Summary: In June 2005, an ad hoc Expert Committee formed by the Pituitary Society convened during the 9th International Pituitary Congress in San Diego, California. Members of this committee consisted of invited international experts in the field, and included endocrinologists and neurosurgeons with recognized expertise in the management of prolactinomas. Discussions were held that included all interested participants to the Congress and resulted in formulation of these guidelines, which represent the current recommendations on the diagnosis and management of prolactinomas based upon comprehensive analysis and synthesis of all available data.

Context:AIP mutations (AIPmut) give rise to a pituitary adenoma predisposition that occurs in familial isolated pituitary adenomas and less often in sporadic cases. The clinical and therapeutic features of AIPmut-associated pituitary adenomas have not been studied comprehensively. Objective: The objective of the study was to assess clinical/therapeutic characteristics of AIPmut pituitary adenomas. Design: This study was an international, multicenter, retrospective case collection/database analysis. Setting: The study was conducted at 36 tertiary referral endocrine and clinical genetics departments. Patients: Patients included 96 patients with germline AIPmut and pituitary adenomas and 232 matched AIPmut-negative acromegaly controls. Results: The AIPmut population was predominantly young and male (63.5%); first symptoms occurred as children/adolescents in 50%. At diagnosis, most tumors were macroadenomas (93.3%); extension and invasion was common. Somatotropinomas comprised 78.1% of the cohort; there were also prolactinomas (n = 13), nonsecreting adenomas (n = 7), and a TSH-secreting adenoma. AIPmut somatotropinomas were larger (P = 0.00026), with higher GH levels (P = 0.00068), more frequent extension (P = 0.018) and prolactin cosecretion (P = 0.00023), and occurred 2 decades before controls (P < 0.000001). Gigantism was more common in the AIPmut group (P < 0.000001). AIPmut somatotropinoma patients underwent more surgical interventions (P = 0.00069) and had lower decreases in GH (P = 0.00037) and IGF-I (P = 0.028) and less tumor shrinkage with somatostatin analogs (P < 0.00001) vs. controls. AIPmut prolactinomas occurred generally in young males and frequently required surgery or radiotherapy. Conclusions:AIPmut pituitary adenomas have clinical features that may negatively impact treatment efficacy. Predisposition for aggressive disease in young patients, often in a familial setting, suggests that earlier diagnosis of AIPmut pituitary adenomas may have clinical utility.

Context: An association between germline aryl hydrocarbon receptor-interacting protein (AIP) gene mutations and pituitary adenomas was recently shown. Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the frequency of AIP gene mutations in a large cohort of patients with familial isolated pituitary adenoma (FIPA). Design: This was a multicenter, international, collaborative study. Setting: The study was conducted in 34 university endocrinology and genetics departments in nine countries. Patients: Affected members from each FIPA family were studied. Relatives of patients with AIP mutations underwent AIP sequence analysis. Main Outcome Measures: Presence/absence and description of AIP gene mutations were the main outcome measures. Intervention: There was no intervention. Results: Seventy-three FIPA families were identified, with 156 patients with pituitary adenomas; the FIPA cohort was evenly divided between families with homogeneous and heterogeneous tumor expression. Eleven FIPA families had 10 germline AIP mutations. Nine mutations, R16H, G47_R54del, Q142X, E174frameshift, Q217X, Q239X, K241E, R271W, and Q285frameshift, have not been described previously. Tumors were significantly larger (P = 0.0005) and diagnosed at a younger age (P = 0.0006) in AIP mutation-positive vs. mutation-negative subjects. Somatotropinomas predominated among FIPA families with AIP mutations, but mixed GH/prolactin-secreting tumors, prolactinomas, and nonsecreting adenomas were also noted. Approximately 85% of the FIPA cohort and 50% of those with familial somatotropinomas were negative for AIP mutations. Conclusions:AIP mutations, of which nine new mutations have been described here, occur in approximately 15% of FIPA families. Although pituitary tumors occurring in association with AIP mutations are predominantly somatotropinomas, other tumor types are also seen. Further study of the impact of AIP mutations on protein expression and activity is necessary to elucidate their role in pituitary tumorigenesis in FIPA.