Day 12, Cushing’s Awareness Challenge

sunday-glitter

It’s Sunday again, so this is another semi-religious post so feel free to skip it 🙂

I’m sure that many would think that Abide With Me is a pretty strange choice for my all-time favorite hymn.

My dad was a Congregational (now United Church of Christ) minister so I was pretty regular in church attendance in my younger years.

Some Sunday evenings, he would preach on a circuit and I’d go with him to some of these tiny churches.  The people there, mostly older folks, liked the old hymns best – Fanny Crosby and so on.

So, some of my “favorite hymns” are those that I sang when I was out with my Dad.  Fond memories from long ago.

In 1986 I was finally diagnosed with Cushing’s after struggling with doctors and trying to get them to test for about 5 years.  I was going to go into the NIH (National Institutes of Health) in Bethesda, MD for final testing and then-experimental pituitary surgery.

I was terrified and sure that I wouldn’t survive the surgery.

Somehow, I found a 3-cassette tape set of Readers Digest Hymns and Songs of Inspiration and ordered that. The set came just before I went to NIH and I had it with me.

At NIH I set up a daily “routine” of sorts and listening to these tapes was a very important part of my day and helped me get through the ordeal of more testing, surgery, post-op and more.

When I had my kidney cancer surgery, those tapes were long broken and irreplaceable, but I had replaced all the songs – this time on my iPod.

Abide With Me was on this original tape set and it remains a favorite to this day.  Whenever we have an opportunity in church to pick a favorite, my hand always shoots up and I request page 700.  When someone in one of my handbell groups moves away, we always sign a hymnbook and give it to them.  I sign page 700.

I think that many people would probably think that this hymn is depressing.  Maybe it is but to me it signifies times in my life when I thought I might die and I was so comforted by the sentiments here.

This hymn is often associated with funeral services and has given hope and comfort to so many over the years – me included.

If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

~John 15:7

Abide With Me

Words: Henry F. Lyte, 1847.

Music: Eventide, William H. Monk, 1861. Mrs. Monk described the setting:

This tune was written at a time of great sorrow—when together we watched, as we did daily, the glories of the setting sun. As the last golden ray faded, he took some paper and penciled that tune which has gone all over the earth.

Lyte was inspired to write this hymn as he was dying of tuberculosis; he finished it the Sunday he gave his farewell sermon in the parish he served so many years. The next day, he left for Italy to regain his health. He didn’t make it, though—he died in Nice, France, three weeks after writing these words. Here is an excerpt from his farewell sermon:

O brethren, I stand here among you today, as alive from the dead, if I may hope to impress it upon you, and induce you to prepare for that solemn hour which must come to all, by a timely acquaintance with the death of Christ.

For over a century, the bells of his church at All Saints in Lower Brixham, Devonshire, have rung out “Abide with Me” daily. The hymn was sung at the wedding of King George VI, at the wedding of his daughter, the future Queen Elizabeth II, and at the funeral of Nobel peace prize winner Mother Teresa of Calcutta in1997.

Abide with me; fast falls the eventide;

The darkness deepens; Lord with me abide.

When other helpers fail and comforts flee,

Help of the helpless, O abide with me.

Swift to its close ebbs out life’s little day;

Earth’s joys grow dim; its glories pass away;

Change and decay in all around I see;

O Thou who changest not, abide with me.

Not a brief glance I beg, a passing word;

But as Thou dwell’st with Thy disciples, Lord,

Familiar, condescending, patient, free.

Come not to sojourn, but abide with me.

Come not in terrors, as the King of kings,

But kind and good, with healing in Thy wings,

Tears for all woes, a heart for every plea—

Come, Friend of sinners, and thus bide with me.

Thou on my head in early youth didst smile;

And, though rebellious and perverse meanwhile,

Thou hast not left me, oft as I left Thee,

On to the close, O Lord, abide with me.

I need Thy presence every passing hour.

What but Thy grace can foil the tempter’s power?

Who, like Thyself, my guide and stay can be?

Through cloud and sunshine, Lord, abide with me.

I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to bless;

Ills have no weight, and tears no bitterness.

Where is death’s sting? Where, grave, thy victory?

I triumph still, if Thou abide with me.

Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing eyes;

Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies.

Heaven’s morning breaks, and earth’s vain shadows flee;

In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me.

Gene test for growth hormone deficiency developed

A new test developed by University of Manchester and NHS scientists could revolutionise the way children with growth hormone deficiency are diagnosed.

