department of Neurosurgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
3Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
4Guidelines Department, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Schaumburg, Illinois, USA
5Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
6Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
7Department of Neurosurgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
8Department of Neurosurgery, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
9Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
10Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
Clark Chen, MD, PhD
Center for Theoretical and Applied Neuro-Oncology
Moores Cancer Center
University of California, San Diego
3855 Health Science Drive #0987
La Jolla, CA 92093-0987
Background: The authors reviewed published articles pertaining to the preoperative imaging evaluation of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) and formulated recommendations.
Methods: The MEDLINE database was queried for studies investigating imaging for the preoperative evaluation of pituitary adenomas.
Results: From an initial search of 5598 articles, 122 articles were evaluated in detail and included in this article. Based on analysis of these articles, the recommendations are as follows: 1) High resolution magnetic resonance imaging (Level II) is recommended as the standard for preoperative assessment of NFPAs, but may be supplemented with CT (Level III) and fluoroscopy (Level III). 2) Although there are promising results suggesting the utility of magnetic resonance spectroscopy, magnetic resonance perfusion, positron emission tomography, and single-photon emission computed tomography, there is insufficient evidence to make formal recommendations pertaining to their clinical applications.
Conclusions: The authors identified 122 articles that form the basis of recommendations for preoperative imaging evaluation of NFPAs. Preoperative imaging assessment of NFPAs requires a thoughtful integration of multiple imaging modalities and judicious clinical assessment.
What imaging modality should be carried out in the preoperative diagnosis of NFPAs?
These recommendations apply to adults with imaging findings, signs, and symptoms suggestive of a nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma.
High-resolution MRI (Level II) is recommended as the standard but may be supplemented with CT (Level III).
What imaging modalities can be used to preoperatively evaluate NFPA histology and characteristics?
These recommendations apply to adults with imaging findings, signs, and symptoms suggestive of a nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma.
While promising results are available pertaining to MR spectroscopy, MR perfusion, PET, and SPECT for preoperative assessment of NFPA histology and characteristics, there is insufficient evidence to make a formal recommendation for their use.
What imaging modalities can be used to preoperatively evaluate cavernous sinus invasion?
These recommendations apply to adults with imaging findings, signs, and symptoms suggestive of a nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma.
While promising results are available pertaining to high-resolution MR and proton density imaging as tools of assessing cavernous sinus invasion, there is insufficient evidence to make a formal recommendation for their use.
What imaging modality can be used to preoperatively evaluate tumor vascularity and hemorrhage?
These recommendations apply to adults with imaging findings, signs, and symptoms suggestive of a nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma.
While promising results are available pertaining to perfusion and gradient echo imaging as tools for assessing tumor vascularity and hemorrhage, there is insufficient evidence to make a formal recommendation for their use.
Surgical management of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) is largely based on imaging evaluation in the context of clinical assessment. To date, information pertaining to the preoperative radiography of pituitary lesions is derived entirely from retrospective series, with little contribution from prospective studies or randomized control trials (RCTs). This review aims to summarize the key studies that impact the clinical utilization of neuroimaging in the preoperative management of NFPAs.
The evidence-based clinical practice guideline task force members and the Tumor Section of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) conducted a systematic review of the literature relevant to the management of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs). Additional details of the systematic review are provided below and within the introduction and methodology chapter of the guideline.
Disclaimer of Liability This clinical systematic review and evidence-based guideline was developed by a physician volunteer task force as an educational tool that reflects the current state of knowledge at the time of completion. The presentations are designed to provide an accurate review of the subject matter covered. This guideline is disseminated with the understanding that the recommendations by the authors and consultants who have collaborated in its development are not meant to replace the individualized care and treatment advice from a patient’s physician(s). If medical advice or assistance is required, the services of a physician should be sought. The recommendations contained in this guideline may not be suitable for use in all circumstances. The choice to implement any particular recommendation contained in this guideline must be made by a managing physician in light of the situation in each particular patient and on the basis of existing resources.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
All NFPA Guideline Task Force members were required to disclose all potential conflicts of interest (COIs) prior to beginning work on the guideline, using the COI disclosure form of the AANS/CNS Joint Guidelines Committee. The CNS Guidelines Committee and Guideline Task Force Chair reviewed the disclosures and either approved or disapproved the nomination and participation on the task force. The CNS Guidelines Committee and Guideline Task Force Chair may approve nominations of Task Force Members with possible conflicts and restrict the writing, reviewing and/or voting privileges of that person to topics that are unrelated to the possible COIs.
The Task Force collaborated with a medical librarian to search for articles published from January 1, 1966, to October 1, 2014 in both PubMed and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Strategies for searching electronic databases were constructed by the guideline taskforce members and the medical librarian using previously published search strategies to identify relevant studies (Appendix A).1-8
An independent reviewer evaluated the initial 5598 citations using the criteria described above. Articles were excluded for the following reasons: 905 articles were not written in English, 82 articles involved only animal studies, 1810 articles were case reports, 1465 articles did not involve NFPAs, 998 articles did not involve imaging, 48 studies described postoperative assessment of NFPAs, and 55 studies described the use of intraoperative MRIs. After these exclusions, 235 articles were evaluated in detail for the purpose of this review. The same eligibility criteria were used for full-text screening of potentially relevant papers. Overall, 122 studies met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review, including 8 studies producing Class II data and 114 studies producing Class III data related to preoperative imaging for NFPAs. Figure 1 outlines the flow of studies through the review process.
Computed Tomography (CT) Imaging
Prior to the advent of MR imaging, CT imaging9-16 and CT cisternography17,18 were used as feasible options for the diagnosis of sellar lesions, supported predominantly with Class III data (Table 1). However, the limited soft-tissue resolution of these modalities rendered limited information on NFPAs.19,20 While MRI has emerged as the gold standard for preoperative imaging diagnosis of sellar/suprasellar lesions, some surgeons prefer to augment MRI with imaging information from thin-cut CT through the sellar/sphenoid region and/or CT angiogram for preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation.21 There are 2 reasons underlying this preference, each supported by Class III data. First, the sphenoid septal anatomy is better visualized on high-resolution CT relative to the various MRI sequences.22-28 Second, inherent magnetic field homogeneity within regions of air-bone density causes image distortion on MRI, rendering the geometric accuracy of the image tenuous.29
Newer modes of CT imaging are now used to provide more detailed imaging information of sellar/suprasellar lesions when MRI is not accessible or is contraindicated. Multidetector-row CT takes advantage of concurrent acquisition of multiple slices in various directions to provide higher resolution imaging. Images acquired through this modality were found to provide sufficient NFPA visualization in a study of 33 patients with Class III data (Table 1).23 Dual-energy CT is another imaging technique that utilizes high-frequency cycling of high/low voltages to improve the quality of the CT images acquired. Class III data examining this technique suggests that the modality can provide information that discriminates between pituitary adenomas and meningiomas with a sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 100%.30
Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging
There is no class I data comparing the sensitivity and specificity of CT and MRI in terms of the detection and characterization of pituitary lesions (Table 1 and Table 2). However, the studies with Class II data that compare CT and MRI have shown that MRI can provide more detailed images of sellar/suprasellar lesions relative to CT.31,32 This conclusion is supported by several studies with Class III data.25,28,33-35 In this context, MRI has emerged as the gold standard. Typically, dedicated MR images spaced 1-2 mm apart are obtained through the sellar/suprasellar region for imaging assessment. The anterior lobe of the normal pituitary gland is iso-intense to the imaging appearance of the cerebral gray matter on all MR sequences. As this region is one of the circumventricular organs without an intact blood-brain barrier, gadolinium freely perfuses this region, and the region enhances within 30 minutes of infusion.36
Because the sizes of NFPAs that require surgical attention are relatively large, most MR sequences, scanners, and contrast doses yield comparable results, supported by Class II and III data, in terms of lesion identification (Table 2).25,37-45 This is in stark contrast to microadenoma detection, in which protocols for contrast administration and MR parameters significantly impact the diagnostic yield.46 Nevertheless, visualization of fine anatomic details surrounding the tumor, such as cavernous sinus wall involvement, cranial nerve visualization, or the presence of hemorrhage is influenced by the magnetic strength of the scanner (1.5T versus 3T) as well as the type of MR sequence utilized. Pertinent literature on these matters will be reviewed below.
