↓ Skip to main content

Histopathological classification of non-functioning pituitary neuroendocrine tumors

Overview of attention for article published in Pituitary, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Histopathological classification of non-functioning pituitary neuroendocrine tumors
Published in
Pituitary, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11102-017-0855-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emilija Manojlovic-Gacic, Britt Edén Engström, Olivera Casar-Borota

Abstract

Non-functioning pituitary neuroendocrine tumors do not cause endocrine symptoms related to hypersecretion of adenohypophyseal hormones and are clinically characterized by symptoms due to growing sellar tumor mass. Histopathological classification of this tumor group has always been challenging due to their heterogeneity, limited knowledge on their biology, and diverse methodological problems. We have searched PubMed database for data related to the histopathological classification of non-functioning pituitary tumors and methods for its application. Principles of the classification and grading presented in the recently released 4th edition of the World Health Organization classification of endocrine tumors have been summarized. Based on the expression of anterior pituitary hormones and pituitary specific transcription factors, gonadotroph tumors dominate within the group of clinically non-functioning tumors, followed by corticotroph type; however, other less common types of the non-functioning tumors can be identified. Assessment of tumor cell proliferation is important to identify "high-risk adenomas." A few subtypes of non-functioning tumors belong to the category of potentially aggressive tumors, independent of the cell proliferation rate. Here, we present up to date criteria for the classification of clinically non-functioning pituitary tumors, offer a diagnostic approach for the routine clinical use, and emphasize a need for inclusion of prognostic and predictive markers in the classification.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Unspecified 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 28 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,461,148
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Pituitary
#399
of 497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#376,833
of 441,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pituitary
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 497 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.