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