Purpose: The Pituitary Society established the concept and mostly qualitative parameters for defining uniform criteria for Pituitary Tumor Centers of Excellence (PTCOEs) based on expert consensus. Aim of the study was to validate those previously proposed criteria through collection and evaluation of self-reported activity of several internationally-recognized tertiary pituitary centers, thereby transforming the qualitative 2017 definition into a validated quantitative one, which could serve as the basis for future objective PTCOE accreditation. Methods: An ad hoc prepared database was distributed to nine Pituitary Centers chosen by the Project Scientific Committee and comprising Centers of worldwide repute, which agreed to provide activity information derived from registries related to the years 2018–2020 and completing the database within 60 days. The database, provided by each center and composed of Excel® spreadsheets with requested specific information on leading and supporting teams, was reviewed by two blinded referees and all 9 candidate centers satisfied the overall PTCOE definition, according to referees’ evaluations. To obtain objective numerical criteria, median values for each activity/parameter were considered as the preferred PTCOE definition target, whereas the low limit of the range was selected as the acceptable target for each respective parameter. Results: Three dedicated pituitary neurosurgeons are preferred, whereas one dedicated surgeon is acceptable. Moreover, 100 surgical procedures per center per year are preferred, while the results indicated that 50 surgeries per year are acceptable. Acute post-surgery complications, including mortality and readmission rates, should preferably be negligible or nonexistent, but acceptable criterion is a rate lower than 10% of patients with complications requiring readmission within 30 days after surgery. Four endocrinologists devoted to pituitary diseases are requested in a PTCOE and the total population of patients followed in a PTCOE should not be less than 850. It appears acceptable that at least one dedicated/expert in pituitary diseases is present in neuroradiology, pathology, and ophthalmology groups, whereas at least two expert radiation oncologists are needed. Conclusion: This is, to our knowledge, the first study to survey and evaluate the activity of a relevant number of high-volume centers in the pituitary field. This effort, internally validated by ad hoc reviewers, allowed for transformation of previously formulated theoretical criteria for the definition of a PTCOE to precise numerical definitions based on real-life evidence. The application of a derived synopsis of criteria could be used by independent bodies for accreditation of pituitary centers as PTCOEs.

This Pituitary Society Consensus article presents an evidence-based consensus on the management of pituitary incidentaloma, defined as an unexpected sellar or parasellar finding incidentally discovered on an imaging study that was not performed for a clinically suspected pituitary lesion. Recommendations are offered for when endocrinology, neurosurgery and ophthalmology consultation, dedicated pituitary imaging, pituitary hormone testing and visual assessment are warranted for macroadenomas, microadenomas, cystic lesions and empty sella, as well as when surgical resection is indicated for incidental pituitary adenomas and cystic sellar lesions. Special considerations in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1, children and adolescents, older people, and pregnant women are addressed. The Consensus workshop concluded that diagnostic and management approaches should be individualized to the specific clinical context of an incidentally discovered pituitary lesion. Consultation with a multidisciplinary pituitary tumour centre of excellence should be considered in the presence of new or deteriorating lesion-specific signs or symptoms, particularly when surgical or other adjuvant interventions are being considered and when there is uncertainty about the most appropriate subsequent management.

We aimed to evaluate the association of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3) levels with clinicopathological parameters in patients with breast cancer (BC) and their efficiency for the prediction of recurrence. The records of 482 female patients with breast cancer diagnosis followed in Medical Oncology and Radiation Oncology clinics of Kartal Dr. Lutfu Kirdar Education and Research Hospital were evaluated retrospectively. The median age of the patients was 49. CEA levels were significantly higher in postmenopausal patients (p = 0.022). There was no association between CEA and CA 15-3 levels and nodal involvement (p = 0.689, 0.379; respectively). CEA levels were significantly higher in hormone receptor-positive patients (p = 0.007). HER2 negative patients had significantly higher levels of CEA and CA 15-3 (p = 0.017 and 0.011, respectively). The evaluation of metastatic patients showed that CEA and CA 15-3 levels before metastasis were significantly elevated (p = 0.016 ve 0.008, respectively). There was no relation between the metastasis site and CEA, CA 15-3 levels (p = 0.936, 0.201, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the role of CEA and CA 15-3 levels in the prediction of metastasis, and cut-off values were 1.39 ng/ml and 14.54 U/ml, respectively. Sensitivities of CA 15-3 and CEA levels were 82.1% and 88.3%; specificities were 47.3% and 46.2%, respectively. CEA and CA 15-3 are useful as tumor markers for early diagnosis of metastases, and their elevations were associated with unfavorable clinicopathological parameters of breast cancer patients. Since these markers are considered a cheap and accessible way of predicting breast cancer prognosis, there is an increasing interest in the prognostic value of serum levels of tumor markers in recent years. More sensitive cut-off values for each marker are needed to be validated with further studies.

Context Osteopathy and morphometric vertebral fractures (VFs) are emerging complications in acromegaly. However, the prediction of VFs in this clinical setting is still a matter of uncertainty, and it is debated whether they are an early event in the natural history of the disease. Objective We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and determinants of morphometric VFs in patients with recently diagnosed acromegaly. Methods We enrolled 92 patients (43 men/49 women) on admission to the neurosurgery unit before transsphenoidal surgery, and compared them with control individuals without secondary forms of osteoporosis and pituitary disorders. We performed a VF assessment on preoperative chest x-ray images and collected biochemical, demographic, and clinical data. Results We detected a significantly higher prevalence of VFs (33.7%) in patients with acromegaly than in controls (P = .001). Among the patients with acromegaly and VFs, 12 (38.7%) showed multiple VFs, and 5 (16.1%) showed moderate/severe VFs. Patients with VFs had higher random serum growth hormone (GH) levels than those with no VFs (P = .03), but there was no difference in insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) (P = .07) and IGF-1/Upper Normal Limit ratio (P = .08). Free 3,5,3′-triiodothyronine was slightly lower in patients with acromegaly and VFs than in those without VFs (P = .05). In multiple logistic analysis, GH was independently associated with risk for VFs (P = .003). The preoperative serum GH cutoff value that predicted VFs was 12 ng/mL. Conclusion For the first time, high prevalence of radiological VFs is reported in patients with recent diagnosis of acromegaly. Therefore, we can hypothesize that VFs are an early phenomenon of acromegaly and related to GH levels. VF assessment should be included in the workup at the diagnosis of acromegaly.