Advertisement

Pituitary

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 362–371 | Cite as

Rathke’s cleft cysts: a 6-year experience of surgery vs. observation with comparative volumetric analysis

  • Garni BarkhoudarianEmail author
  • Sheri K. Palejwala
  • Shaheryar Ansari
  • Amalia A. Eisenberg
  • Xiang Huang
  • Chester F. Griffiths
  • Pejman Cohan
  • Sarah Rettinger
  • Norman Lavin
  • Daniel F. Kelly
Article

Abstract

Background

Rathke’s cleft cysts (RCCs) are common sellar lesions. Their management remains controversial, particularly when small or asymptomatic. Herein we review a consecutive series of RCC patients managed with surgery or observation.

Methods

All patients with a new diagnosis of presumed RCC, based on MRI, from February 2012–March 2018 were retrospectively divided into observational and surgical cohorts based on an intent-to-treat model. The cohorts were compared for clinical presentation, and cyst volume. The observational cohort was followed for change in cyst size. The surgical cohort was followed for changes in endocrinopathy, visual symptoms, headache and recurrence.

Results

Of 90 patients (mean age 36.7 ± 19.4 years; 68% female), 60% (n = 54) were in the observational cohort and 40% (n = 36) in the surgical cohort. Average follow-up was 13 ± 23 months in the observational cohort and 24 ± 19 months in the surgical group. In comparing the cohorts, mean ages were similar with more women in the surgical group (81% vs. 56%, p = 0.04). Most patients in the observational cohort had incidentally-discovered RCCs (n = 50, 88%) as opposed to the surgical cohort (n = 6, 17%). The surgical cohort had higher rates of headache (89% vs 26%, p < 0.001), endocrinopathy (36% vs 0%, p < 0.001), and visual dysfunction (19% vs 0%, p = 0.001). Mean cyst volume and maximal cyst dimensions were greater in the surgical cohort (0.94 ± 0.77 cm3 and 14.2 ± 4.1 mm), compared to the observational cohort (0.1 ± 0.14 cm3 and 6.4 ± 3 mm), (p < 0.001). Among the 53% (n = 30/54) of patients in the observational group with follow-up, 3 (10%) had spontaneous RCC shrinkage, 1 (3%) had modest asymptomatic growth (at 10 months from initial MRI), and 87% had stable cyst size. Of the 36 patients recommended to have surgery, 89% (n = 32) did so. Post-operatively, complete or partial resolution of headache, endocrinopathy and visual dysfunction were documented in 90% (n = 28/30), 75% (n = 10/12), and 100% (n = 7/7), respectively. On follow-up MRI, 8 (22%) patients had some cyst reaccumulation, of whom 3 (8%) were symptomatic and underwent uneventful reoperation. No major complications such as hematoma, CSF leak, new endocrinopathy or visual deficits occurred.

Conclusion

From this consecutive series, a majority (60%) of RCCs do not appear to warrant surgical intervention and have a low risk of cyst progression. However, surgical cyst removal appears to be indicated and safe for patients with larger, symptomatic RCCs. Simple cyst drainage has a high rate of improvement in pituitary gland function, visual function and headache resolution with low complication rates and symptomatic recurrence risk. These findings stress the importance of careful case selection and potential utility of volumetric assessment for patients with RCCs.

