Skip to main content

Table 1 PRL and adenoma size dynamics in patients harboring macroprolactinoma treated with CAB

From: Management of macroprolactinomas

Author (year) n(M/F) Mean PRL (ng/ml) 1st/current PRL normalized n(%) Shrinkageb n(%) Unique study characteristics
Ferrari C (1997) [29] 85 (29/56) 300a/NA 52/85 (61.2 %) 41/62 (66.1 %)  
Colao A (1997) [22] 23 (8/15) 841/12 19/23 (82.6 %) 14/23 (61 %) Low dose CAB
Pontikides N (2000) [23] 12 (6/6) 700/7 12/12 (100 %) 12/12 (100 %) CAB as 1st line therapy
Colao A (2004) [24] 41 (41/0) 2019/17 31/41 (75.6 %) 41/41 (100 %) Outcome was semen analysis
De Rosa M (2006) [25] 32 (32/0) 2705/93 31/32 (96.8 %) NA Outcome was quality of seminal fluid
Raverot G (2009) [26] 28 (17/11) NA/NA 27/28 (96.4 %) 27/28 (96.4 %) Visual field dynamics on CAB
Ono M (2010) [20] 29 (0/29) 348/6 29/29 (100 %) 29/29 (100 %) Outcome was fertility
Bhansali A (2010) [19] 15 (15/0) 6249/47 14/15 (93 %) 15/15 (100 %) Rapid CAB dose escalation
Karavitaki N (2012) [21] 12 (11/1) 2452/NA 11/12 (91.6 %) 12/12 (100 %) Recovery of hypopituitarism
Corsello SM (2003) [17] 10 (10/0) 5794/77 5/10 (50 %) 9/10 (90 %) Giant prolactinomas
Shimon I (2007) [16] 12 (12/0) 14383/15 10/12 (83.3 %) 9/11 (81.8 %) Giant prolactinomas
Cho EH (2009) [18] 10 (10/0) 11426/109 5/10 (50 %) 10/10 (100 %) Invasive giant prolactinomas
Total 309 (191/118) 2493/38 246/309 (79.6 %) 219/253 (86.6 %)  
  1. aMedian; bCriteria for significant shrinkage varied between studies
  2. Table summarizes publications including ≥10 male subjects, with data on patients with CAB-treated macroprolactinomas