Children suspected of having GHD – which cause growth to slow down or stop and other serious physical problems—currently require a test involving fasting for up to 12 hours.

The fasting is followed by an intravenous infusion in hospital and up to 10 blood tests over half a day to measure growth hormone production.

Because the current test is unreliable, it often has to be done twice before growth hormone injections can be prescribed.

Now the discovery—which the team think could be available within 2 to 5 years -could reduce the process to a single blood test, freeing up valuable time and space for the NHS.

Dr. Adam Stevens from The University of Manchester and Dr. Philip Murray from Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, were part of the team whose results are published in JCI Insight today.

Dr. Stevens said: “We think this is an important development in the way doctors will be able to diagnose growth hormone deficiency – a condition which causes distress to many thousands of children in the UK

“This sort of diagnostic would not be available even a few years ago but thanks to the enormous computing power we have, and advances in genetics, it is now possible for this aspect of care to be made so much easier for patients – and the NHS.

“These volume of data involved is so huge and complicated that traditional data-processing application software is inadequate to deal with it.”

Comparing data from 72 patients with GHD and 26 healthy children, they used high powered computers to examine 30,000 genes—the full gene expression- of each child.

A sophisticated mathematical technique called Random Forest Analysis analysed around three million separate data points to compare different gene patterns between the children with and without GHD.

The research identified 347 genes which when analysed with the computer algorithm can determine whether a child has GHD or not and thus whether they will benefit from treatment.

Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) occurs when the pituitary gland—which is size of a pea- fails to produce enough growth hormone. It more commonly affects children than adults.

Many teenagers with GHD have poor bone strength, fatigue and lack stamina as well as depression, lack of concentration, poor memory and anxiety problems.

GHD occurs in roughly 1 in 5,000 people. Since the mid-1980s, synthetic growth hormones have been successfully used to treat children—and adults—with the deficiency.

Dr. Murray added: “This study provides strong proof of concept, but before it is in a position to be adopted by the NHS, we must carry out a further validation exercise which will involve comparing our new diagnostic with the existing test.

“Once we have crossed that hurdle, we hope to be in a position for this to be adopted within 2 to 5 years – and that can’t come soon enough for these children.”

Child Growth Foundation manager Jenny Child’s daughter has Growth Hormone Deficiency.

She said: Growth Hormone Deficiency isn’t just about growth, as lack of growth hormone impacts the child in many ways, such as lack of strength and they can find it difficult to keep up physically with their peers. It impacts the child’s self-esteem as they are often treated as being much younger, because of their size. Growth hormone treatment allows the child to grow to their genetic potential.

“A growth hormone stimulation test can be very daunting for both child and parents. The test can make the child feel quite unwell and they can experience headaches, nausea and unconsciousness through hypoglycaemia.”

 Explore further: Northern climes make a difference with growth hormone treatment

More information: Philip G. Murray et al. Transcriptomics and machine learning predict diagnosis and severity of growth hormone deficiency, JCI Insight (2018). DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.93247

Diagnosis and Differential Diagnosis of Cushing’s Syndrome

D. Lynn Loriaux, M.D., Ph.D.

N Engl J Med 2017; 376:1451-1459April 13, 2017DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1505550

More than a century ago, Harvey Cushing introduced the term “pluriglandular syndrome” to describe a disorder characterized by rapid development of central obesity, arterial hypertension, proximal muscle weakness, diabetes mellitus, oligomenorrhea, hirsutism, thin skin, and ecchymoses.1 Cushing knew that this syndrome was associated with adrenal cancer,2 and he suspected that some cases might have a pituitary component.

On September 6, 1911, he performed a craniotomy on one of his patients (referred to as Case XLV) but found no pituitary tumor.3 In his description of the case, he goes on to say that “we may perchance be on the way toward the recognition of the consequences of hyperadrenalism.”2 With time, it became clear that the disorder could be caused by small basophilic adenomas of the pituitary gland,4 and the pluriglandular syndrome became known as Cushing’s syndrome.

Fuller Albright provided the next conceptual advance in an extraordinary report, published in the first volume of the Laurentian Hormone Conference, “The Effects of Hormones on Osteogenesis in Man”5:

It has been our concept that protoplasm in general, like the protoplasmic matrix of bone, is constantly being anabolized and catabolized at one and the same time; a factor which increases catabolism would lead to very much the same net result as a factor which inhibits anabolism, but there would be some differences; it is my belief that the “S” hormone [cortisol] is anti-anabolic rather than catabolic. . . . The anti-anabolism . . . is contrasted with the increased anabolism due to an excess of the “N” hormone [testosterone] in the adreno-genital syndrome. This anti-anabolism of protoplasm in Cushing’s syndrome accounts for not only the osteoporosis, but the muscular weakness, the thin skin, probably the easy bruisability, and possibly the atrophy of the lymphoid tissues and thymus.