1.5T vs 3T scanners
The field strength of the magnet used for MRI has progressively increased47,48 since its initial introduction for clinical use in the 1980s. In principle, imaging at higher field strengths should afford increased spatial resolution and improved anatomic visualization. Previous studies producing type III data largely supports this thesis (Table 3).49 One means to evaluate this concept is the determination of imaging evidence of cavernous sinus invasion. To this end, Wolfsberger et al compared the sensitivity and specificity of 1.5T and 3T MR imaging in terms of the integrity of the medial cavernous sinus border in 21 patients who underwent surgical resection of pituitary lesions (Class III data).50 Intraoperative findings of medial sinus wall integrity were used as a gold standard, and the imaging interpretations were compared to this gold standard. The authors report that, relative to 1.5T imaging, the 3T imaging yielded superior sensitivity (67% versus 83%, respectively) and specificity (58% relative to 84%) in terms of correlation to surgical findings. The authors additionally report that 3T MRI afforded improved resolution of the intracavernous cranial nerve segments as well as improved differentiation of optochiasmatic structures from the sellar lesion.50
Magnetic susceptibility effects present a significant obstacle to high-field MRI around the sella and central skull base. Tissue interfaces, especially around air- and bone-containing structures, cause non-uniformity in the otherwise homogeneous main magnetic field within an MRI scanner. The severity of non-uniformity increases with the strength of the main magnetic field and gives rise to geometric distortion and signal loss around these tissue interfaces. These magnetic susceptibility effects also render normal fat-suppression techniques less effective, making it more difficult to assess involvement of the bony structures around the sella.
Because of the increased resolution provided by higher strength MRIs, subtle patient motion related to respiratory effort has also been shown to compromise image quality. In one study with Class III data, volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE, see definition below) was shown to improve the diagnostic utility of MR imaging (Table 4).51 The necessity of these techniques is likely increased with the use of higher-field-strength MRIs.
Specific MR Sequences
In addition to the conventional T1 and T2 weighted sequences, specific MR techniques are used to characterize pituitary tumors in the preoperative setting. In this section we will provide an overview of these sequences and their application pertaining to NFPAs. The specifics of the type of information provided by these MR sequences are reviewed in the tumor characteristics section.
Constructive Interference Steady State (CISS) techniques such as fast imaging employing steady-state acquisition (FIESTA) use flow-compensated, 2- or 3-dimensional gradient echo acquisition to obtain images with contrast that is proportional to the ratio of T2 relation time to T1 relaxation time. Characterized by high signal-to-noise and high spatial resolution, CISS permits exquisite MR cisternography in order to depict boundaries between CSF and soft tissues.52 Class III data have shown that signal intensity on CISS sequences is associated with the firmness of NFPAs (Table 4).53
Dynamic imaging during the intravenous administration of gadolinium chelate show the differential enhancement of structures within and around the sella, thereby allowing the temporal separation of enhancement within the normal pituitary gland, NFPA tumor tissue and vascular structures such as the cavernous sinuses. Although most practices employ 2-dimensional techniques for dynamic MRI in the sella, volumetric gradient-echo techniques can be performed using breath-hold techniques such as the volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) sequence.54 The inherent advantage of 3D acquisition over 2D techniques lies in the ability to distinguish smaller structures with greater accuracy. Class III data suggest that VIBE sequence may offer superior image resolution of NFPA invasion of the cavernous sinus (Table 4).51
Proton density weighted imaging is a standard MR technique designed to minimize the effects of longitudinal relaxation time and local magnetic field inhomogeneity (or T2*) to yield images dependent primarily on the density of protons in the imaging volume. Signal intensity with proton density imaging is proportional to the concentration of hydrogen atoms (especially water molecules) in tissue. Class III data has shown that proton density weighted MR imaging is highly sensitive and specific for predicting NFPA invasion of the cavernous sinus (Table 4).55 Periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction (PROPELLER) is a technique that samples the MRI data measurement space using a set of radially directed strips in a rotating fashion. The technique is designed to reduce the sensitivity of MR to various sources of image artifacts, including motion, field inhomogeneity, and eddy current effects.56 Class III data suggests this sequence may help to discriminate NFPAs from other sellar/suprasellar pathologies (Table 4).57
MR perfusion imaging can be achieved by a number of different techniques, including dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) imaging58 and arterial spin labeling (ASL).59 DSC evaluates the change in signal on T2*-weighted sequences as gadolinium contrast flows through tissue to calculate blood volume and blood flow. ASL magnetically labels water molecules within a fixed volume of blood and then evaluates the transit of labeled molecules through perfused tissue. Class III data has shown MR perfusion may be used for discriminating NFPAs from other sellar/suprasellar pathologies60 and from the normal pituitary (Table 4).61 There is also Class III data suggesting that perfusion studies also provide information regarding vascularity of the NFPA.62
Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) is an MR imaging technique that correlates the intensity of each voxel in the image space to the rate of water diffusion of that voxel. A Class II study suggests DWI-based sequences may be used for discriminating NFPAs from other sellar/suprasellar pathologies, and Class III studies have used this for assessing tumor firmness (Table 4).57,63,64
MR spectroscopy is a technique that allows for detection of specific metabolites related to normal cerebral physiology of the tumor proteome. MR spectroscopy may provide information that affords discrimination of NFPAs from other sellar/suprasellar pathologies, including craniopharyngiomas and hypothalamic hamartomas. However, MR spectroscopy is technically challenging within small volumes such as the sella and is very sensitive to magnetic susceptibility effects due to the surrounding bone.
