Effect of facility volume on giant pituitary adenoma neurosurgical outcomes

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California; and
  • | 2 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $515.00
USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

Giant pituitary adenomas (PAs), defined as 4 cm or greater at their maximum diameter, are commonly treated with neurosurgical intervention as the first-line therapy. However, existing studies are from high-volume institutions whose outcomes may not be representative of many cancer centers. In the present study, the authors use a large cancer registry to evaluate demographics, national treatment trends, and outcomes by facility volume to address knowledge gaps for this uncommon tumor.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients with PAs who had undergone resection from 2004 to 2016. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate the prognostic impact of covariates on short-term outcomes including 30-day readmission (30R), 30-day mortality (30M), 90-day mortality (90M), and prolonged length of inpatient hospital stay (LOS). Propensity score matching was used for validation.

RESULTS

Among the 39,030 patients who met the study inclusion criteria, 3696 giant PAs were identified. These tumors had higher rates of subtotal resection (55% vs 24%, p < 0.001), adjunctive radiotherapy (15% vs 5%, p < 0.001), and hormonal therapy (8% vs 4%, p < 0.001) than nongiant PAs. The giant PAs also had worse 30M (0.6% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001), 90M (1.0% vs 5.0%, p < 0.001), 30R (4.0% vs 6.3%, p < 0.001), and LOS (22.2% vs 42.1%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis for giant PA, decreased tumor size, younger age, race other than African American, lower comorbidity score, and high-volume facility (HVF; defined as ≥ 2.5 giant PA cases per year) were statistically significant predictors of favorable outcomes. Specifically, 30M, 90M, 30R, and LOS were decreased by 50%, 43%, 55%, and 32%, respectively, when giant PAs were treated at HVFs (each p < 0.05). HVFs more often used the endoscopic approach (71% vs 46%, p < 0.001) and less adjuvant radiotherapy (11% vs 16%, p < 0.001). Propensity score matching validated 30M, 30R, and LOS outcome differences in a cohort of 1056 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence of superior outcomes when giant PAs are treated at HVFs. These results likely reflect the relation between physician experience and outcomes for these uncommon tumors, which suggests the need for institutional collaboration as a potential goal in their surgical management.

ABBREVIATIONS

30M = 30-day mortality; 30R = 30-day readmission; 90M = 90-day mortality; CD score = Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score; CoC = Commission on Cancer; GTR = gross-total resection; HVF = high-volume facility; LOS = length of inpatient hospital stay ≥ 5 days; LVF = low-volume facility; NCDB = National Cancer Database; PA = pituitary adenoma; STR = subtotal resection.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Materials (PDF 487 KB)

Schematics of transseptal interforniceal resection of a superiorly recessed colloid cyst. ©Mark Souweidane, published with permission. See the article by Tosi et al. (pp 813–819).

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
USD  $515.00
USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Ezzat S, Asa SL, Couldwell WT, et al. The prevalence of pituitary adenomas: a systematic review. Cancer. 2004;101(3):613619.

  • 2

    Symon L, Jakubowski J, Kendall B. Surgical treatment of giant pituitary adenomas. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1979;42(11):973982.

  • 3

    Iglesias P, Rodríguez Berrocal V, Díez JJ. Giant pituitary adenoma: histological types, clinical features and therapeutic approaches. Endocrine. 2018;61(3):407421.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Mortini P, Barzaghi R, Losa M, Boari N, Giovanelli M. Surgical treatment of giant pituitary adenomas: strategies and results in a series of 95 consecutive patients. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(6):9931004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    de Paiva Neto MA, Vandergrift A, Fatemi N, et al. Endonasal transsphenoidal surgery and multimodality treatment for giant pituitary adenomas. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2010;72(4):512519.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Goel A, Nadkarni T, Muzumdar D, Desai K, Phalke U, Sharma P. Giant pituitary tumors: a study based on surgical treatment of 118 cases. Surg Neurol. 2004;61(5):436446.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Koutourousiou M, Gardner PA, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Paluzzi A, Wang EW, Snyderman CH. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for giant pituitary adenomas: advantages and limitations. J Neurosurg. 2013;118(3):621631.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Marigil Sanchez M, Karekezi C, Almeida JP, et al. Management of giant pituitary adenomas: role and outcome of the endoscopic endonasal surgical approach. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2019;30(4):433444.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Goshtasbi K, Lehrich BM, Abouzari M, et al. Endoscopic versus nonendoscopic surgery for resection of pituitary adenomas: a national database study. J Neurosurg. 2020;134(3):816824.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Anakwenze CP, McGovern S, Taku N, et al. Association between facility volume and overall survival for patients with grade II meningioma after gross total resection. World Neurosurg. 2020;141:e133e144.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Verma V, Ahern CA, Berlind CG, et al. Facility volume and postoperative outcomes for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a National Cancer Data Base analysis. Lung Cancer. 2018;120:713.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Williams BA, Mandrekar JN, Mandrekar SJ, Cha SS, Furth AF. Finding optimal cutpoints for continuous covariates with binary and time-to-event outcomes. Technical Report Series #79. Mayo Clinic; 2006. Accessed November 19, 2021.https://www.mayo.edu/research/documents/biostat-79pdf/doc-10027230

