Cited by 15Pituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsMeningioma and schwannoma managementNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances

Effect of stereotactic radiosurgery on residual or relapsed pituitary adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Heringer, Lindolfo Carlos, Machado de Lima, Maíra, Rotta, José Marcus, Botelho, Ricardo Vieira·2020·World Neurosurgery

Abstract

Background In pituitary tumors, the presence of residual tumor after transsphenoidal surgery and recurrence of the tumor after resection are frequent, and the best treatment is not well established. The effects and complications of stereotactic radiosurgery have not been extensively studied.Objective We aimed to reveal the effect of stereotactic radiosurgery on residual and recurrent adenomas.Methods A systematic review of the literature in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Central Database, and Google Scholar was conducted using the criteria of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The search was structured according to the PICOT (i.e., Participants, types of Interventions, Comparator between the treatments, types of Outcome measures, and Follow-up [Time of duration]) strategy. The methodologic quality assessment (risk of bias) was performed according to the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scale. The studies were grouped and analyzed after data extraction using the software "R".Results Twenty-six articles including 2315 patients were analyzed, with an average follow-up duration of 57.8 months and mean radiation marginal dose of 19.6 Gy. The overall tumor control rate was 95%, tumor reduction rate was 46%, and hormonal control rate was 67%. The side effects were evaluated.Conclusions Stereotactic radiosurgery was efficient in residual or recurrence tumor control, with few side effects, and is recommended for treating residual or recurrent tumors, both secreting and nonsecreting tumors. A limitation of this study is that there were no randomized trials included in the synthesis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.11.041

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heringer, L. C., Machado de Lima, M., Rotta, J. M., & Botelho, R. V.
Affiliations
Instituto de Assistência Médica ao Servidor Público Estadual (BR)
Corresponding author
Botelho, Ricardo Vieira
Venue
World Neurosurgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
136
Pages
374-381.e4
ISSN
1878-8750 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2998141404
Cited by
15
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5
FWCI
0.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • World Neurosurgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Pituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Meningioma and schwannoma management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Keywords
stereotactic radiosurgery, pituitary adenoma, residual tumor, recurrent tumor, tumor control, hormonal regulation, radiation side effects, transsphenoidal surgery
MeSH terms
Adenoma, Humans, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Pituitary Neoplasms, Radiosurgery, Treatment Outcome, Neoplasm, Residual

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review