Nonetheless, in the intervening years, the physical examination of patients suspected to have glucocorticoid excess focused on the anabolic changes, essentially to the exclusion of the antianabolic changes. With the rapid increase in the rate of obesity in the general population, Cushing’s syndrome can no longer be reliably separated from the metabolic syndrome of simple obesity on the basis of anabolic signs alone. However, the antianabolic changes in Cushing’s syndrome are very effective in making this distinction. This review focuses on the problems introduced into the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome by the obesity epidemic and on ways to alter the traditional approach, using the antianabolic changes of excess cortisol to separate patients with Cushing’s syndrome from obese patients with the insulin-resistant metabolic syndrome.

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564) published his transformational work on human anatomy, De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Septem, in 1543. It is the book that corrected many of Galen’s anatomical errors. The book was met with considerable hostility. As an example, Jacobus Sylvius (Jacques Dubois, 1478–1555), the world’s leading anatomist at the time and Vesalius’s former mentor, on being asked his opinion of the work, replied, “Galen is not wrong. It is man that has changed, and not for the better.”6 This was not true then, but it is true now.

Approximately one third of the U.S. population is obese. The worldwide prevalence of the metabolic syndrome among obese persons is conservatively estimated at 10%; that is, approximately 12 million people have the obesity-related metabolic syndrome.7,8 The clinical picture of this syndrome is almost the same as that of Cushing’s syndrome.9,10 The prevalence of undiagnosed Cushing’s syndrome is about 75 cases per 1 million population, or 24,000 affected persons. On the basis of these prevalence estimates, the chance that a person with obesity, hypertension, hirsutism, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia has Cushing’s syndrome is about 1 in 500. In Harvey Cushing’s era, when obesity was rare, making the diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome was the most certain aspect of the management of this disorder. Today, making the diagnosis is the least certain aspect in the care of patients with Cushing’s syndrome.

The metabolic syndrome caused by glucocorticoid hypersecretion can be differentiated from the obesity-associated metabolic syndrome with the use of a careful assessment of Albright’s antianabolic effects of cortisol. These effects — osteopenia, thin skin, and ecchymoses — are present in patients with Cushing’s syndrome but not in patients with simple obesity.

Patients in whom osteoporosis is diagnosed radiographically are more likely to have Cushing’s syndrome than those who do not have osteoporosis, with a positive likelihood ratio of 11.11-13 Today, a z score of −2 at the lumbar spine supports this criterion. Skinfold thickness is conveniently measured with an electrocardiographic caliper that has the points dulled with a sharpening stone and the screws tightened so that the gap is maintained when the caliper is removed from the skinfold. The skin over the proximal phalanx of the middle finger of the nondominant hand is commonly used for this measurement

 

(Figure 1 FIGURE 1Measurement of Skinfold Thickness.). A thickness of less than 2 mm is considered to be thin skin. Patients who have thin skin are more likely to have Cushing’s syndrome, with a positive likelihood ratio of 116

 

(Figure 2 FIGURE 2 Comparison of Skinfold Thickness in Patients with Cushing’s Syndrome and Those with Other Conditions Related to Insulin Resistance.).13-15 Finally, patients who have three or more ecchymoses that are larger than 1 cm in diameter and not associated with trauma such as venipuncture are more likely to have Cushing’s syndrome than are patients without such findings, with a positive likelihood ratio of 4.13,16

If we know the prevalence of undiagnosed Cushing’s syndrome in the population of persons with the obesity-related metabolic syndrome, we can begin to calculate the probability that a person has Cushing’s syndrome, using the likelihood ratios for the antianabolic features observed on physical examination. Likelihood ratios can be converted into probabilities with the use of Bayes’ theorem. This conversion is markedly facilitated by the Fagan nomogram for this purpose.17

The prevalence of undiagnosed Cushing’s syndrome is not known, but it can be estimated. Two persons per 1 million population die from adrenal cancer every year.18 The current life span for patients with adrenocortical carcinoma, after diagnosis, is between 2 and 4 years.19,20 Allowing 3 years to make the diagnosis, the prevalence of undiagnosed Cushing’s syndrome is 6 cases per million. In most case series of Cushing’s syndrome, an average of 8% of patients have adrenal carcinoma.21 If 6 per million is 8% of the group, the total Cushing’s syndrome group is 75 persons per million, or 24,000 persons. If all 24,000 patients are included in the metabolic syndrome group, comprising 12 million people, the prevalence of Cushing’s syndrome is 0.002, or 0.2%. With a probability of 0.2% and a likelihood ratio of 116 for thin skin, 18 for osteopenia, and 4 for ecchymoses, the probability that a patient with these three findings has Cushing’s syndrome is 95%.

URINARY FREE CORTISOL

The diagnosis of all endocrine diseases requires a clinical presentation that is compatible with the disease, as well as identification of the pathophysiological cause. An assessment for excess glucocorticoid effects can be made by measuring the 24-hour urinary free cortisol level.22 There are two kinds of free cortisol: plasma protein-unbound cortisol and cortisol unconjugated to sulfuric or hyaluronic acid. Protein-unbound cortisol is filtered in the glomerulus and then reabsorbed in the collecting system. About 3% of filtered cortisol ends up in the urine. This free cortisol in the urine is unconjugated. Thus, the urinary free cortisol level is a direct reflection of the free, bioactive cortisol level in plasma. The free cortisol level is quantified in a 24-hour urine sample by averaging the increased secretion of cortisol in the morning and the decreased secretion in the afternoon and at night. Urinary creatinine is also measured to determine whether the collection is complete. Creatinine levels of less than 1.5 g per day for men and less than 1 g per day for women indicate incomplete collection, and the test should be repeated in patients with these levels.

Unconjugated cortisol can be extracted directly from urine with a nonpolar lipid solvent. After extraction, the cortisol is purified by means of high-pressure liquid chromatography and then quantified with a binding assay, usually radioimmunoassay. Free cortisol also can be quantitated directly by means of mass spectroscopy. The urinary free cortisol assay of choice uses high-pressure liquid chromatographic separation followed by mass spectrometric quantitation.23 With the use of this assay, the urinary free cortisol level in healthy adults ranges from 8 to 51 μg per 24 hours (mean [±SD], 23±8). Clinical depression increases urinary free cortisol excretion, and most studies show that the level of urinary free cortisol ranges from 10 to 60 μg per day in patients with typical clinical signs and symptoms of depression. If we use 60 μg per day as the cutoff between normal values (<60 μg per day) and elevated values (≥60 μg per day), urinary free cortisol excretion of 62 μg per day or more has a positive likelihood ratio of 11.24 Thus, in a patient presenting with obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and hirsutism who has thin skin, osteopenia, ecchymoses, and an elevated urinary free cortisol level, the probability of Cushing’s syndrome is 1 (100%). For such patients, the clinician should move directly to a differential diagnostic evaluation.

DEXAMETHASONE-SUPPRESSION TEST

The dexamethasone-suppression test is commonly used in the diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome. This test was developed by Grant Liddle in the early 1960s as a differential diagnostic test to separate corticotropin-dependent from corticotropin-independent Cushing’s syndrome. This is now done by measuring the plasma corticotropin level. Unfortunately, dexamethasone suppression has continued to be used as a screening test for Cushing’s syndrome.

The control group for this test comprises patients with obesity and depression in whom cortisol secretion is not suppressed in response to an oral dose of 1 mg of dexamethasone at midnight. Of the current U.S. population of 360 million people, approximately one third (120 million people) are obese. Of those who are obese, 10% (12 million people) have depression. In half these patients (6 million people), the plasma cortisol level will not be suppressed in response to a dexamethasone challenge. On the basis of my estimate of the current prevalence of undiagnosed Cushing’s syndrome (24,000 cases) and the estimate of the at-risk population (6 million persons), the positive predictive value of the dexamethasone-suppression test is only 0.4%. Thus, this test should not influence what the physician does next and should no longer be used for this purpose.

OUTLIERS

For patients with convincing evidence of Cushing’s syndrome on physical examination and an elevated 24-hour urinary free cortisol level, the differential diagnostic process outlined below should be initiated. However, a small group of patients will not meet these criteria.

Some patients have a strongly positive physical examination but low or zero urinary free cortisol excretion. Plasma corticotropin levels are suppressed in these patients. These patients are receiving exogenous glucocorticoids. The glucocorticoid must be identified, and a plan must be made for its discontinuation. Sometimes the glucocorticoid is being given by proxy (e.g., by a parent to a child), and no history of glucocorticoid administration can be found. Nevertheless, the glucocorticoid must be identified and discontinued.

Other patients have few or no clinical signs of Cushing’s syndrome but do have elevated urinary free cortisol excretion. Plasma corticotropin is measurable in these patients. They are usually identified during an evaluation for arterial hypertension. All such patients should undergo inferior petrosal sinus sampling to determine the source of corticotropin secretion. Ectopic sources are almost always neoplastic and are usually in the chest.25 Patients with eutopic secretion usually have the syndrome of generalized glucocorticoid resistance.26

Finally, a few patients have convincing findings on physical examination coupled with a normal urinary free cortisol level. In such cases, the clinician should make sure that urinary free cortisol is being measured with high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, that renal function is normal, and that the collections are complete. “Periodic” Cushing’s syndrome must be ruled out by measuring urinary free cortisol frequently over the course of a month.27 If these efforts fail, the patient should be followed for a year, with urinary free cortisol measurements performed frequently. No additional tests should be performed until the situation is sorted out. More tests would be likely to lead to an unnecessary surgical procedure.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

The differential diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome is shown in Figure 3

FIGURE 3Differential Diagnosis of Cushing’s Syndrome.. If plasma corticotropin is measurable, the disease process is corticotropin-dependent. If corticotropin is not measurable, the process is corticotropin-independent.

Corticotropin-dependent causes of Cushing’s syndrome are divided into those in which the corticotropin comes from the pituitary (eutopic causes) and those in which the corticotropin comes from elsewhere (ectopic causes). This differentiation is made with the measurement of corticotropin in inferior petrosal sinus plasma and the simultaneous measurement of corticotropin in peripheral (antecubital) plasma immediately after corticotropin-releasing hormone stimulation of pituitary corticotropin secretion. In samples obtained 4, 6, and 15 minutes after stimulation with corticotropin-releasing hormone, eutopic corticotropin secretion is associated with a ratio of the central-plasma corticotropin level to the peripheral-plasma corticotropin level of 3 or more. Ectopic corticotropin secretion is associated with a central-to-peripheral corticotropin ratio of less than 3. The positive predictive value of this test is 1 (Figure 4

FIGURE 4Maximal Ratio of Corticotropin in Inferior Petrosal Sinus Plasma to Corticotropin in Peripheral Plasma in Patients with Cushing’s Syndrome, Ectopic Corticotropin Secretion, or Adrenal Disease.).28

Although some authorities suggest that inferior petrosal sinus sampling can safely be bypassed in patients with corticotropin-dependent Cushing’s syndrome and a well-defined pituitary adenoma, I disagree. The incidence of nonfunctioning pituitary microadenomas is between 15% and 40%.29 This means that up to 40% of patients with ectopic secretion of corticotropin have an incidental pituitary abnormality. If it is assumed that the pituitary abnormality is responsible for corticotropin secretion, 15 to 40% of patients with ectopic secretion of corticotropin will be misdiagnosed and submitted to a transsphenoidal exploration of the sella turcica and pituitary gland. The prevalence of ectopic corticotropin secretion in the population of patients with undiagnosed Cushing’s syndrome is about 10%, accounting for 2400 patients. Up to 40% of these patients, or 960, have an incidental pituitary tumor. The mortality associated with transsphenoidal microadenomectomy is 1%.30 If all 360 to 960 patients undergo this procedure, there will be up to 10 deaths from an operation that can have no benefit. For this reason alone, all patients with corticotropin-dependent Cushing’s syndrome should undergo inferior petrosal sinus sampling to confirm the source of corticotropin secretion before any surgical intervention is contemplated.

Patients with eutopic corticotropin secretion are almost certain to have a corticotropin-secreting pituitary microadenoma. An occasional patient will have alcohol-induced pseudo–Cushing’s syndrome. The slightest suggestion of alcoholism should lead to a 3-week abstinence period before any surgery is considered.31

Patients with ectopic corticotropin secretion are first evaluated with computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the chest. In two thirds of these patients, a tumor will be found.25 If nothing is found in the chest, MRI of the abdominal and pelvic organs is performed. If these additional imaging studies are also negative, there are two options: bilateral adrenalectomy or blockade of cortisol synthesis. If blockade is chosen, the patient should undergo repeat scanning at 6-month intervals.32 If no source is found by the end of the second year, it is unlikely that the source will ever be found, and bilateral adrenalectomy should be performed for definitive treatment (Doppman JL: personal communication).