Gradient-echo image is generated by a frequency-encoded gradient that is applied twice in succession and in opposite directions.65 Clinically, it is highly sensitive for the detection of intracerebral hemorrhages by compounding the influence of blood products.66 GE sequences have been applied for detection of hemorrhagic conversion of NFPAs (Class III data) (Table 4).66
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Imaging
In general, the utility of PET imaging in the assessment of pituitary lesions is limited and is not routinely used in standard practice. On rare occasions, FDG PET diagnoses patients with incidental pituitary lesions. In a retrospective study with Class III data of 40 967 FDG PET performed at a single center, 30 (0.073%) patients were diagnosed with pituitary incidentalomas (Table 5).67
Though rarely used clinically in the standard assessment of NFPAs, select studies have examined the sensitivity and specificity of PET imaging as a possible diagnostic test. In 3 independent case series with Class III data utilizing 18(F)-FDG PET, detection of pituitary adenomas can be achieved with a sensitivity of 94%-100% and a sensitivity of 88%-100% (Table 5).68-70 In these studies, 18(F) FDG PET provided information allowing for discrimination of pituitary adenomas from other sellar pathology like craniopharyngiomas and meningiomas. Furthermore, Class III data suggest [11C]-L-deprenyl PET may facilitate discrimination of meningiomas from NFPAs.71
Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) Imaging
Like PET, SPECT is not routinely used during standard preoperative assessment of NFPAs. Nevertheless, select patients may benefit from SPECT imaging. The uses of different compounds in SPECT have been evaluated. SPECT using iodinated dopamine D2 antagonist S(-) iodobenzamide (IBZM) or similar compounds demonstrated that D2 receptors in pituitary adenomas can be visualized using SPECT (Class III data) (Table 6).72 Technetium-99m-hexakis-2-methyoxy-isobutyl-isonitrile SPECT can discriminate NFPAs from normal pituitary gland (Class III data).73 99mTc(V)-DMSA is actively taken up by NFPAs relative to other sellar/suprasellar lesions and has been shown with Class III data that it can be applied to differentiate NFPAs.74,75 Use of radiolabeled somatostatin or dopamine can potentially differentiate hormone producing from nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas and identify patients who would benefit from pharmacotherapy, although the clinical feasibility of this is unclear (Class III data).76-84 Similarly, while other radiopharmaceuticals have been shown to bind to NFPAs in studies with Class III data,85,86 the diagnostic utility these finding remain unclear.
Preoperative Imaging Characterization of NFPAs
Use of Preoperative Imaging to Differentiate NFPAs from Other Pathologies
One of the most challenging aspects in preoperative assessment of NFPAs involves differentiation from the other lesions that occur in this region. Such discrimination affords neurosurgeons an opportunity to tailor the surgical approach for resection or use specific pharmacotherapy.
MR spectroscopy may be helpful in this regard. For instance, both hypothalamic hamartomas and gliomas exhibit decreased N-acetyl asparate (NAA).87,88 However, hypothalamic hamartomas are characterized by increased myoinositol while hypothalamic gliomas show increased choline accumulation.88 Class III data found that pituitary adenomas, on the other hand, often show a choline peak (Table 7).89 Craniopharyngiomas and germinomas both show dominant lipid peaks.90-92 One study with Class III data demonstrated that the integration of spectroscopy data with conventional MRI sequences better enables preoperative assessment of sellar/suprasellar lesions.93
Other imaging techniques also contribute information that affords better preoperative assessment of NFPAs. One study compared MR perfusion images in 41 patients with sellar tumors to definitive tissue diagnosis and found higher cerebral blood volume values in meningiomas relative to NFPAs (Table 7).60 In addition, [99mTc(V)-DMSA] demonstrates active uptake in NFPAs relative to other sellar/suprasellar lesions.74,75
Preoperative MR imaging appearances of pituitary adenomas have been associated with their hormone secretory status. One study with Class III data reported that the degree of enhancement on T1-weighted sequences correlate with the proportion of hormone-positive cells (Table 7).94 Another study with Class III data reported that lowered T1 relaxation rate was associated with NFPAs relative to secreting adenomas.95 Finally, there is a series of studies with Class III data demonstrating that increased tumor extension into adjacent anatomic compartments and cavernous sinus invasion are characteristics associated with NFPAs.96-99
The utility of PET and SPECT for discriminating NFPAs from hormone-secreting macroadenomas are reviewed under the sections on PET and SPECT imaging. Studies with Class III evidence have shown that different histologic subtypes of NFPAs (null cell adenomas, silent corticotroph, or silent gonadotroph adenomas) are also associated with distinct MR appearances. Class III data suggests that multiple microcysts on T2W imaging, cavernous sinus invasion, lobulated appearance, and size >40 mm are associated with silent corticotroph adenomas (Table 7).100,101 Furthermore, Class II data suggest biochemical properties of the tumors are associated with specific MR characteristics.102
Cavernous Sinus Wall Invasion
Assessment of NFPA invasion into the cavernous sinus can facilitate determination of surgical end-point and strategy (Table 8).103 The most common MR sequences for evaluation of sinus invasion are thin-cut T1 and T2W studies, with intent for visualizing the medial wall of the cavernous sinus (Class III).104,105 Recent studies suggest that proton density weighted or VIBE sequences may yield improved detection of cavernous sinus wall invasion.51 However, no imaging techniques will perfectly predict NFPA sinus invasion because it is not always possible to directly visualize the medial cavernous sinus wall in patients afflicted with NFPAs.
To address this deficiency, various imaging parameters, supported by Class III, have been proposed as criteria for assessing cavernous sinus wall invasion (Table 8).106,107 The Knosp criteria is a scale that classified NFPAs by the extent of parasellar extension relative to inter-carotid lines drawn through the intra-cavernous carotid on a coronal MRI.108 High Knosp grades are associated with increased likelihood of sinus invasion. Variations of this scale, evaluated with Class III data, involve quantitating the extent that the tumor encases the intra-cavernous carotid109-111 or involvement of the different cavernous sinus compartments.112-114
Higher degree of encasement is associated with higher likelihood of sinus invasion. Detection of normal pituitary between NFPA and the cavernous sinus, sometimes called “rim sign” or “peri-arterial enhancement,” can be helpful to exclude sinus invasion.40,115 Asymmetric dural enhancement of tentorium along the posterior portion of the cavernous sinus is associated with increased likelihood of sinus invasion and thought to be related to venous congestion secondary to tumor mass (type III).116,117
Additionally, functional imaging through SPECT and PET facilitate the discrimination of pituitary adenomas varying in invasive tendencies. Retrospective series with Class III data report that the uptake of technetium-99m sestamibi (SPECT) or 201Tl chloride (SPECT) is higher in invasive NFPAs (Table 8).101,118,119
Vascularity and Hemorrhage
Preoperative assessment of tumor enhancement patterns and vascularity may facilitate strategies for management of intra- and postoperative tumor hemorrhage.120-123 These studies have been supported by Class III data (Table 9). Retrospective series suggest that ASL and DSC measurements correlate with tumor vascularity. Higher ASL blood flow values correlated with intraoperative findings of NFPA vascularity and risk of postoperative hemorrhage.62 Similarly, DSC indicative of increased blood flow correlated with histologic evidence of vascularity for NFPAs. While these initial studies report promising results, the use of these techniques in preoperative imaging assessment of NFPAs remains investigational and have not been incorporated into standard practice.
