Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content

Table 2 Effect of medical therapy on visual field defects in patients with macroprolactinomas

From: Management of macroprolactinomas

Author (year)

n(M/F)

VFD n(%)

VFD improved n(%)

Treatment

Unique study characteristics

Ferrari CI (1997) [29]

85 (29/56)

12/85 (14 %)

6/12 (50 %)

CAB

 

Colao A (1997) [22]

23 (8/15)

10/23 (43 %)

9/10 (90 %)

CAB

Low dose CAB

Pinzone JJ (2000) [101]

34 (34/0)

14/19 (74 %)

11/14 (79 %)

DA

Primary medical therapy

Pontikides N (2000) [23]

12 (6/6)

4/12 (33 %)

3/4 (75 %)

CAB

CAB as 1st line therapy

Sibal L (2002) [35]

35 (35/0)

18/35 (51 %)

18/18 (100 %)a

DA

Medical therapy

Corsello SM (2003) [17]

10 (10/0)

7/10 (70 %)

6/7 (86 %)

CAB

CAB for giant prolactinomas

Shimon I (2007) [16]

12 (12/0)

7/12 (58 %)

7/7 (100 %)

CAB

Giant prolactinomas

Total

211 (134/77)

72/196 (37 %)

60/72 (83 %)

  
  1. DA Any dopamine agonist, CAB Cabergoline only
  2. aFour patients had secondary visual field deterioration due to optic chiasmal traction, after primary improvement