The classification of neoplasms of adenohypophysial cells is misleading because of the simplistic distinction between adenoma and carcinoma, based solely on metastatic spread and the poor reproducibility and predictive value of the definition of atypical adenomas based on the detection of mitoses or expression of Ki-67 or p53. In addition, the current classification of neoplasms of the anterior pituitary does not accurately reflect the clinical spectrum of behavior. Invasion and regrowth of proliferative lesions and persistence of hormone hypersecretion cause significant morbidity and mortality. We propose a new terminology, pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET), which is consistent with that used for other neuroendocrine neoplasms and which recognizes the highly variable impact of these tumors on patients.

Adenohypophyseal tumors, which were recently renamed pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNET), are mostly benign, but may present various behaviors: invasive, “aggressive” and malignant with metastases. They are classified into seven morphofunctional types and three lineages: lactotroph, somatotroph and thyrotroph (PIT1 lineage), corticotroph (TPIT lineage) or gonadotroph (SF1 lineage), null cell or immunonegative tumor and plurihormonal tumors. The WHO 2017 classification suggested that subtypes, such as male lactotroph, silent corticotroph and Crooke cell, sparsely granulated somatotroph, and silent plurihormonal PIT1 positive tumors, should be considered as “high risk” tumors. However, the prognostic impact of these subtypes and of each morphologic type remains controversial. In contrast, the French five-tiered classification, taking into account the invasion, the immuno-histochemical (IHC) type, and the proliferative markers (Ki-67 index, mitotic count, p53 positivity), has a prognostic value validated by statistical analysis in 4 independent cohorts. A standardized report for the diagnosis of pituitary tumors, integrating all these parameters, has been proposed by the European Pituitary Pathology Group (EPPG). In 2020, the pituitary pathologist must be considered as a member of the multidisciplinary pituitary team. The pathological diagnosis may help the clinician to adapt the post-operative management, including appropriate follow-up and early recognition and treatment of potentially aggressive forms.

Adult diffuse gliomas are a diverse group of brain neoplasms that inflict a high emotional toll on patients and their families. The Cancer Genome Atlas and similar projects have provided a comprehensive understanding of the somatic alterations and molecular subtypes of glioma at diagnosis. However, gliomas undergo significant cellular and molecular evolution during disease progression. We review the current knowledge on the genomic and epigenetic abnormalities in primary tumors and after disease recurrence, highlight the gaps in the literature, and elaborate on the need for a new multi-institutional effort to bridge these knowledge gaps and how the Glioma Longitudinal Analysis Consortium (GLASS) aims to systemically catalog the longitudinal changes in gliomas. The GLASS initiative will provide essential insights into the evolution of glioma toward a lethal phenotype, with the potential to reveal targetable vulnerabilities and, ultimately, improved outcomes for a patient population in need.

Atypical parkinsonian syndromes (APS) consist of a heterogeneous group of neurodegenerative disorders that include progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), corticobasal syndrome (CBS), and multiple system atrophy (MSA). Atypical parkinsonian syndromes are characterized by a more rapid deterioration and poorer levodopa response than is usually seen in Parkinson disease (PD).¹ In addition, APS are rarer than PD, with an estimated combined prevalence of 10 to 18 per 100 000 population.^2-4 Within APS, there is a high degree of clinical overlap, particularly in early disease, leading to greater misdiagnosis than occurs in PD.⁵ The lack of proven disease-specific diagnostic markers means that postmortem neuropathologic analysis is the criterion standard for confirming the clinical diagnosis.

Context Silent pituitary adenomas are anterior pituitary tumors with hormone synthesis but without signs or symptoms of hormone hypersecretion. They have been increasingly recognized and represent challenging diagnostic issues. Evidence Acquisition A comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 2000 to March 2018 with the following key words: (i) pituitary adenoma/tumor and nonfunctioning; or (ii) pituitary adenoma/tumor and silent. All titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles were reviewed, and recent advances in the field of silent pituitary adenomas were summarized. Evidence Synthesis The clinical and biochemical picture of pituitary adenomas reflects a continuum between functional and silent adenomas. Although some adenomas are truly silent, others will show some evidence of biochemical hypersecretion or could have subtle clinical signs and, therefore, can be referred to as clinically silent or “whispering” adenomas. Silent tumors seem to be more aggressive than their secreting counterparts, with a greater recurrence rate. Transcription factors for pituitary cell lineages have been introduced into the 2017 World Health Organization guidelines: steroidogenic factor 1 staining for gonadotroph lineage; PIT1 (pituitary-specific positive transcription factor 1) for growth hormone, prolactin, and TSH lineage, and TPIT for the corticotroph lineage. Prospective studies applying these criteria will establish the value of the new classification. Conclusions A concise review of the clinical and pathological aspects of silent pituitary adenomas was conducted in view of the new World Health Organization classification of pituitary adenomas. New classifications, novel prognostics markers, and emerging imaging and therapeutic approaches need to be evaluated to better serve this unique group of patients.

Context: Pituitary adenomas and pheochromocytomas/paragangliomas (pheo/PGL) can occur in the same patient or in the same family. Coexistence of the two diseases could be due to either a common pathogenic mechanism or a coincidence. Objective: The objective of the investigation was to study the possible coexistence of pituitary adenoma and pheo/PGL. Design: Thirty-nine cases of sporadic or familial pheo/PGL and pituitary adenomas were investigated. Known pheo/PGL genes (SDHA-D, SDHAF2, RET, VHL, TMEM127, MAX, FH) and pituitary adenoma genes (MEN1, AIP, CDKN1B) were sequenced using next generation or Sanger sequencing. Loss of heterozygosity study and pathological studies were performed on the available tumor samples. Setting: The study was conducted at university hospitals. Patients: Thirty-nine patients with sporadic of familial pituitary adenoma and pheo/PGL participated in the study. Outcome: Outcomes included genetic screening and clinical characteristics. Results: Eleven germline mutations (five SDHB, one SDHC, one SDHD, two VHL, and two MEN1) and four variants of unknown significance (two SDHA, one SDHB, and one SDHAF2) were identified in the studied genes in our patient cohort. Tumor tissue analysis identified LOH at the SDHB locus in three pituitary adenomas and loss of heterozygosity at the MEN1 locus in two pheochromocytomas. All the pituitary adenomas of patients affected by SDHX alterations have a unique histological feature not previously described in this context. Conclusions: Mutations in the genes known to cause pheo/PGL can rarely be associated with pituitary adenomas, whereas mutation in a gene predisposing to pituitary adenomas (MEN1) can be associated with pheo/PGL. Our findings suggest that genetic testing should be considered in all patients or families with the constellation of pheo/PGL and a pituitary adenoma.