Detection of intra-tumoral hemorrhage in NFPAs is also of critical importance in terms of clinical management. These events in the context of clinical deterioration warrant emergent neurosurgical intervention. Most acute hemorrhages appear T1 hypo-intense and T2 hyper-intense (Class III data) (Table 9).124,125 Class III data suggest T2-weighted gradient-echo (GE) imaging can be used to further enhance the sensitivity of hemorrhage detection.66,126 Lack of a strong choline peak on MR-spectroscopy was also associated with hemorrhage in NFPAs.89
Firmness of the Tumor Mass
Firm, fibrous tumors may be more difficult to manipulate intraoperatively.127 Preoperative assessment may allow for application of different surgical strategies. Various MRI sequences with both Class II and III data have been used to evaluate the tissue quality of pituitary adenomas, using intraoperative findings as the gold standard (Table 10).53,64,128,129 Retrospective series with Class III data demonstrate association between MR findings of homogenous intensity on T1W, T2W, and contrast enhancement studies with fibrous NFPAs.53,129,130 While several studies have investigated the correlation between DWI findings and the firmness of NFPAs, these studies have yielded conflicting results. Of the 4 published studies, 2 studies with Class III data found no correlation,63,64 1 study with Class III data showed positive correlation,131 and another with Class III data showed negative correlation.132
Preoperative assessment of NFPAs involves visualization of the NFPA relative to pertinent sellar anatomy, including visualization of the normal pituitary gland, the pituitary stalk, the optic apparatus, and their relation to one another.
Because the pituitary gland is a circumventricular organ without an intact blood-brain barrier, the normal pituitary tissue typically exhibits higher intensity on contrast-enhanced T1W scans relative to NFPAs.133 The normal pituitary gland is most often displaced superiorly and posteriorly by NFPAs.133,134 Displacement of normal pituitary in other directions can suggest other pathology.133,134
The normal pituitary stalk is of relatively low intensity but can be bright when compressed by NFPAs and other sellar/suprasellar lesions (Class III data) (Table 11).135 However, preoperative imaging findings of stalk compression/deviation or bright stalk are not always associated with elevated prolactin class expected of stalk effect (Class III data).136 Nevertheless, there is an association between the imaging finding of “bright stalk” and NFPA size. One study with Class III data found that ectopic location of the bright spot is correlated with tumors larger than 20 mm.137 Another study with Class III data showed that a posteriorly displaced “bright stalk” is associated with higher tumor volume (P < .001).138 The shape of the NFPA can also be inferred by the location of the “bright stalk.” “Bright stalk” found above the diaphragm was associated with an hourglass-shaped adenoma, whereas those found in the sella were associated with a barrel-shaped adenoma (Class III data).139
The relationship between the tumor and the optic apparatus is typically studied using thin-cut T2W images (Class III data) (Table 11).140,141 While in most cases the optic chiasm is superior to the tumor, it can be found both anteriorly and posteriorly,140 and detection of this may adjust surgical approach. Visual field loss is significantly correlated with the height of the chiasm and the tumor (Class III data)142 as well as optic nerve hyperintensity on T2W images (Class II data),143 but not with optic tract edema (Class III data).144
A wide range of anatomic and functional imaging modalities is currently available for preoperative assessment of NFPAs. Understanding the benefits and limitations of these modalities should afford opportunities for judicious clinical application, with the goal of optimizing patient care. Overcoming the limitations of current imaging tools will require thoughtful integration of technologic development and clinical validation.
Disclosure of Funding
These evidence-based clinical practice guidelines were funded exclusively by the CNS and the Tumor Section of the CNS and the AANS, which received no funding from outside commercial sources to support the development of this document.
The authors acknowledge the CNS Guidelines Committee for their contributions throughout the development of the guideline, the AANS/CNS Joint Guidelines Committee for their review, comments, and suggestions throughout peer review, and Pamela Shaw, MSLIS, MS, for assistance with the literature searches. The authors also acknowledge the following individual peer reviewers for their contributions: Sepideh Amin-Hanjani, MD, Kathryn Holloway, MD, Odette Harris, MD, Brad Zacharia, MD, Daniel Hoh, MD, Isabelle Germano, MD, Martina Stippler, MD, Kimon Bekelis, MD, Christopher Winfree, MD, and William Mack, MD. Lastly, and most significantly, the authors would like to acknowledge Edward Laws, MD, for serving as an advisor on this nonfunctioning adenoma guidelines project and providing comprehensive critical appraisal.
The authors have no personal, financial, or institutional interest in any of the drugs, materials, or devices described in this article.
1. Kastner M, Wilczynski NL, Walker-Dilks C, McKibbon KA, Haynes B. Age-specific search strategies for Medline. J. Med. Internet Res. 2006;8(4):e25.
2. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Walter SD, Werre SR, Hedges T. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005;330(7501):1179.
3. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, Hedges T. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005;330(7482):68.
4. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Comparison of top-performing search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies and systematic reviews in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. 2006;94(4):451-455.
5. Zhang L, Ajiferuke I, Sampson M. Optimizing search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2006;6:23.
6. Topfer LA, Parada A, Menon D, Noorani H, Perras C, Serra-Prat M. Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 1999;15(2):297-303.
7. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound prognostic studies in MEDLINE: an analytic survey. BMC Med. 2004;2:23.
8. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges T. EMBASE search strategies achieved high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving methodologically sound systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):29-33.
9. Clark WC, Acker JD, Robertson JH, Eggers F, Muhlbauer MS. Reformatted sagittal images in the differential diagnosis of meningiomas and pituitary adenomas with suprasellar extension. Neurosurgery. 1986;18(5):555-558.
10. Chen XR, Shen TZ, Chen GB, Tang SS. Computed tomography in the diagnosis of pituitary adenoma. Comput. Radiol. 1982;6(3):125-135.
11. Daniels DL, Williams AL, Thornton RS, Meyer GA, Cusick JF, Haughton VM. Differential diagnosis of intrasellar tumors by computed tomography. Radiology. 1981;141(3):697-701.
12. Robertson HJ, Rose A, Ehmi B, England G, Meriweather R. Trends in the radiological study of pituitary adenoma. Neuroradiology. 1981;21(2):75-78.
13. Gardeur D, Naidich TP, Metzger J. CT analysis of intrasellar pituitary adenomas with emphasis on patterns of contrast enhancement. Neuroradiology. 1981;20(5):241-247.
