Pituitary neoplasm nomenclature workshop: does adenoma stand the test of time?

Ken Ho, Maria Fleseriu, Ursula Kaiser, Roberto Salvatori, Thierry Brue, M. Beatriz Lopes, Pamela Kunz, Mark Molitch, Sally Camper, Monica Gadelha, Luis V. Syro, Edward Laws, Martin Reincke, Hiroshi Nishioka, Ashley Grossman, Ariel Barkan, Felipe Casanueva, John Wass, Adam Mamelak, Laurence KatznelsonA.J. Van Der Lely, Sally Radovick, Martin Bidlingmaier, Margaret Boguszewski, Jens Bollerslev, Andrew R Hoffman, Nelson Oyesiku, Gerald Rverot, Anat Ben-Shlomo, Robert C Fowkes, Ilan Shimon, Hidenori Fukuoka, Alberto Pereira, Yona Greenman, Anthony Heaney, Mark Gurnell, Gudmundur Johannsson, Robert Osamura, Michael Buchfelder, Maria Chiara Zatelli, Marta Korbonits, Philippe Chanson, Federico Roncaroli , Olivera Casar-Borota, Chiara Villa, Nienke R. Biermasz, Niki Karavitaki, Peter J Trainer, Shlomo Melmed

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

85 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The WHO Classification of Endocrine Tumours designates pituitary neoplasms as adenomas. A proposed nomenclature change to pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs) has been met with concern by some stakeholder groups. The Pituitary Society coordinated the Pituitary Neoplasm Nomenclature (PANOMEN) workshop to address the topic. Experts in pituitary developmental biology, pathology, neurosurgery, endocrinology, and oncology, including representatives nominated by the Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, European Neuroendocrine Association, Growth Hormone Research Society, and International Society of Pituitary Surgeons. Clinical epidemiology, disease phenotype, management, and prognosis of pituitary adenomas differ from that of most NETs. The vast majority of pituitary adenomas are benign and do not adversely impact life expectancy. A nomenclature change to PitNET does not address the main challenge of prognostic prediction, assigns an uncertain malignancy designation to benign pituitary adenomas, and may adversely affect patients. Due to pandemic restrictions, the workshop was conducted virtually, with audiovisual lectures and written précis on each topic provided to all participants. Feedback was collated and summarized by Content Chairs and discussed during a virtual writing meeting moderated by Session Chairs, which yielded an evidence-based draft document sent to all participants for review and approval. There is not yet a case for adopting the PitNET nomenclature. The PANOMEN Workshop recommends that the term adenoma be retained and that the topic be revisited as new evidence on pituitary neoplasm biology emerges.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberbvaa205
JournalJournal of Endocrine Society
Volume5
Issue number3
Early online date9 Feb 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2021

Keywords

  • Pituitary neoplasm
  • pituitary adenoma
  • tumor
  • neuroendocrine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Pituitary neoplasm nomenclature workshop: does adenoma stand the test of time?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this