Cohort study reveals excess mortality in older males with large prolactinomas, indicating that distinct clinical profiles drive heterogeneous survival risks.
Purpose Population-based studies overall report no excess mortality among patients with prolactinoma compared with the general population. However, since prolactinomas are clinically heterogeneous, mortality may not be uniform across data-driven patient profiles. Methods We analyzed 3,378 adult prolactinoma cases (26,118 person-years) from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004–2022). Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated using US life tables matched by age, sex, calendar year, race/ethnicity, and geography. Among 2,481 patients with available tumor size (18,097 person-years), unsupervised clustering (Fuzzy C-Means) based on age, tumor size, and sex defined patient profiles. Excess mortality ratios (EMRs) compared observed-to-expected mortality across profiles, adjusting for race, calendar year, surgery, and radiotherapy. Results Prolactinoma was associated with significant excess all-cause mortality (SMR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03–1.41). Two profiles emerged: SAYF (Small and Young, Female-predominant; 63%) and LOOM (Large or Old, Male-predominant; 37%). Among patients with tumor size data, mortality was increased in LOOM (SMR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11–1.65) and reduced in SAYF (SMR 0.48, 95% CI 0.22–0.90), with significant between-profile heterogeneity (EMR 2.92, 95% CI 1.44–5.90; p = 0.003). Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses with imputed data, although the survival advantage in SAYF was attenuated and no longer statistically significant. Conclusion Prolactinoma captured in a population-based tumor registry was associated with excess all-cause mortality, with heterogeneity across patient profiles. An older, male-predominant profile with larger tumors showed excess mortality, whereas a younger, female-predominant profile with small tumors showed directionally lower mortality. These hypothesis-generating findings warrant further investigation into the underlying biological and contextual factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shwaish et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: