Outcomes of Surgically Treated Giant Pituitary Tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of patients with giant pituitary tumours (GPTs) who underwent a purely binasal endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (BETS) and compare their outcomes with those achieved through craniotomy and microscopic transsphenoidal surgery (MTS). METHODS: Seventy-two consecutive patients with GPTs (greater than 10 cm3 in volume) who were treated surgically with BETS, craniotomy, or MTS from October 1994 to July 2009 were reviewed for clinical outcomes, degree of tumor resection, recurrence rates, and surgical complications. RESULTS: The BETS group had significantly better mean reduction of tumor volume (91%) than the craniotomy (63%, p = 0.001), and the MTS (63%, p = 0.010) groups. Gross total resection rates were also higher for BETS patients than for craniotomy patients (p = 0.010). Improvements in vision and headaches were noted in 96% and 100% of patients in the BETS group, respectively; these rates were similar to those in the craniotomy and MTS groups. Of the four patients with hormone-secreting tumours in the BETS group, three remained in remission. The median length-of-stay (four days) for the BETS group was shorter (p = 0.010), and surgical complications were less frequent (p = 0.037) and less severe compared to the craniotomy group. There were no differences in the recurrence rates: 79% percent of patients in the BETS group, 69% in the craniotomy group, and 79% in the MTS group were recurrence free at last follow-up (p = 0.829). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of GPT with BETS offers excellent oncologic and clinical outcomes and can frequently obviate the need for craniotomy in these patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".