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Zhu P, Du XL, Zhu JJ, Esquenazi Y. Improved survival of glioblastoma patients treated at academic and high-volume facilities: a hospital-based study from the National Cancer Database. J Neurosurg. 2019;132(2):491502.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Iglesias P, Arcano K, Triviño V, et al. Giant non-functioning pituitary adenoma: clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2021;129(4):309313.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Shen M, Chen Z, Shou X, et al. Surgical outcomes and predictors of visual function alterations after transcranial surgery for large-to-giant pituitary adenomas. World Neurosurg. 2020;141:e60e69.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Peto I, Abou-Al-Shaar H, White TG, et al. Sources of residuals after endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for large and giant pituitary adenomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020;162(10):23412351.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Yang C, Zhang J, Li J, Wu N, Jia D. The role of multimodal navigation in endoscopic endonasal surgery for giant pituitary adenomas. Gland Surg. 2019;8(6):663673.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Fallah N, Taghvaei M, Sadaghiani S, Sadrhosseini SM, Esfahanian F, Zeinalizadeh M. Surgical outcome of endoscopic endonasal surgery of large and giant pituitary adenomas: an institutional experience from the Middle East. World Neurosurg. 2019;132:e802e811.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Elshazly K, Kshettry VR, Farrell CJ, Nyquist G, Rosen M, Evans JJ. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic endonasal resection of giant pituitary adenomas. World Neurosurg. 2018;114:e447e456.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Karki M, Sun J, Yadav CP, Zhao B. Large and giant pituitary adenoma resection by microscopic trans-sphenoidal surgery: surgical outcomes and complications in 123 consecutive patients. J Clin Neurosci. 2017;44:310314.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Yano S, Hide T, Shinojima N. Efficacy and complications of endoscopic skull base surgery for giant pituitary adenomas. World Neurosurg. 2017;99:533542.

  • 22

    Nishioka H, Hara T, Nagata Y, Fukuhara N, Yamaguchi-Okada M, Yamada S. Inherent tumor characteristics that limit effective and safe resection of giant nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. World Neurosurg. 2017;106:645652.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Han S, Gao W, Jing Z, Wang Y, Wu A. How to deal with giant pituitary adenomas: transsphenoidal or transcranial, simultaneous or two-staged? J Neurooncol. 2017;132(2):313321.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Kuo CH, Yen YS, Wu JC, et al. Primary endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal surgery for giant pituitary adenoma. World Neurosurg. 2016;91:121128.

  • 25

    Chohan MO, Levin AM, Singh R, et al. Three-dimensional volumetric measurements in defining endoscope-guided giant adenoma surgery outcomes. Pituitary. 2016;19(3):311321.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Chabot JD, Chakraborty S, Imbarrato G, Dehdashti AR. Evaluation of outcomes after endoscopic endonasal surgery for large and giant pituitary macroadenoma: a retrospective review of 39 consecutive patients. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(4):978988.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Landeiro JA, Fonseca EO, Monnerat AL, Taboada GF, Cabral GA, Antunes F. Nonfunctioning giant pituitary adenomas: Invasiveness and recurrence. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6(1):179.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Juraschka K, Khan OH, Godoy BL, et al. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach to large and giant pituitary adenomas: institutional experience and predictors of extent of resection. J Neurosurg. 2014;121(1):7583.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Gondim JA, Almeida JPC, Albuquerque LAF, Gomes EF, Schops M. Giant pituitary adenomas: surgical outcomes of 50 cases operated on by the endonasal endoscopic approach. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(1-2):e281e290.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Wang S, Lin S, Wei L, Zhao L, Huang Y. Analysis of operative efficacy for giant pituitary adenoma. BMC Surg. 2014;14(1):59.

  • 31

    Cusimano MD, Kan P, Nassiri F, et al. Outcomes of surgically treated giant pituitary tumours. Can J Neurol Sci. 2012;39(4):446457.