Corticotropin-independent Cushing’s syndrome is usually caused by an adrenal neoplasm. Benign tumors tend to be small (<5 cm in diameter) and secrete a single hormone, cortisol. The contralateral adrenal gland is suppressed by the cortisol secreted from the tumorous gland. If the value for Hounsfield units is less than 10 and the washout of contrast material is greater than 60% at 15 minutes, the tumor is almost certainly benign.33 Such tumors can be treated successfully with laparoscopic adrenalectomy.

The syndromes of micronodular and macronodular adrenal dysplasia usually affect both adrenal glands. The nodules secrete cortisol. Corticotropin is suppressed, as is the internodular tissue of the adrenal glands. Percutaneous bilateral adrenalectomy, followed by glucocorticoid and mineralocorticoid treatment, is curative.

Adrenal tumors secreting more than one hormone (i.e., cortisol and androgen or estrogen) are almost always malignant. Surgical removal of all detectable disease is indicated, as is a careful search for metastases. If metastases are found, they should be removed. This usually requires an open adrenalectomy. It goes without saying that adrenal tumors, nodules, and metastases should be treated by the most experienced endocrine cancer surgeon available.

If the plasma cortisol level on the morning after a transsphenoidal microadenomectomy is 0, the operation was a success. The patient should be treated with oral hydrocortisone, at a dose of 12 mg per square meter of body-surface area once a day in the morning, and a tetracosactide (Cortrosyn) stimulation test should be performed at 3-month intervals. When the tetracosactide-stimulated plasma cortisol level is higher than 20 μg per deciliter (551 μmol per liter), cortisol administration can be stopped. The same rule applies in the case of a unilateral adrenalectomy. If the adrenalectomy is bilateral, cortisol, at a dose of 12 to 15 mg per square meter per day, and fludrocortisone (Florinef), at a dose of 100 μg per day, should be prescribed as lifelong therapy.

SUMMARY

The obesity epidemic has led to necessary changes in the evaluation and treatment of patients with Cushing’s syndrome. The most dramatic change is the emphasis on the antianabolic alterations in Cushing’s syndrome, which can provide a strong basis for separating patients with Cushing’s syndrome from the more numerous patients with obesity and the metabolic syndrome. More can be done along these lines. Likelihood ratios are known for proximal muscle weakness and can be known for brain atrophy and growth failure in children.

The dexamethasone-suppression test, although still very popular, no longer has a role in the evaluation and treatment of patients with Cushing’s syndrome. Only three biochemical tests are needed: urinary free cortisol, plasma corticotropin, and plasma cortisol measurements. Urinary free cortisol excretion is the test that confirms the clinical diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome. To be trustworthy, it must be performed in the most stringent way, with the use of high-pressure liquid chromatography followed by mass spectrometric quantitation of cortisol. Measurement of plasma corticotropin is used to separate corticotropin-dependent from corticotropin-independent causes of Cushing’s syndrome and to separate eutopic from ectopic secretion of corticotropin. Inferior petrosal sinus sampling should be performed in all patients with corticotropin-dependent Cushing’s syndrome because of the high prevalence of nonfunctioning incidental pituitary adenomas among such patients. Measurement of plasma cortisol has only one use: determining the success or failure of transsphenoidal microadenomectomy or adrenalectomy. If the plasma cortisol level is not measurable on the morning after the operation (<5 μg per deciliter [138 μmol per liter]), the procedure was a success; if it is measurable, the operation failed. The surgeon must not administer intraoperative or postoperative synthetic glucocorticoids until the plasma cortisol level has been measured.

Successful evaluation of a patient who is suspected of having Cushing’s syndrome requires an endocrinologist who is skilled in physical diagnosis. Also required is a laboratory that measures urinary free cortisol using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry and that can measure plasma cortisol and plasma corticotropin by means of radioimmunoassay.

Inferior petrosal sinus sampling is performed by an interventional radiologist. The treatment for all causes of Cushing’s syndrome, other than exogenous glucocorticoids, is surgical, and neurosurgeons, endocrine surgeons, and cancer surgeons are needed. This level of multidisciplinary medical expertise is usually found only at academic medical centers. Thus, most, if not all, patients with Cushing’s syndrome should be referred to such a center for treatment.

