Management of macroprolactinomas

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

Author (year)	n(M/F)	Mean PRL (ng/ml) 1st/current	PRL normalized n(%)	Shrinkage^b n(%)	Unique study characteristics
Ferrari C (1997) [29]	85 (29/56)	300^a/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 %)

^aMedian; ^bCriteria for significant shrinkage varied between studies
Table summarizes publications including ≥10 male subjects, with data on patients with CAB-treated macroprolactinomas

ISSN: 2055-8260