Research AppraisalSystematic Review

Pituitary adenoma and intracerebral aneurysms: case series, systematic review and meta-analysis

PituitaryMarino Picciola, Valentino, Borghesi, Michela, Trombin, Vanessa et al.16 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

70CEBM
Evidence: ModerateSystematic Review

PICO Framework

P — PopulationPatients with pituitary adenomas
I — InterventionPresence of pituitary adenoma
C — ComparatorGeneral population without pituitary adenomas
O — OutcomesPrevalence of intracranial aneurysms, clinical characteristics of coexistent conditions

Bottom Line

This systematic review of 71 studies involving 5264 patients demonstrates that pituitary adenoma patients have a 4% prevalence of intracranial aneurysms, significantly higher than the general population. The association is stronger in females (8%) than males (6%). Most aneurysms occur in the cavernous segment of the internal carotid artery and are typically diagnosed after the pituitary adenoma. However, the very high heterogeneity between studies (I² = 92.1%) significantly limits confidence in these findings. While the data suggest increased vigilance for aneurysms in pituitary adenoma patients may be warranted, the substantial study heterogeneity prevents definitive clinical recommendations. Further high-quality prospective studies with standardized imaging protocols are needed before establishing formal screening guidelines.

Evidence: Moderate

Key Findings

  • P Value: p < 0.01 for comparison with general population

  • Effect Size: 4% pooled prevalence

  • Primary Outcome: Prevalence of intracranial aneurysms in pituitary adenoma patients

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Prevalence ratio approximately 2-3 times higher than general population

  • Confidence Interval: 95% CI: 2-4%

Clinical Application

Screening protocols may need consideration for high-risk pituitary adenoma patients Relevant to Australian endocrinology and neurosurgery practice; may inform TGA-approved imaging protocols and Medicare-funded screening strategies for selected patients Patients with pituitary adenomas, particularly macroadenomas and non-functioning adenomas

Abstract

PURPOSE: Intracranial aneurysms (IAs) and Pituitary Adenoma (PA) coexistence has been reported for decades, yet available evidence remains fragmented. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines to assess clinical features of patients with both conditions and quantify the prevalence of IAs in PA patients. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched up to December 15, 2025. Studies reporting coexistence of IAs and PAs were included. Individual patient-level data (Group 1) and aggregate prevalence data (Group 2) were analyzed separately. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. All analyses were performed using metaprop function from the meta package in R software. RESULTS: Seventy-one studies met inclusion criteria. Most studies have a low RoB. In Group 1 (74 patients), PAs were predominantly macroadenomas (91.9%), most frequently non-functioning (40.5%). IAs were mainly in the cavernous segment of the internal carotid artery (33%). IA diagnosis occurred significantly later than PA diagnosis (p < 0.01). In Group 2 (5264 patients), the pooled prevalence of IAs among PAs was 4% (95% CI 2-4%; I² = 92.1%, τ² = 1.1050, p < 0.0001). Sex-stratified prevalence was 8% (95% CI: 6%-9%) in females and 6% (95% CI: 4%-7%) in males. IAs sex-specific prevalence was significantly higher in both male and female PA patients as compared to the general population (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients with PAs show a higher IAs prevalence compared with the general population, likely reflecting combined hemodynamic, anatomical, and endocrine influences.

References

  1. 1.Marino Picciola, V., Borghesi, M., Trombin, V., Chirico, S., Ambrosio, M. R., & Zatelli, M. C. (2026). Pituitary adenoma and intracerebral aneurysms: case series, systematic review and meta-analysis. Pituitary. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2008-0948
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service