BACKGROUND Atypical pituitary adenomas (APAs) are a subset of pituitary adenomas (PAs) characterized by the 2004 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines to have higher risk histopathological features than typical PAs. In July 2017, the WHO published an update to their classification of pituitary tumors and abandoned the APA terminology. OBJECTIVE To assess the prevalence and outcomes of patients diagnosed with APA through a literature review. Focus was placed on variation in the application of the previous WHO criteria and on rates of recurrence. METHODS A systematic review of PubMed (2004-July 2017) was performed to identify studies reporting prevalence and clinical characteristics/outcomes of APA. Eight studies were analyzed for prevalence. Six studies reporting histopathological details were analyzed in depth. RESULTS Of the 7105 included patients, 373 (5.2%) met criteria for APA (prevalence range: 3%-15%). Only 2 of 8 studies utilized identical grading criteria, demonstrating a lack of standardized application. Most APAs (84%) were macroadenomas, with 52% invasive on magnetic resonance imaging. Nonfunctional PAs were most common (37%), followed by prolactinomas (23%) and Growth Hormone adenomas (21%). Recurrence/progression occurred in 21% of APA patients (follow-up range 37-75 mo). Only 2 of 8 studies reported an association between APA diagnosis and recurrence/progression. CONCLUSION Based on diagnostic variability and lack of association with clinical outcomes, refinement of criteria for APA was necessary. The WHO update eliminates the ambiguity in APA diagnosis in favor of criteria that emphasize clinical behavior (invasion, recurrence, and resistance to treatment) and molecular markers. Our review supports abandonment of the previous APA designation due to limited prognostic utility.

No abstract

Objective Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to affect all aspects of healthcare delivery and neurosurgical practices are not immune to its impact. We aim to evaluate neurosurgical practice patterns as well as perioperative incidence of COVID-19 in neurosurgical patients and their outcomes. Methods A retrospective review of neurosurgical and neurointerventional cases at two tertiary centers during the first three months of the first peak of COVID-19 pandemic (March 8-June 8) as well as following three months (post-peak pandemic; June 9-September 9) was performed. Baseline characteristics, perioperative COVID-19 test results, modified Medically Necessary Time Sensitive (mMeNTS) score, and outcome measures were compared between COVID-19 positive and negative patients through bivariate and multivariate analysis. Results 652 neurosurgical and 217 neurointerventional cases were performed during post-peak pandemic period. Cervical spine, lumbar spine, functional/pain, cranioplasty, and cerebral angiogram cases were significantly increased in the post-pandemic period. There was a 2.9% (35/1,197) positivity rate for COVID-19 testing overall and 3.6% (13/363) positivity rate postoperatively. Age, mMeNTS score, complications, length of stay, case acuity, ASA status, length of stay, and disposition were significantly different between COVID-19 positive and negative patients. Conclusion A significant increase in elective case volume during the post-peak pandemic period is feasible with low and acceptable incidence of COVID-19 in neurosurgical patients. COVID-19 positive patients were younger, less likely to undergo elective procedures, had increased length of stay, had more complications, and were discharged to a location other than home. The mMeNTS score plays a role in decision making for scheduling elective cases.

Patients >70 yr are appropriate surgical candidates for TSS given the similar safety outcomes as younger patients. Given the higher propensity for surgical complications; however, a higher level of operative selectivity should be maintained in octogenarian patients.