Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry · 2024
Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Bone and Muscle Quality in Prolactinoma: A Pilot Study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Eroğlu İmdat, Iremli Burcin Gonul, Erkoc Aysegul, Idilman Ilkay S, Yuce Deniz, Kutukcu Ebru Calik, Akata Deniz, Erbas Tomris
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Hyperprolactinemia has negative impacts on metabolism and musculoskeletal health. In this study, individuals with active prolactinoma were evaluated for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and musculoskeletal health, which are underemphasized in the literature.
METHODS: Twelve active prolactinoma patients and twelve healthy controls matched by age, gender, and BMI were included. Magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) was used to evaluate hepatic steatosis and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to evaluate liver stiffness measurement (LSM). Abdominal muscle mass, and vertebral MRI-PDFF was also evaluated with MRI. Body compositions were evaluated by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The skeletal muscle quality (SMQ) was classified as normal, low and weak by using "handgrip strength/appendicular skeletal muscle mass (HGS/ASM)" ratio based on the cut-off values previously stated in the literature.
RESULTS: Prolactin, HbA1c and CRP levels were higher in prolactinoma patients (p<0.001, p=0.033 and p=0.035, respectively). The median MRI-PDFF and MRE-LSM were 3.0% (2.01-15.20) and 2.22 kPa (2.0-2.5) in the prolactinoma group and 2.5% (1.65-10.00) and 2.19 kPa (1.92-2.54) in the control group, respectively and similiar between groups. In prolactinoma patients, liver MRI-PDFF showed a positive and strong correlation with the duration of disease and traditional risk factors for NAFLD. Total, vertebral and pelvic bone mineral density was similar between groups, while vertebral MRI-PDFF tended to be higher in prolactinoma patients (p=0.075). Muscle mass and strength parameters were similar between groups, but HGS/ASM tended to be higher in prolactinoma patients (p=0.057). Muscle mass was low in 33.3% of prolactinoma patients and 66.6 of controls. According to SMQ, all prolactinoma patients had normal SMQ, whereas 66.6% of the controls had normal SMQ.
CONCLUSION: Prolactinoma patients demonstrated similar liver MRI-PDFF and MRE-LSM to controls despite their impaired metabolic profile and lower gonadal hormone levels. Hyperprolactinemia may improve muscle quality in prolactinoma patients despite hypogonadism.
METHODS: Twelve active prolactinoma patients and twelve healthy controls matched by age, gender, and BMI were included. Magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) was used to evaluate hepatic steatosis and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) to evaluate liver stiffness measurement (LSM). Abdominal muscle mass, and vertebral MRI-PDFF was also evaluated with MRI. Body compositions were evaluated by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The skeletal muscle quality (SMQ) was classified as normal, low and weak by using "handgrip strength/appendicular skeletal muscle mass (HGS/ASM)" ratio based on the cut-off values previously stated in the literature.
RESULTS: Prolactin, HbA1c and CRP levels were higher in prolactinoma patients (p<0.001, p=0.033 and p=0.035, respectively). The median MRI-PDFF and MRE-LSM were 3.0% (2.01-15.20) and 2.22 kPa (2.0-2.5) in the prolactinoma group and 2.5% (1.65-10.00) and 2.19 kPa (1.92-2.54) in the control group, respectively and similiar between groups. In prolactinoma patients, liver MRI-PDFF showed a positive and strong correlation with the duration of disease and traditional risk factors for NAFLD. Total, vertebral and pelvic bone mineral density was similar between groups, while vertebral MRI-PDFF tended to be higher in prolactinoma patients (p=0.075). Muscle mass and strength parameters were similar between groups, but HGS/ASM tended to be higher in prolactinoma patients (p=0.057). Muscle mass was low in 33.3% of prolactinoma patients and 66.6 of controls. According to SMQ, all prolactinoma patients had normal SMQ, whereas 66.6% of the controls had normal SMQ.
CONCLUSION: Prolactinoma patients demonstrated similar liver MRI-PDFF and MRE-LSM to controls despite their impaired metabolic profile and lower gonadal hormone levels. Hyperprolactinemia may improve muscle quality in prolactinoma patients despite hypogonadism.