Evidence Hub

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

Marino Picciola V, Borghesi M, Trombin V, Chirico S, Ambrosio MR, Zatelli MC

Pituitary, 2026

5,264 participants

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,264 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free