Skip to main content

Table 2 Effect of medical therapy on visual field defects in patients with macroprolactinomas

From: Management of macroprolactinomas

Author (year)

n(M/F)

VFD n(%)

VFD improved n(%)

Treatment

Unique study characteristics

Ferrari CI (1997) [29]

85 (29/56)

12/85 (14 %)

6/12 (50 %)

CAB

 

Colao A (1997) [22]

23 (8/15)

10/23 (43 %)

9/10 (90 %)

CAB

Low dose CAB

Pinzone JJ (2000) [101]

34 (34/0)

14/19 (74 %)

11/14 (79 %)

DA

Primary medical therapy

Pontikides N (2000) [23]

12 (6/6)

4/12 (33 %)

3/4 (75 %)

CAB

CAB as 1st line therapy

Sibal L (2002) [35]

35 (35/0)

18/35 (51 %)

18/18 (100 %)a

DA

Medical therapy

Corsello SM (2003) [17]

10 (10/0)

7/10 (70 %)

6/7 (86 %)

CAB

CAB for giant prolactinomas

Shimon I (2007) [16]

12 (12/0)

7/12 (58 %)

7/7 (100 %)

CAB

Giant prolactinomas

Total

211 (134/77)

72/196 (37 %)

60/72 (83 %)

  
  1. DA Any dopamine agonist, CAB Cabergoline only
  2. aFour patients had secondary visual field deterioration due to optic chiasmal traction, after primary improvement