Disclosure forms provided by the author are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

SOURCE INFORMATION

From the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Clinical Nutrition, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Loriaux at the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Clinical Nutrition, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., L607, Portland, OR 97239-3098, or at .

From http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1505550

Day 7, Cushing’s Awareness Challenge

On Becoming Empowered. Adapted from my blog post Participatory Medicine

The Society for Participatory Medicine - MemberThis is kind of a “cheat” post since it’s a compilation of other posts, web pages, message board posts and some original thoughts.  I wrote it to submit to Robin’s Grand Rounds, hosted  on her blog.

For all of my early life, I was the good, compliant, patient.  I took whatever pills the doctor prescribed, did whatever tests h/she (most always a he) wrote for.  Believed that whatever he said was the absolute truth.  He had been to med school.  He knew what was wrong with me even though he didn’t live in my body 24/7 and experience what I did.

I know a lot of people are still like this.  Their doctor is like a god to them.  He can do no wrong – even if they don’t feel any better after treatment, even if they feel worse.  “But the doctor said…”

Anyway, I digress.

All this changed for me in 1983.

At first I noticed I’d stopped having my periods and, of course, I thought I was pregnant. I went to my Gynecologist who had no explanation. Lots of women lose their periods for a variety of reasons so no one thought that this was really significant.

Then I got really tired, overly tired. I would take my son to a half hour Choir rehearsal and could not stay awake for the whole time. I would lie down in the back of the van, set an alarm and sleep for the 30 minutes.

A whole raft of other symptoms started appearing – I grew a beard (Hirsuitism), gained weight even though I was on Weight Watchers and working out at the gym nearly every day, lost my period, everything hurt, got what is called a “moon face” and a “buffalo hump” on the back of my neck. I also got stretch marks. I was very depressed but it’s hard to say if that was because of the hormone imbalance or because I felt so bad and no one would listen to me.

I came across a little article in the Ladies Home Journal magazine which said “If you have these symptoms…ask your doctor about Cushing’s”. After that, I started reading everything I could on Cushing’s and asking my doctors. Due to all my reading at the library and medical books I bought, I was sure I had Cushing’s but no one would believe me. Doctors would say that Cushing’s Disease is too rare, that I was making this up and that I couldn’t have it.

I asked doctors for three years – PCP, gynecologist, neurologist, podiatrist – all said the now-famous refrain.  It’s too rare.  You couldn’t have Cushing’s.  I kept persisting in my reading, making copies of library texts even when I didn’t understand them, keeping notes.  I just knew that someone, somewhere would “discover” that I had Cushing’s.

My husband was on the doctors’ sides.  He was sure it was all in my mind (as opposed to all in my head!) and he told me to just think “happy thoughts” and it would all go away.

A Neurologist gave me Xanax. Since he couldn’t see my tumor with his Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine there was “no possibility” that it existed. Boy was he wrong!

Later in 1986 I started bruising incredibly easily. I could touch my skin and get a bruise. On New Year’s Day of 1987 I started bleeding under the skin. My husband made circles around the outside perimeter each hour with a marker, like the rings of a tree. When I went to my Internist the next day he was shocked at the size. He now thought I had a blood disorder so he sent me to a Hematologist/Oncologist.

Fortunately, the Hematologist/Oncologist ran a twenty-four hour urine test and really looked at me. Both he and his partner recognized that I had Cushing’s. Of course, he was sure that he did the diagnosis.  No matter that I had been pursuing this with other doctors for 3 years.

It was not yet determined if it was Cushing’s Disease (Pituitary) or Syndrome (Adrenal). However, he couldn’t help me any further so the Hematologist referred me to an Endocrinologist.

The Endocrinologist, of course, didn’t trust the other tests I had had done so I was back to square one. He ran his own multitude of tests. He had to draw blood at certain times like 9 AM. and 5 PM. There was a dexamethasone suppression test where I took a pill at 10 p.m. and gave blood at 9 am the next day. I collected gallons of urine in BIG boxes (Fun in the fridge!). Those were from 6 a.m. to 6 a.m. to be delivered to his office by 9 a.m. same day. I was always worried that I’d be stopped in rush hour and the police would ask about what was in that big container. I think I did those for a week. He also did standard neurological tests and asked lots of questions.

When the endo confirmed that I had Cushing’s in 1987 he sent me to a local hospital where they repeated all those same tests for another week and decided that it was not my adrenal gland (Cushing’s Syndrome) creating the problem. The doctors and nurses had no idea what to do with me, so they put me on the brain cancer ward.

