Acromegaly affects both males and females equally and the average age at diagnosis ranges from 40 to 50 years (up to 5% of cases < the age 20). Due to insidious onset and slow progression, acromegaly is often diagnosed five to more than ten years after its onset. The typical coarsening of facial features include furrowing of fronthead, pronounced brow protrusion, enlargement of the nose and the ears, thickening of the lips, skin wrinkles and nasolabial folds, as well as mandibular prognathism that leads to dental malocclusion and increased interdental spacing. Excessive growth of hands and feet (predominantly due to soft tissue swelling) is present in the vast majority of acromegalic patients. Gigantism accounts for up to 5% of cases and occurs when the excess of GH becomes manifest in the young, before the epiphyseal fusion. The disease also has rheumatologic, cardiovascular, respiratory, neoplastic, neurological, and metabolic manifestations which negatively impact its prognosis and patients quality of life. Less than 15% of acromegalic patients actively seek medical attention for change in appearance or enlargement of the extremities. The presentation of acromegaly is more often related to its systemic comorbidities or to local tumor effects.

An appropriate diagnostic evaluation is essential for the most appropriate treatment to be performed. Currently, macroprolactinemia is the third most frequent cause of nonphysiological hyperprolactinemia after drugs and prolactinomas. Up to 40% of macroprolactinemic patients may present with hypogonadism symptoms, infertility, and/or galactorrhea. Thus, the screening for macroprolactin is indicated not only for asymptomatic subjects but also for those without an obvious cause for their prolactin (PRL) elevation. Before submitting patients to macroprolactin screening and pituitary magnetic resonance imaging, one should rule out pregnancy, drug-induced hyperprolactinemia, primary hypothyroidism, and renal failure. The magnitude of PRL elevation can be useful in determining the etiology of hyperprolactinemia. PRL values >250 ng/mL are highly suggestive of prolactinomas and virtually exclude nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) and other sellar masses as the etiology of hyperprolactinemia. However, they can also be found in subjects with macroprolactinemia, drug-induced hyper­prolactinemia or chronic renal failure. By contrast, most patients with NFPAs, drug-induced hyperprolactinemia, macroprolactinemia, or systemic diseases present with PRL levels <100 ng/mL. However, exceptions to these rules are not rare. Indeed, up to 25% of patients harboring a microprolactinoma or a cystic macroprolactinoma may also have PRL <100 ng/mL. Falsely low PRL levels may result from the so-called “hook effect,” which should be considered in all cases of large (≥3 cm) pituitary adenomas associated with normal or mildly elevated PRL levels (≤250 ng/mL). The hook effect may be unmasked by repeating PRL measurement after a 1:100 serum sample dilution.

Cushing's syndrome (CS) during pregnancy is a rare condition with fewer than 150 cases reported in the literature. Adrenal adenomas were found to be the commonest cause, followed by Cushing's disease. The gestation dramatically affects the maternal hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, resulting in increased hepatic production of corticosteroid-binding globulin (CBG), increased levels of serum, salivary and urinary free cortisol, lack of suppression of cortisol levels after dexamethasone administration and placental production of CRH and ACTH. Moreover, a blunted response of ACTH and cortisol to exogenous CRH may also occur. Therefore, the diagnosis of CS during pregnancy is much more difficult. Misdiagnosis of CS is also common, as the syndrome may be easily confused with preeclampsia or gestational diabetes. Because CS during pregnancy is usually associated with severe maternal and fetal complications, its early diagnosis and treatment are critical. Surgery is the treatment of choice for CS in pregnancy, except perhaps in the late third trimester, with medical therapy being a second choice. There does not seem to be a rationale for supportive treatment alone.