Pituitary incidentalomas.

Abstract

The optimal strategy for hormonal screening of a patient with any incidentally discovered pituitary mass is unknown. The authors' review of the endocrinologic literature supports the view that such patients are at slightly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. This risk implies a benefit of early diagnosis for at least for some of the disorders, suggesting the importance of case finding. Nevertheless, the data in Table 1 illustrate that clinically diagnosed hormone-secreting pituitary tumors are far less common than incidentalomas. Clinically, one cannot accurately determine the approximately 0.5% of patients with incidentaloma who are at increased risk among the vast majority who are not. Given the limitations of diagnostic tests, effective hormonal screening requires a sufficiently high pretest probability to limit the number of false-positive results. This condition is met to varying degrees in the patient with a small incidentally discovered pituitary mass but no signs or symptoms of hormone excess. Even the more common lesions, such as prolactinoma, are relatively rare. [table: see text] Subjecting patients to unnecessary testing and treatment is associated with risk. In addition to its initial cost, testing may result in further expense and harm as false-positive results are pursued, producing the "cascade effect" described by Mold and Stein as a "chain of events (which) tends to proceed with increasing momentum, so that the further it progresses the more difficult it is to stop." The extensive evaluations performed for some patients with incidentally discovered masses may reflect the unwillingness of many physicians to accept uncertainty, even in the case of an extremely unlikely diagnosis. This unwillingness may be driven, in part, by fear of potential malpractice liability, the failure to appreciate the influence of prevalence data on the interpretation of diagnostic testing, or other factors. The major justification for further evaluation of these patients is not so much to avoid morbidity and mortality for the rare patient who truly is at increased risk but to reassure patients in whom further testing is negative and the physician. Physicians must take care not to create inappropriate anxiety in patients by overemphasizing the importance of an incidental finding unless it is associated with a realistic clinical risk. The authors' recommendations are based on currently available information to minimize the untoward effects of the cascade. As evidence accumulates, these recommendations may need to be revised. The benefit of the diagnosis of an adrenal or pituitary disorder must be considered in the context of the patient's overall condition. Additional studies are needed to analyze the clinical utility of hormonal screening for these common radiologic findings. Data from these studies can be used to identify critical gaps in knowledge and to adopt the epidemiologic methods of evaluation of evidence that have been applied to preventive measures. One must be careful to recognize lead-time bias, in which survival can appear to be lengthened when screening simply advances the time of diagnosis, lengthening the period of time between diagnosis and death without any true prolongation of life; and length bias, which refers to the tendency of screening to detect a disproportionate number of cases of slowly progressive disease and to miss aggressive cases that, by virtue of rapid progression, are present in the population only briefly. Physicians must avoid the pitfalls of overestimation of disease prevalence and of the benefits of therapy resulting from advances in diagnostic imaging. Clinical judgment based on the best available evidence should be complemented and not replaced by laboratory data.