14. Macpherson P, Anderson DE. Radiological differentiation of intrasellar aneurysms from pituitary tumours. Neuroradiology. 1981;21(4):177-183.
15. Hatam A, Bergström M, Greitz T. Diagnosis of sellar and parasellar lesions by computed tomography. Neuroradiology. 1979;18(5):249-258.
16. Gyldensted C, Karle A. Computed tomography of intra- and juxtasellar lesions. A radiological study of 108 cases. Neuroradiology. 1977;14(1):5-13.
17. Numaguchi Y, Kishikawa T, Ikeda J, et al. Neuroradiological manifestations of suprasellar pituitary adenomas, meningiomas and craniopharyngiomas. Neuroradiology. 1981;21(2):67-74.
18. Hall K, McAllister VL. Metrizamide cisternography in pituitary and juxtapituitary lesions. Radiology. 1980;134(1):101-108.
19. Davis PC, Hoffman JC, Tindall GT, Braun IF. CT-surgical correlation in pituitary adenomas: evaluation in 113 patients. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1985;6(5):711-716.
20. Sakoda K, Mukada K, Yonezawa M, et al. CT scan of pituitary adenomas. Neuroradiology. 1981;20(5):249-253.
21. Swearingen B. Update on pituitary surgery. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012;97(4):1073-1081.
22. Hamid O, El Fiky L, Hassan O, Kotb A, El Fiky S. Anatomic Variations of the Sphenoid Sinus and Their Impact on Trans-sphenoid Pituitary Surgery. Skull Base. 2008;18(1):9-15.
23. Miki Y, Kanagaki M, Takahashi JA, et al. Evaluation of pituitary macroadenomas with multidetector-row CT (MDCT): comparison with MR imaging. Neuroradiology. 2007;49(4):327-333.
24. Abe T, Izumiyama H, Fujisawa I. Evaluation of pituitary adenomas by multidirectional multislice dynamic CT. Acta Radiol. 2002;43(6):556-559.
25. Lundin P, Bergström K, Thuomas KA, Lundberg PO, Muhr C. Comparison of MR imaging and CT in pituitary macroadenomas. Acta Radiol. 1991;32(3):189-196.
26. Wu W, Thuomas KA. Pituitary microadenoma. MR appearance and correlation with CT. Acta Radiol. 1995;36(5):529-535.
27. Johnson MR, Hoare RD, Cox T, et al. The evaluation of patients with a suspected pituitary microadenoma: computer tomography compared to magnetic resonance imaging. Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf.). 1992;36(4):335-338.
28. Kaufman B, Kaufman BA, Arafah BM, Roessmann U, Selman WR. Large pituitary gland adenomas evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosurgery. 1987;21(4):540-546.
29. Chen C, Chapman P, H K, JS L. Neuroimaging in radiosurgery treatment planning and follow-up evaluation. In: Chin L, Regine W, eds. Principles and practice of stereotactic radiosurgery. New York: Springer; 2008:9-23.
30. Wu LM, Li YL, Yin YH, et al. Usefulness of dual-energy computed tomography imaging in the differential diagnosis of sellar meningiomas and pituitary adenomas: preliminary report. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e90658.
31. Guy RL, Benn JJ, Ayers AB, et al. A comparison of CT and MRI in the assessment of the pituitary and parasellar region. Clin. Radiol. 1991;43(3):156-161.
32. Davis PC, Hoffman JC, Spencer T, Tindall GT, Braun IF. MR imaging of pituitary adenoma: CT, clinical, and surgical correlation. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1987;148(4):797-802.
33. Lee BC, Deck MD. Sellar and juxtasellar lesion detection with MR. Radiology. 1985;157(1):143-147.
34. Karnaze MG, Sartor K, Winthrop JD, Gado MH, Hodges FJ. Suprasellar lesions: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology. 1986;161(1):77-82.
35. Mikhael MA, Ciric IS. MR imaging of pituitary tumors before and after surgical and/or medical treatment. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 1988;12(3):441-445.
36. Castillo M. Pituitary gland: development, normal appearances, and magnetic resonance imaging protocols. Top. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2005;16(4):259-268.
37. Gutenberg A, Larsen J, Lupi I, Rohde V, Caturegli P. A radiologic score to distinguish autoimmune hypophysitis from nonsecreting pituitary adenoma preoperatively. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2009;30(9):1766-1772.
38. Kucharczyk W, Davis DO, Kelly WM, Sze G, Norman D, Newton TH. Pituitary adenomas: high-resolution MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology. 1986;161(3):761-765.
39. Steiner E, Imhof H, Knosp E. Gd-DTPA enhanced high resolution MR imaging of pituitary adenomas. Radiographics. 1989;9(4):587-598.
40. Steiner E, Math G, Knosp E, Mostbeck G, Kramer J, Herold CJ. MR-appearance of the pituitary gland before and after resection of pituitary macroadenomas. Clin. Radiol. 1994;49(8):524-530.
41. Hayashi S, Ito K, Shimada M, et al. Dynamic MRI with slow injection of contrast material for the diagnosis of pituitary adenoma. Radiat. Med. 1995;13(4):167-170.
42. Hald JK, Skalpe IO, Bakke SJ, Nakstad PH. MR imaging of pituitary region lesions with gadodiamide injection. Acta Radiol. 1994;35(1):65-69.
43. Davis PC, Gokhale KA, Joseph GJ, et al. Pituitary adenoma: correlation of half-dose gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging with surgical findings in 26 patients. Radiology. 1991;180(3):779-784.
44. Cury ML, Fernandes JC, Machado HR, Elias LL, Moreira AC, Castro M. Non-functioning pituitary adenomas: clinical feature, laboratorial and imaging assessment, therapeutic management and outcome. Arq. Bras. Endocrinol. Metabol. 2009;53(1):31-39.
45. Lundin P, Bergstrom K. Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging of pituitary macroadenomas. Acta Radiol. 1992;33(4):323-332.
46. Chowdhury IN, Sinaii N, Oldfield EH, Patronas N, Nieman LK. A change in pituitary magnetic resonance imaging protocol detects ACTH-secreting tumours in patients with previously negative results. Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf.). 2010;72(4):502-506.
47. Sekiya T, Fukuda Y, Kobayashi H, Hata Y, Tada S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the normal pituitary gland and pituitary adenoma: preliminary experience with a resistive magnet. Radiat. Med. 1985;3(3):131-136.
48. Oot R, New PF, Buonanno FS, et al. MR imaging of pituitary adenomas using a prototype resistive magnet: preliminary assessment. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1984;5(2):131-137.
49. Pinker K, Ba-Ssalamah A, Wolfsberger S, Mlynarik V, Knosp E, Trattnig S. The value of high-field MRI (3T) in the assessment of sellar lesions. Eur. J. Radiol. 2005;54(3):327-334.
50. Wolfsberger S, Ba-Ssalamah A, Pinker K, et al. Application of three-tesla magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and surgery of sellar lesions. J. Neurosurg. 2004;100(2):278-286.
51. Davis MA, Castillo M. Evaluation of the pituitary gland using magnetic resonance imaging: T1-weighted vs. VIBE imaging. Neuroradiol. J. 2013;26(3):297-300.
52. Nitz WR. Fast and ultrafast non-echo-planar MR imaging techniques. Eur. Radiol. 2002;12(12):2866-2882.
53. Yamamoto J, Kakeda S, Shimajiri S, et al. Tumor consistency of pituitary macroadenomas: predictive analysis on the basis of imaging features with contrast-enhanced 3D FIESTA at 3T. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2014;35(2):297-303.
54. Rofsky NM, Lee VS, Laub G, et al. Abdominal MR imaging with a volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination. Radiology. 1999;212(3):876-884.
55. Cao L, Chen H, Hong J, Ma M, Zhong Q, Wang S. Magnetic resonance imaging appearance of the medial wall of the cavernous sinus for the assessment of cavernous sinus invasion by pituitary adenomas. J. Neuroradiol. 2013;40(4):245-251.
56. Pipe JG, Farthing VG, Forbes KP. Multishot diffusion-weighted FSE using PROPELLER MRI. Magn. Reson. Med. 2002;47(1):42-52.
57. Mahmoud OM, Tominaga A, Amatya VJ, et al. Role of PROPELLER diffusion weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient in the diagnosis of sellar and parasellar lesions. Eur. J. Radiol. 2010;74(3):420-427.
58. Belliveau JW, Rosen BR, Kantor HL, et al. Functional cerebral imaging by susceptibility-contrast NMR. Magn. Reson. Med. 1990;14(3):538-546.
59. Detre JA, Zhang W, Roberts DA, et al. Tissue specific perfusion imaging using arterial spin labeling. NMR Biomed. 1994;7(1-2):75-82.
60. Bladowska J, Zimny A, Guziński M, et al. Usefulness of perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging with signal-intensity curves analysis in the differential diagnosis of sellar and parasellar tumors: preliminary report. Eur. J. Radiol. 2013;82(8):1292-1298.
61. Manfré L, Midiri M, Rosato F, Janni A, Lagalla R. Perfusion MRI in normal and abnormal pituitary gland. A preliminary study. Clin. Imaging. 1997;21(5):311-318.
62. Sakai N, Koizumi S, Yamashita S, et al. Arterial spin-labeled perfusion imaging reflects vascular density in nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenomas. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2013;34(11):2139-2143.
63. Mahmoud OM, Tominaga A, Amatya VJ, et al. Role of PROPELLER diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient in the evaluation of pituitary adenomas. Eur. J. Radiol. 2011;80(2):412-417.
64. Suzuki C, Maeda M, Hori K, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of pituitary macroadenoma evaluated with line-scan diffusion-weighted imaging. J. Neuroradiol. 2007;34(4):228-235.
65. Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Modic MT, Tkach J, Masaryk TJ, Haacke EM. The value of fast gradient-echo MR sequences in the evaluation of brain disease. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1990;11(1):59-67.
66. Unger EC, Cohen MS, Brown TR. Gradient-echo imaging of hemorrhage at 1.5 Tesla. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 1989;7(2):163-172.
67. Jeong SY, Lee SW, Lee HJ, et al. Incidental pituitary uptake on whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT: a multicentre study. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2010;37(12):2334-2343.
68. Hyun SH, Choi JY, Lee KH, Choe YS, Kim BT. Incidental focal 18F-FDG uptake in the pituitary gland: clinical significance and differential diagnostic criteria. J. Nucl. Med. 2011;52(4):547-550.
69. Seok H, Lee EY, Choe EY, et al. Analysis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography findings in patients with pituitary lesions. Korean J. Intern. Med. 2013;28(1):81-88.
70. Lucignani G, Losa M, Moresco RM, et al. Differentiation of clinically non-functioning pituitary adenomas from meningiomas and craniopharyngiomas by positron emission tomography with [18F]fluoro-ethyl-spiperone. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 1997;24(9):1149-1155.
71. Bergström M, Muhr C, Lundberg PO, Långström B. PET as a tool in the clinical evaluation of pituitary adenomas. J. Nucl. Med. 1991;32(4):610-615.
72. de Herder WW, Reijs AE, de Swart J, et al. Comparison of iodine-123 epidepride and iodine-123 IBZM for dopamine D2 receptor imaging in clinically non-functioning pituitary macroadenomas and macroprolactinomas. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 1999;26(1):46-50.
73. Kojima T, Mizumura S, Kumita SI, Kumazaki T, Teramoto A. Is technetium-99m-MIBI taken up by the normal pituitary gland? A comparison of normal pituitary glands and pituitary adenomas. Ann. Nucl. Med. 2001;15(4):321-327.
74. Yamamura K, Suzuki S, Yamamoto I. Differentiation of pituitary adenomas from other sellar and parasellar tumors by 99mTc(V)-DMSA scintigraphy. Neurol. Med. Chir. (Tokyo). 2003;43(4):181-186; discussion 187.
75. Lastoria S, Colao A, Vergara E, et al. Technetium-99m pentavalent dimercaptosuccinic acid imaging in patients with pituitary adenomas. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 1995;133(1):38-47.
76. Colao A, Lastoria S, Ferone D, et al. The pituitary uptake of (111)In-DTPA-D-Phe1-octreotide in the normal pituitary and in pituitary adenomas. J. Endocrinol. Invest. 1999;22(3):176-183.
77. Oppizzi G, Cozzi R, Dallabonzana D, et al. Scintigraphic imaging of pituitary adenomas: an in vivo evaluation of somatostatin receptors. J. Endocrinol. Invest. 1998;21(8):512-519.
78. Broson-Chazot F, Houzard C, Ajzenberg C, et al. Somatostatin receptor imaging in somatotroph and non-functioning pituitary adenomas: correlation with hormonal and visual responses to octreotide. Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf.). 1997;47(5):589-598.
79. Rieger A, Rainov NG, Elfrich C, et al. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy in patients with pituitary adenoma. Neurosurg. Rev. 1997;20(1):7-12.
80. de Herder WW, Reijs AE, Kwekkeboom DJ, et al. In vivo imaging of pituitary tumours using a radiolabelled dopamine D2 receptor radioligand. Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf.). 1996;45(6):755-767.
81. Luyken C, Hildebrandt G, Krisch B, Scheidhauer K, Klug N. Clinical relevance of somatostatin receptor scintigraphy in patients with skull base tumours. Acta Neurochir. Suppl. 1996;65:102-104.
82. Tumiati MN, Facchi E, Gatti C, Bossi A, Longari V. Scintigraphic assessment of pituitary adenomas and several diseases by indium-111-pentetreotide. Q. J. Nucl. Med. 1995;39(4 Suppl 1):98-100.
