Endocrine Abstracts

Introduction: Pituitary gland adenomas producing prolactin are one of the most common hormonally active tumours. A pharmacological treatment with the usage of dopamine receptors agonists is a therapy of choice in case of prolactinoma.

The aim of the study was evaluation of the therapy with cabergoline of men with macroprolactinoma basing on the clinical, hormonal and radiological examinations.

Material and methods: Ten men aged 18 to 65 (mean 41.9±15.01) with the presence of the pathological mass in the pituitary gland sized 16.7 to 40.5 mm (mean 29.8±9.38 mm) and elevated PRL level from 673 to 4700 ng/ml (mean 1608.2±1771.6 ng/ml) were included into the study. The PRL and the remaining trophic hormones levels were evaluated after 1, 3, 6 and 12 months and the tumour size evaluation was performed in MRI examination after 12 months of the therapy with cabergoline.

Results: The therapy with cabergoline leaded in all patients to headaches remission, visual acuity correction and significant improvement within libido and erection. In 90% of patients the PRL normalization was achieved, just after first months of the therapy. The mean PRL concentrations were before and after 1, 3, 6 and 12 months of the therapy respectively 1608.2±1771.6 and 263.4±223.4, 136.1±244.7, 91.31±105.5 and 27.5±57.7 ng/ml. The significant tumour size reduction was observed from 29.8±9.4 mm, mean about 6 mm, that states 25.1% (from 4 to 48.5%). No significant correlation between the mean tumour size and PRL level was observed before and during the treatment. The decreased testosterone level before the therapy was proved and it’s gradual increase during the treatment was observed.

Conclusions: The cabergoline administration in patients with macroprolactinoma is effective in reaching the PRL level normalization as well as in the tumour size reduction. The tumor size is not a prediction factor for the effectiveness of therapy with cabergoline.

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.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.