Pilot study to define criteria for Pituitary Tumors Centers of Excellence (PTCOE): results of an audit of leading international centers

Purpose: The Pituitary Society established the concept and mostly qualitative parameters for defining uniform criteria for Pituitary Tumor Centers of Excellence (PTCOEs) based on expert consensus. Aim of the study was to validate those previously proposed criteria through collection and evaluation of self-reported activity of several internationally-recognized tertiary pituitary centers, thereby transforming the qualitative 2017 definition into a validated quantitative one, which could serve as the basis for future objective PTCOE accreditation. Methods: An ad hoc prepared database was distributed to nine Pituitary Centers chosen by the Project Scientific Committee and comprising Centers of worldwide repute, which agreed to provide activity information derived from registries related to the years 2018–2020 and completing the database within 60 days. The database, provided by each center and composed of Excel® spreadsheets with requested specific information on leading and supporting teams, was reviewed by two blinded referees and all 9 candidate centers satisfied the overall PTCOE definition, according to referees’ evaluations. To obtain objective numerical criteria, median values for each activity/parameter were considered as the preferred PTCOE definition target, whereas the low limit of the range was selected as the acceptable target for each respective parameter. Results: Three dedicated pituitary neurosurgeons are preferred, whereas one dedicated surgeon is acceptable. Moreover, 100 surgical procedures per center per year are preferred, while the results indicated that 50 surgeries per year are acceptable. Acute post-surgery complications, including mortality and readmission rates, should preferably be negligible or nonexistent, but acceptable criterion is a rate lower than 10% of patients with complications requiring readmission within 30 days after surgery. Four endocrinologists devoted to pituitary diseases are requested in a PTCOE and the total population of patients followed in a PTCOE should not be less than 850. It appears acceptable that at least one dedicated/expert in pituitary diseases is present in neuroradiology, pathology, and ophthalmology groups, whereas at least two expert radiation oncologists are needed. Conclusion: This is, to our knowledge, the first study to survey and evaluate the activity of a relevant number of high-volume centers in the pituitary field. This effort, internally validated by ad hoc reviewers, allowed for transformation of previously formulated theoretical criteria for the definition of a PTCOE to precise numerical definitions based on real-life evidence. The application of a derived synopsis of criteria could be used by independent bodies for accreditation of pituitary centers as PTCOEs

Standards of care for medical management of acromegaly in pituitary tumor centers of excellence (PTCOE)

Purpose: A series of consensus guidelines on medical treatment of acromegaly have been produced in the last two decades. However, little information is available on their application in clinical practice. Furthermore, international standards of acromegaly care have not been published. The aim of our study was to report current standards of care for medical therapy of acromegaly, using results collected through an audit performed to validate criteria for definition of Pituitary Tumor Centers of Excellence (PTCOE). Methods: Details of medical treatment approaches to acromegaly were voluntarily provided by nine renowned international centers that participated in this audit. For the period 2018–2020, we assessed overall number of acromegaly patients under medical treatment, distribution of patients on different treatment modalities, overall biochemical control rate with medical therapy, and specific control rates for different medical treatment options. Results: Median number of total patients and median number of new patients with acromegaly managed annually in the endocrinology units of the centers were 206 and 16.3, respectively. Median percentage of acromegaly patients on medical treatment was 48.9%. Among the patients on medical treatment, first-generation somatostatin receptor ligand (SRL) monotherapy was used with a median rate of 48.7%, followed by combination therapies with a median rate of 29.3%. Cabergoline monotherapy was used in 6.9% of patients. Pegvisomant monotherapy was used in 7 centers and pasireotide monotherapy in 5 centers, with median rates of 7.9% and 6.3%, respectively. Conclusions: Current standards of care in PTCOEs include use of first-generation SRLs as the first medical option in about 50% of patients, as recommended by consensus guidelines. However, some patients are kept on this treatment despite inadequate control suggesting that cost-effectiveness, availability, patient preference, side effects, and therapeutic inertia may play a possible role also in PTCOE. Moreover, at odds with consensus guidelines, other monotherapies for acromegaly appear to have a marginal role as compared to combination therapies as extrapolated from PTCOE practice data. Presence of uncontrolled patients in each treatment category suggest that further optimization of medical therapy, as well as use of other therapeutic tools such as radiosurgery may be needed