83. Boni G, Ferdeghini M, Bellina CR, et al. [111In-DTPA-D-Phe]-octreotide scintigraphy in functioning and non-functioning pituitary adenomas. Q. J. Nucl. Med. 1995;39(4 Suppl 1):90-93.
84. Duet M, Mundler O, Ajzenberg C, et al. Somatostatin receptor imaging in non-functioning pituitary adenomas: value of an uptake index. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 1994;21(7):647-650.
85. Colombo P, Siccardi AG, Paganelli G, et al. Three-step immunoscintigraphy with anti-chromogranin A monoclonal antibody in tumours of the pituitary region. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 1996;135(2):216-221.
86. Kurtulmus N, Turkmen C, Yarman S, Tokmak H, Mudun A. The value of Tc-99m tetrofosmin in the imaging of pituitary adenomas. J. Endocrinol. Invest. 2007;30(2):86-90.
87. Amstutz DR, Coons SW, Kerrigan JF, Rekate HL, Heiserman JE. Hypothalamic hamartomas: Correlation of MR imaging and spectroscopic findings with tumor glial content. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2006;27(4):794-798.
88. Freeman JL, Coleman LT, Wellard RM, et al. MR imaging and spectroscopic study of epileptogenic hypothalamic hamartomas: analysis of 72 cases. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2004;25(3):450-462.
89. Stadlbauer A, Buchfelder M, Nimsky C, et al. Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in pituitary macroadenomas: preliminary results. J. Neurosurg. 2008;109(2):306-312.
90. Kendi TK, Caglar S, Huvaj S, Bademci G, Kendi M, Alparslan S. Suprasellar germ cell tumor with subarachnoid seeding MRI and MR spectroscopy findings. Clin. Imaging. 2004;28(6):404-407.
91. Sutton LN, Wang ZJ, Wehrli SL, et al. Proton spectroscopy of suprasellar tumors in pediatric patients. Neurosurgery. 1997;41(2):388-394; discussion 394-385.
92. Sener RN. Proton MR spectroscopy of craniopharyngiomas. Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 2001;25(5):417-422.
93. Faghih Jouibari M, Ghodsi SM, Akhlaghpoor S, et al. Complementary effect of H MRS in diagnosis of suprasellar tumors. Clin. Imaging. 2012;36(6):810-815.
94. Kobayashi S, Ikeda H, Yoshimoto T. A clinical and histopathological study of factors affecting MRI signal intensities of pituitary adenomas. Neuroradiology. 1994;36(4):298-302.
95. Spiller M, Childress SM, Koenig SH, et al. Secretory and nonsecretory pituitary adenomas are distinguishable by 1/T1 magnetic relaxation rates at very low magnetic fields in vitro. Invest. Radiol. 1997;32(6):320-329.
96. Zada G, Lin N, Laws ER, Jr. Patterns of extrasellar extension in growth hormone-secreting and nonfunctional pituitary macroadenomas. Neurosurg. Focus. 2010;29(4):E4.
97. Luo CB, Teng MM, Chen SS, et al. Imaging of invasiveness of pituitary adenomas. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2000;16(1):26-31.
98. Lundin P, Nyman R, Burman P, Lundberg PO, Muhr C. MRI of pituitary macroadenomas with reference to hormonal activity. Neuroradiology. 1992;34(1):43-51.
99. Chang CY, Luo CB, Teng MM, et al. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of giant pituitary adenomas. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2000;99(11):833-838.
100. Cazabat L, Dupuy M, Boulin A, et al. Silent, but not unseen: multimicrocystic aspect on T2-weighted MRI in silent corticotroph adenomas. Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf.). 2014;81(4):566-572.
101. Nishioka H, Inoshita N, Sano T, Fukuhara N, Yamada S. Correlation between histological subtypes and MRI findings in clinically nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. Endocr. Pathol. 2012;23(3):151-156.
102. Pan LX, Chen ZP, Liu YS, Zhao JH. Magnetic resonance imaging and biological markers in pituitary adenomas with invasion of the cavernous sinus space. J. Neurooncol. 2005;74(1):71-76.
103. Connor SE, Wilson F, Hogarth K. Magnetic resonance imaging criteria to predict complete excision of parasellar pituitary macroadenoma on postoperative imaging. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2014;75(1):41-46.
104. Daniels DL, Czervionke LF, Bonneville JF, et al. MR imaging of the cavernous sinus: value of spin echo and gradient recalled echo images. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1988;151(5):1009-1014.
105. Ahmadi J, North CM, Segall HD, Zee CS, Weiss MH. Cavernous sinus invasion by pituitary adenomas. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1986;146(2):257-262.
106. Cukiert A, Andrioli M, Goldman J, et al. Cavernous sinus invasion by pituitary macroadenomas. Neuroradiological, clinical and surgical correlation. Arq. Neuropsiquiatr. 1998;56(1):107-110.
107. Knosp E, Kitz K, Steiner E, Matula C. Pituitary adenomas with parasellar invasion. Acta Neurochir. Suppl. (Wien.). 1991;53:65-71.
108. Knosp E, Steiner E, Kitz K, Matula C. Pituitary adenomas with invasion of the cavernous sinus space: a magnetic resonance imaging classification compared with surgical findings. Neurosurgery. 1993;33(4):610-617; discussion 617-618.
109. Scotti G, Yu CY, Dillon WP, et al. MR imaging of cavernous sinus involvement by pituitary adenomas. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1988;151(4):799-806.
110. Sol YL, Lee SK, Choi HS, Lee YH, Kim J, Kim SH. Evaluation of MRI criteria for cavernous sinus invasion in pituitary macroadenoma. J. Neuroimaging. 2014;24(5):498-503.
111. Komiyama M, Hakuba A, Yasui T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of intracavernous pathology. Neurol. Med. Chir. (Tokyo). 1989;29(7):573-578.
112. Vieira JO, Cukiert A, Liberman B. Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging criteria for cavernous sinus invasion in patients with pituitary adenomas: logistic regression analysis and correlation with surgical findings. Surg. Neurol. 2006;65(2):130-135; discussion 135.
113. Vieira JO, Cukiert A, Liberman B. Magnetic resonance imaging of cavernous sinus invasion by pituitary adenoma diagnostic criteria and surgical findings. Arq. Neuropsiquiatr. 2004;62(2B):437-443.
114. Cottier JP, Destrieux C, Brunereau L, et al. Cavernous sinus invasion by pituitary adenoma: MR imaging. Radiology. 2000;215(2):463-469.
115. Daita G, Yonemasu Y, Nakai H, Takei H, Ogawa K. Cavernous sinus invasion by pituitary adenomas--relationship between magnetic resonance imaging findings and histologically verified dural invasion. Neurol. Med. Chir. (Tokyo). 1995;35(1):17-21.
116. Nakasu Y, Nakasu S, Ito R, Mitsuya K, Fujimoto O, Saito A. Tentorial enhancement on MR images is a sign of cavernous sinus involvement in patients with sellar tumors. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2001;22(8):1528-1533.