  • 32

    Müslüman AM, Cansever T, Yılmaz A, et al. Surgical results of large and giant pituitary adenomas with special consideration of ophthalmologic outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2011;76(1-2):141148.63-66.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Nakao N, Itakura T. Surgical outcome of the endoscopic endonasal approach for non-functioning giant pituitary adenoma. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18(1):7175.

  • 34

    Zhao B, Wei YK, Li GL, et al. Extended transsphenoidal approach for pituitary adenomas invading the anterior cranial base, cavernous sinus, and clivus: a single-center experience with 126 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg. 2010;112(1):108117.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Sinha S, Sharma BS. Giant pituitary adenomas—an enigma revisited. Microsurgical treatment strategies and outcome in a series of 250 patients. Br J Neurosurg. 2010;24(1):3139.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Matsuyama J, Kawase T, Yoshida K, et al. Management of large and giant pituitary adenomas with suprasellar extensions. Asian J Neurosurg. 2010;5(1):4853.

  • 37

    Xue-Fei S, Yong-Fei W, Shi-Qi L, et al. Microsurgical treatment for giant and irregular pituitary adenomas in a series of 54 consecutive patients. Br J Neurosurg. 2008;22(5):636648.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Wilson CB. A decade of pituitary microsurgery. The Herbert Olivecrona lecture. J Neurosurg. 1984;61(5):814833.

  • 39

    Mohr G, Hardy J, Comtois R, Beauregard H. Surgical management of giant pituitary adenomas. Can J Neurol Sci. 1990;17(1):6266.

  • 40

    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):610618.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Davis FG, McCarthy BJ, Berger MS. Centralized databases available for describing primary brain tumor incidence, survival, and treatment: Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; and National Cancer Data Base. Neuro Oncol. 1999;1(3):205211.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    Mohanty S, Bilimoria KY. Comparing national cancer registries: the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) and the Surveillance,. Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109(7):629630.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY. The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(3):683690.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Dolecek TA, Dressler EVM, Thakkar JP, Liu M, Al-Qaisi A, Villano JL. Epidemiology of meningiomas post-Public Law 107-206: the Benign Brain Tumor Cancer Registries Amendment Act. Cancer. 2015;121(14):24002410.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    Ostrom QT, Cioffi G, Gittleman H, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2012-2016. Neuro Oncol. 2019;21(suppl 5):v1v100.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Albert A, Lee A, Thomas TV, Vijayakumar S. Outcomes of benign meningioma in older patients in the United States. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11(4):709717.

  • 47

    Yang AI, Mensah-Brown KG, Rinehart C, et al. Inequalities in Meningioma Survival: Results from the National Cancer Database. Cureus. 2020;12(3):e7304.

  • 48

    Garcia CR, Slone SA, Chau M, Neltner JH, Pittman T, Villano JL. Initial management of meningiomas: Analysis of the National Cancer Database. Cancer Epidemiol. 2019;60:1622.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49

    Bitner BF, Lehrich BM, Abiri A, Yasaka TM, Hsu FPK, Kuan EC. Characteristics and overall survival in pediatric versus adult pituitary adenoma: a National Cancer Database analysis. Pituitary. 2021;24(5):714723.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50

    McCarthy BJ, Davis FG, Freels S, et al. Factors associated with survival in patients with meningioma. J Neurosurg. 1998;88(5):831839.

  • 51

    Goyal G, Kommalapati A, Bartley AC, Gunderson TM, Adjei AA, Go RS. Association between hospital volume and mortality of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2018;122:214219.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52

    Goyal G, Tella SH, Funni S, et al. Association between facility volume and mortality of patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer. 2020;126(4):757764.

  • 53

    Bollig CA, Zitsch RP III. Impact of treating facilities’ type and volume in patients with major salivary gland cancer. Laryngoscope. 2019;129(10):23212327.

  • 54

    Lee GC, Gamblin TC, Fong ZV, et al. Facility type is associated with margin status and overall survival of patients with resected intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(12):40914099.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55

    Ryan S, Serrell EC, Karabon P, et al. The association between mortality and distance to treatment facility in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. J Urol. 2018;199(2):424429.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 56

    Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DMS, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of giant pituitary adenomas. Pituitary. 2012;15(2):150159.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 57

    Nishioka H, Hara T, Usui M, Fukuhara N, Yamada S. Simultaneous combined supra-infrasellar approach for giant/large multilobulated pituitary adenomas. World Neurosurg. 2012;77(3-4):533539.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1111 1111 162
Full Text Views 282 282 75
PDF Downloads 277 277 99
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0