Endocrine Abstracts

To evaluate the prevalence of comorbilities related to acromegaly and the grade of response to the different therapeutic alternatives.

Material-methods: A retrospective study of 25 acromegalic patients diagnosed between 1990–2010 was made. It included a descriptive analysis on sex, age, hypertension, impaired glucose metabolism when diagnosed acromegaly, screening for dygestive and cardiac pathology, tumoral size, and percentage of disease control and healing depending on the treatment modality.

Results: The mean age at diagnosis was 44.4 years. 64% women and 34% men. 44% of the patients had hypertension and 32% impaired glucose metabolism (7 patients type 2 diabetes mellitus and 1 patient impaired fasting glucose) at the moment of diagnosis of Acromegaly. 16% had echocardiographic alterations (2 left ventricle hypertrophy, 1 mild aortic insufficiency and 1 cardiac insufficiency). Colonoscopy was made to 64% of patients being normal 62.5% and pathologic 37.5% of the patients explored (3 hyperplasic polyps, 2 tubular-villous adenoma and 1 mild dysplasia). The pituitary MR showed 24% microadenoma (none extrasellar) and 76% macroadenoma (79% invasives). Surgery was elected in 88% with a curative rate of 27.7%. Conventional/fractioned stereotactic radiotherapy was adiministered to 32% of patients. Currently, 9 patients have healing criteria (5 with surgery and 4 receiving radiotherapy after surgery) and another 10 patients have disease control criteria (4 with medical treatment, 3 with surgery and medical treatment and 3 with surgery, radiotherapy and medical treatment).

Conclusions: The curative rate after surgery still compromises a wide range depending on several factors such the surgeon experience.

The different therapeutical alternatives aims to reduce morbimortality to acromegalic patients in order to have the same as general population. However, two or more treatment modalities are often needed.

Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.