Keywords

Endoscopic Endonasal Pituitary Rathke’s cleft cyst Transsphenoidal 

Abbreviations

CSF

Cerebrospinal fluid

DI

Diabetes insipidus

GH

Growth hormone

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

RCC

Rathke’s cleft cyst

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Barkhoudarian G, Cutler A, Yost S, Lobo B, Eisenberg A, Kelly D (2015) Impact of selective pituitary gland incision or resection on hormonal function after adenoma or cyst resection. Pituitary 18(6):868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Byun W, Kim O, Kim D (2000) MR imaging findings of Rathke’s cleft cysts: significance of intracystic nodules. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21(3):485Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chotai S, Liu Y, Pan J, Qi S (2015) Characteristics of Rathke’s cleft cyst based on cyst location with a primary focus on recurrence after resection. J Neurosurg 122(6):1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Culver SA, Grober Y, Ornan DA, Patrie JT, Oldfield EH, Jane JA Jr, Thorner MO (2015) A case for conservative management: characterizing the natural history of radiographically diagnosed Rathke Cleft Cysts. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(10):3943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dusick J, Esposito F, Kelly D, Cohan P, DeSalles A, Becker D, Martin N (2005) The extended direct endonasal transsphenoidal approach for nonadenomatous suprasellar tumors. J Neurosurg 102(5):832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Han S, Rolston J, Jahangiri A, Aghi M (2014) Rathke’s cleft cysts: review of natural history and surgical outcomes. J Neurooncol 117(2):197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kunii N, Abe T, Kawamo M, Tanioka D, Izumiyama H, Moritani T (2007) Rathke’s cleft cysts: differentiation from other cystic lesions in the pituitary fossa by use of single-shot fast spin-echo diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Acta Neurochir 149(8):759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendelson Z, Husain Q, Elmoursi S, Svider P, Eloy J, Liu J (2014) Rathke’s cleft cyst recurrence after transsphenoidal surgery: a meta-analysis of 1151 cases. J Clin Neurosci 21(3):378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mendelson Z, Husain Q, Kanumuri V, Eloy J, Liu J (2015) Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery of Rathke’s cleft cyst. J Clin Neurosci 22(1):149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Potts M, Jahangiri A, Lamborn K, Blevins L, Kunwar S, Aghi M (2011) Suprasellar Rathke cleft cysts: clinical presentation and treatment outcomes. Neurosurgery 69(5):1058Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Solari D, Cavallo LM, Somma T, Chiaramonte C, Esposito F, De Caro MDB, Cappabianca P (2015) Endoscopic endonasal approach in the management of Rathke’s cleft cysts. PLoS ONE 10(10):e0139609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trifanescu R, Ansorge O, Wass J, Grossman A, Karavitaki N (2012) Rathke’s cleft cysts. Clin Endocrinol 76(2):151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McLaughlin N, Eisenberg A, Cohan P, Chaloner C, Kelly D (2013) Value of endoscopy for maximizing tumor removal in endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma surgery. J Neurosurg 118(3):613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park M, Lee S, Choi J, Kim S, Kim S, Shin N, Kim J, Ahn S (2015) Differentiation between Cystic Pituitary Adenomas and Rathke Cleft Cysts: a diagnostic model using MRI. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36(10):1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohan P, Foulad A, Esposito F, Martin N, Kelly D (2004) Symptomatic Rathke’s cleft cysts: a report of 24 cases. J Endocrinol Invest 27(10):943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Conger A, Zhao F, Wang X, Eisenberg A, Griffiths C, Esposito F, Carrau R, Barkhoudarian G, Kelly D (2018) Evolution of the graded repair of CSF leaks and skull base defects in endonasal endoscopic tumor surgery: trends in repair failure and meningitis rates in 509 patients. J Neurosurg 130(3):861–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fatemi N, Dusick J, de Paiva NM, Kelly D (2008) The endonasal microscopic approach for pituitary adenomas and other parasellar tumors: a 10-year experience. Neurosurgery 63(4 Suppl 2):244Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teramoto A, Hirakawa K, Sanno N, Osamura Y (1994) Incidental pituitary lesions in 1,000 unselected autopsy specimens. Radiology 193(1):161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Famini P, Maya MM, Melmed S (2011) Extensive clinical experience: pituitary magnetic resonance imaging for sellar and parasellar masses: ten-year experience in 2598 patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96(6):1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ertekin T, Acer N, Turgut A, Aycan K, Ozçelik O, Turgut M (2011) Comparison of three methods for the estimation of the pituitary gland volume using magnetic resonance imaging: a stereological study. Pituitary 14(1):31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim HJ, Kim W (2012) Method of tumor volume evaluation using magnetic resonance imaging for outcome prediction in cervical cancer treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol J 30(2):70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Esposito F, Dusick J, Fatemi N, Kelly D (2007) Graded repair of cranial base defects and cerebrospinal fluid leaks in transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 60(4 Suppl 2):295Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fatemi N, Dusick J, de Paiva NM, Malkasian D, Kelly D (2009) Endonasal versus supraorbital keyhole removal of craniopharyngiomas and tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurgery 64(5 Suppl 2):269Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Griffiths C, Cutler A, Duong H, Bardo G, Karimi K, Barkhoudarian G, Carrau R, Kelly D (2014) Avoidance of postoperative epistaxis and anosmia in endonasal endoscopic skull base surgery: a technical note. Acta Neurochir 156(7):1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sanno N, Oyama K, Tahara S, Teramoto A, Kato Y (2003) A survey of pituitary incidentaloma in Japan. Eur J Endocrinol 149(2):123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aho C, Liu C, Zelman V, Couldwell W, Weiss M (2005) Surgical outcomes in 118 patients with Rathke cleft cysts. J Neurosurg 102(2):189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ross D, Norman D, Wilson C (1992) Radiologic characteristics and results of surgical management of Rathke’s cysts in 43 patients. Neurosurgery 30(2):173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim E (2012) Symptomatic Rathke cleft cyst: clinical features and surgical outcomes. World Neurosurg 78(5):527CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Garni Barkhoudarian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sheri K. Palejwala
    • 1
  • Shaheryar Ansari
    • 1
  • Amalia A. Eisenberg
    • 1
  • Xiang Huang
    • 1
  • Chester F. Griffiths
    • 1
  • Pejman Cohan
    • 1
  • Sarah Rettinger
    • 1
  • Norman Lavin
    • 1
  • Daniel F. Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Pacific Neuroscience InstituteJohn Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence’s Saint John’s Health CenterSanta MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations