Abstract
Abstract
Background
Pituitary imaging is often required to exclude an adenoma suspected clinically or biochemically. Although magnetic resonance (MR) is the gold standard, computerised tomography (CT) is faster, cheaper and induces less claustrophobia. Our audit at Auckland City Hospital, New Zealand, investigated whether the use of CT of the pituitary as the first line imaging to assess for a pituitary macroadenoma reduces the need for MR.
Methods
We investigated the usefulness of CT pituitary imaging in the exclusion of pituitary macroadenoma between 2012 and 2020. A re-audit was then undertaken for a period of one year between March 2021 and March 2022 to assess outcomes once a departmental policy change was implemented. At Auckland City Hospital, 32 patients across eight years were eligible for this analysis, of which 31 had data available. In our re-audit, 29 patients were eligible for this analysis. We collected data on patient demographics, relevant hormone levels, indication for imaging and imaging results and subsequent management.
Results
After CT pituitary imaging, 28/31 (90%) of patients did not require further imaging because the clinical question had been addressed. One year after routine initial CT pituitary imaging was implemented by the Auckland City Hospital Endocrinology Department, 29 CT pituitary scans were performed to exclude a pituitary macroadenoma. Of these patients one required further imaging due to the finding of an expanded pituitary sella but not a pituitary macroadenoma.
Conclusion
CT pituitary imaging to exclude a pituitary macroadenoma is a useful test that may reduce the need for MR pituitary scans.
Trial registration
Not applicable. This was an audit as defined by the New Zealand National Ethics Advisory Committee guidelines. Please see ‘Declarations’ section.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference13 articles.
1. Reeves RA, Parekh M. Pituitary gland imaging. Treasure Island: Stat Pearls Publishing. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555989/. Updated January 16, 2023; cited 2020 November 24.
2. Burns J, Policeni B, Bykowski J, Dubey P, Germano IM, Jain V, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) neuroendocrine imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(5s):161–s173.
3. Ezzat S, Asa SL, Couldwell WT, Barr CE, Dodge WE, Vance ML, McCutcheon IE. The prevalence of pituitary adenomas: a systematic review. Cancer. 2004;101(3):613–9.
4. Daly AF, Beckers A. The epidemiology of pituitary adenomas. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2020;49(3):347–55.
5. Day PF, Loto MG, Glerean M, Picasso MF, Lovazzano S, Giunta DH. Incidence and prevalence of clinically relevant pituitary adenomas: retrospective cohort study in a Health Management Organization in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Arch Endocrinol Metab. 2016;60(6):554–61.