Isolated pituitary metastasis from renal cell carcinoma in a horseshoe kidney
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To describe a patient with isolated symptomatic pituitary metastasis from Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) in a horseshoe kidney.Case report: We report a case of 56-year-old man with RCC of a horseshoe kidney with symptomatic isolated pituitary gland metastasis. He initially presented to us for evaluation of a sellar mass. He complained of fatigue, 50-pound weight loss, anorexia, constipation and nonspecific abdominal pain for 4 months. CT head showed 2.6 cm × 1.8 cm × 2.5 cm sellar mass likely with bilateral cavernous sinus extension. Pituitary function evaluation revealed panhypopituitarism. CT abdomen/pelvis for the evaluation of abdominal pain showed 12.1 cm solid mass in the right renal moiety of a horseshoe kidney. Hydrocortisone and levothyroxine therapy led to cessation of weight loss, but unmasked diabetes insipidus requiring desmopressin therapy. Right heminephrectomy confirmed RCC. Soon after he complained of progressively worsening headache and visual disturbance. Histopathology from urgent trans-sphenoidal hypophysectomy revealed RCC. The patient began post-surgical radiotherapy, but eventually he declined further treatments. In the end, he was placed on hospice where he passed away.Conclusion: Symptomatic pituitary metastasis from RCC are rare and most of those occur in the setting of diffuse metastatic disease. They typically mimic signs and symptoms of non-functioning macroadenomas. They can be synchronous, metachronous or even the presenting lesion of the primary tumor. A pituitary mass in the setting of malignancy should raise suspicion for metastatic disease even though it is extremely rare.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".