117. Cattin F, Bonneville F, Andréa I, Barrali E, Bonneville JF. Dural enhancement in pituitary macroadenomas. Neuroradiology. 2000;42(7):505-508.
118. Kunishio K, Okada M, Matsumoto Y, Nagao S, Nishiyama Y. Technetium-99m sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography findings correlated with P-glycoprotein expression in pituitary adenoma. J. Med. Invest. 2006;53(3-4):285-291.
119. Nakano T, Asano K, Tanaka M, Takahashi T, Miura H, Suzuki S. Use of 201Tl SPECT for evaluation of biologic behavior in pituitary adenomas. J. Nucl. Med. 2001;42(4):575-578.
120. Di Ieva A, Grizzi F, Ceva-Grimaldi G, et al. Fractal dimension as a quantitator of the microvasculature of normal and adenomatous pituitary tissue. J. Anat. 2007;211(5):673-680.
121. Finelli DA, Kaufman B. Varied microcirculation of pituitary adenomas at rapid, dynamic, contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 1993;189(1):205-210.
122. Nägele T, Petersen D, Klose U, et al. Dynamic contrast enhancement of intracranial tumors with snapshot-FLASH MR imaging. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1993;14(1):89-98.
123. Yuh WT, Fisher DJ, Nguyen HD, et al. Sequential MR enhancement pattern in normal pituitary gland and in pituitary adenoma. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1994;15(1):101-108.
124. Kurihara N, Takahashi S, Higano S, et al. Hemorrhage in pituitary adenoma: correlation of MR imaging with operative findings. Eur. Radiol. 1998;8(6):971-976.
125. Lazaro CM, Guo WY, Sami M, et al. Haemorrhagic pituitary tumours. Neuroradiology. 1994;36(2):111-114.
126. Tosaka M, Sato N, Hirato J, et al. Assessment of hemorrhage in pituitary macroadenoma by T2*-weighted gradient-echo MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(10):2023-2029.
127. Pratheesh R, Rajaratnam S, Prabhu K, Mani SE, Chacko G, Chacko AG. The current role of transcranial surgery in the management of pituitary adenomas. Pituitary. 2013;16(4):419-434.
128. Bahuleyan B, Raghuram L, Rajshekhar V, Chacko AG. To assess the ability of MRI to predict consistency of pituitary macroadenomas. Br. J. Neurosurg. 2006;20(5):324-326.
129. Iuchi T, Saeki N, Tanaka M, Sunami K, Yamaura A. MRI prediction of fibrous pituitary adenomas. Acta Neurochir. (Wien.). 1998;140(8):779-786.
130. Kanou Y, Arita K, Kurisu K, Tomohide A, Iida K. Clinical implications of dynamic MRI for pituitary adenomas: clinical and histologic analysis. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2002;9(6):659-663.
131. Pierallini A, Caramia F, Falcone C, et al. Pituitary macroadenomas: preoperative evaluation of consistency with diffusion-weighted MR imaging--initial experience. Radiology. 2006;239(1):223-231.
132. Boxerman JL, Rogg JM, Donahue JE, Machan JT, Goldman MA, Doberstein CE. Preoperative MRI evaluation of pituitary macroadenoma: imaging features predictive of successful transsphenoidal surgery. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):720-728.
133. Sumida M, Uozumi T, Mukada K, et al. MRI of pituitary adenomas: the position of the normal pituitary gland. Neuroradiology. 1994;36(4):295-297.
134. Sumida M, Uozumi T, Yamanaka M, et al. Displacement of the normal pituitary gland by sellar and juxtasellar tumours: surgical-MRI correlation and use in differential diagnosis. Neuroradiology. 1994;36(5):372-375.
135. Fujisawa I, Uokawa K, Horii N, et al. Bright pituitary stalk on MR T1-weighted image: damming up phenomenon of the neurosecretory granules. Endocr. J. 2002;49(2):165-173.
136. Smith MV, Laws ER. Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of pituitary stalk compression and deviation in patients with nonprolactin-secreting intrasellar and parasellar tumors: lack of correlation with serum prolactin levels. Neurosurgery. 1994;34(5):834-839; discussion 839.
137. Bonneville F, Narboux Y, Cattin F, Rodière E, Jacquet G, Bonneville JF. Preoperative location of the pituitary bright spot in patients with pituitary macroadenomas. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2002;23(4):528-532.
138. Takahashi T, Miki Y, Takahashi JA, et al. Ectopic posterior pituitary high signal in preoperative and postoperative macroadenomas: dynamic MR imaging. Eur. J. Radiol. 2005;55(1):84-91.
139. Saeki N, Hayasaka M, Murai H, et al. Posterior pituitary bright spot in large adenomas: MR assessment of its disappearance or relocation along the stalk. Radiology. 2003;226(2):359-365.
140. Eda M, Saeki N, Fujimoto N, Sunami K. Demonstration of the optic pathway in large pituitary adenoma on heavily T2 weighted MR images. Br. J. Neurosurg. 2002;16(1):21-29.
141. Sumida M, Arita K, Migita K, Iida K, Kurisu K, Uozumi T. Demonstration of the optic pathway in sellar/juxtasellar tumours with visual disturbance on MR imaging. Acta Neurochir. (Wien.). 1998;140(6):541-548.
142. Carrim ZI, Reeks GA, Chohan AW, Dunn LT, Hadley DM. Predicting impairment of central vision from dimensions of the optic chiasm in patients with pituitary adenoma. Acta Neurochir. (Wien.). 2007;149(3):255-260; discussion 260.
143. Tokumaru AM, Sakata I, Terada H, Kosuda S, Nawashiro H, Yoshii M. Optic nerve hyperintensity on T2-weighted images among patients with pituitary macroadenoma: correlation with visual impairment. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2006;27(2):250-254.
144. Saeki N, Uchino Y, Murai H, et al. MR imaging study of edema-like change along the optic tract in patients with pituitary region tumors. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2003;24(3):336-342.
(microadenoma* OR adenoma* OR macroadenoma* OR incidentaloma* OR chromophobe* OR transsphenoidal*[Title/Abstract]) AND (pituitary OR hypophyse* OR sellar OR transsphenoidal[Title/Abstract]) AND (imag* OR MRI OR CT OR spectroscopy* OR proton OR PET* OR SPECT* OR stereota* OR navigation*[Title/Abstract])
1. MeSH descriptor Pituitary Neoplasms
2. MeSH descriptor Adenoma
3. 1 and 2
4. ((pituitary OR hypophyse* OR sellar) NEAR/4 (microadenoma* OR adenoma* OR macroadenoma* OR incidentaloma* or chromophobe*)):ti,ab,kw 5. 3 or 4 and (asymptomatic* OR nonfunction* OR non-function* OR nonsecret* OR non-secret* OR inactive OR null OR inert OR silent)
© Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2016