Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

Pituitary Neoplasm Nomenclature Workshop: Does Adenoma Stand the Test of Time?

Ken Ho 1 Maria Fleseriu 2 Ursula Kaiser 3 Roberto Salvatori 4 Thierry Brue 5, 6, 7 M Beatriz Lopes 8 Pamela Kunz 9 Mark Molitch 10 Sally Camper 11 Mônica Gadelha 12 Luis Syro 13 Edward Laws 3 Martin Reincke 14 Hiroshi Nishioka 15 Ashley Grossman 16 Ariel Barkan 11 Felipe Casanueva 17 John Wass 18 Adam Mamelak 19 Laurence Katznelson 20 Aart van der Lely 21 Sally Radovick 22 Martin Bidlingmaier 14 Margaret Boguszewski 23 Jens Bollerslev 24 Andrew Hoffman 25 Nelson Oyesiku 26 Gerald Raverot 27 Anat Ben-Shlomo 19 Rob Fowkes 28 Ilan Shimon 29 Hidenori Fukuoka 30 Alberto Pereira 31 Yona Greenman 32 Anthony Heaney 33 Mark Gurnell 34 Gudmundur Johannsson 35 Robert Osamura 36 Michael Buchfelder 37 Maria Chiara Zatelli 38 Marta Korbonits 39 Philippe Chanson 40 Nienke Biermasz 31 David Clemmons 41 Niki Karavitaki 42 Marcello Bronstein 43 Peter Trainer 44 Shlomo Melmed 19
Abstract : Abstract The WHO Classification of Endocrine Tumours designates pituitary neoplasms as adenomas. A proposed nomenclature change to pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs) has been met with concern by some stakeholder groups. The Pituitary Society coordinated the Pituitary Neoplasm Nomenclature (PANOMEN) workshop to address the topic. Experts in pituitary developmental biology, pathology, neurosurgery, endocrinology, and oncology, including representatives nominated by the Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, European Neuroendocrine Association, Growth Hormone Research Society, and International Society of Pituitary Surgeons. Clinical epidemiology, disease phenotype, management, and prognosis of pituitary adenomas differ from that of most NETs. The vast majority of pituitary adenomas are benign and do not adversely impact life expectancy. A nomenclature change to PitNET does not address the main challenge of prognostic prediction, assigns an uncertain malignancy designation to benign pituitary adenomas, and may adversely affect patients. Due to pandemic restrictions, the workshop was conducted virtually, with audiovisual lectures and written précis on each topic provided to all participants. Feedback was collated and summarized by Content Chairs and discussed during a virtual writing meeting moderated by Session Chairs, which yielded an evidence-based draft document sent to all participants for review and approval. There is not yet a case for adopting the PitNET nomenclature. The PANOMEN Workshop recommends that the term adenoma be retained and that the topic be revisited as new evidence on pituitary neoplasm biology emerges.
Document type :
Journal articles
Complete list of metadata

https://hal-amu.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03310331
Contributor : Valérie Gall Connect in order to contact the contributor
Submitted on : Friday, July 30, 2021 - 1:09:39 PM
Last modification on : Tuesday, October 19, 2021 - 10:51:00 PM
Long-term archiving on: : Sunday, October 31, 2021 - 6:16:05 PM

File

Ho 2021 J Endocr Soc_PANOMEN a...
Publisher files allowed on an open archive

Licence


Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Identifiers

Collections

Citation

Ken Ho, Maria Fleseriu, Ursula Kaiser, Roberto Salvatori, Thierry Brue, et al.. Pituitary Neoplasm Nomenclature Workshop: Does Adenoma Stand the Test of Time?. Journal of the Endocrine Society, Oxford University Press, 2021, 5 (3), ⟨10.1210/jendso/bvaa205⟩. ⟨hal-03310331⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

36

Files downloads

47