When I left this hospital after a week, we didn’t know any more than we had before.

As luck would have it, NIH (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland) was doing a clinical trial of Cushing’s. I live in the same area as NIH so it was not too inconvenient but very scary at first to think of being tested there. At that time I only had a choice of NIH, Mayo Clinic and a place in Quebec to do this then-rare pituitary surgery called a Transsphenoidal Resection. I chose NIH – closest and free. After I was interviewed by the Doctors there, I got a letter that I had been accepted into the clinical trial. The first time I was there was for 6 weeks as an inpatient. More of the same tests.

There were about 12 of us there and it was nice not to be alone with this mystery disease. Many of these Cushies (mostly women) were getting bald, couldn’t walk, having strokes, had diabetes. One was blind, one had a heart attack while I was there. Towards the end of my testing period, I was looking forward to the surgery just to get this whole mess over with. While I was at NIH, I was gaining about a pound a day!

The MRI still showed nothing, so they did a Petrosal Sinus Sampling Test. That scared me more than the prospect of surgery. (This test carries the risk of stroke and uncontrollable bleeding from the incision points.) Catheters were fed from my groin area to my pituitary gland and dye was injected. I could watch the whole procedure on monitors. I could not move during this test or for several hours afterwards to prevent uncontrolable bleeding from a major artery. The test did show where the tumor probably was located. Also done were more sophisticated dexamethasone suppression tests where drugs were administered by IV and blood was drawn every hour (they put a heplock in my arm so they don’t have to keep sticking me). I got to go home for a weekend and then went back for the surgery – the Transsphenoidal Resection. I fully expected to die during surgery (and didn’t care if I did) so I signed my will and wrote last letters to those I wanted to say goodbye to. During the time I was home just before surgery, a college classmate of mine (I didn’t know her) did die at NIH of a Cushing’s-related problem. I’m so glad I didn’t find out until a couple months later!

November 3, 1987, the surgeon, Dr. Ed Oldfield, cut the gum above my front teeth under my upper lip so there is no scar. He used tiny tools and microscopes. My tumor was removed successfully. In some cases (not mine) the surgeon uses a plug of fat from the abdomen to help seal the cut. Afterwards, I was in intensive care overnight and went to a neurology ward for a few days until I could walk without being dizzy. I had some major headaches for a day or two but they gave me drugs (morphine) for those. Also, I had cotton plugs in my nostrils. It was a big day when they came out. I had diabetes insipidus (DI) for a little while, but that went away by itself – thank goodness!

I had to use a foam product called “Toothies” to brush my teeth without hitting the incision. Before they let me go home, I had to learn to give myself an injection in my thigh. They sent me home with a supply of injectible cortisone in case my level ever fell too low (it didn’t). I was weaned gradually off cortisone pills (scary). I now take no medications. I had to get a Medic Alert bracelet. I will always need to tell medical staff when I have any kind of procedure – the effects of my excess cortisone will remain forever.

I went back to the NIH for several follow-up visits of a week each where they did all the blood and urine testing again. After a few years NIH set me free. Now I go to my “outside” endocrinologist every year for the dexamethasone suppression test, 24-hour urine and regular blood testing.

As I get further away from my surgery, I have less and less chance that my tumor will grow back. I have never lost all the weight I gained and I still have the hair on my chin but most of my other symptoms are gone. I am still and always tired and need a nap most days. I do not, however, still need to take whole days off just to sleep.

I consider myself very lucky that I was treated before I got as bad as some of the others on my floor at NIH but think it is crazy that these symptoms are not taken seriously by doctors.

My story goes on and if you’re interested some is on this blog and some is here:

Forbes Magazine | MaryO’s bio | Cushing’s and Cancer Blog | Guest Speakers | Interview Archive  1/3/08 | Cushing’s Awareness Day Testimonial Archive |

Because of this experience in getting a Cushing’s diagnosis – and later, a prescription for growth hormone – I was concerned that there were probably other people not being diagnosed with Cushing’s. When I searched online for Cushing’s, all the sites that came up were for dogs and horses with Cushing’s.  Not what I was looking for!

In July of 2000, I was talking with my dear friend Alice, who ran a wonderful menopause site, Power Surge, wondering why there weren’t many support groups online (OR off!) for Cushing’s.  This thought percolated through my mind for a few hours and I realized that maybe this was my calling.  Maybe I should be the one to start a network of support for other “Cushies” to help them empower themselves.

I wanted to educate others about the awful disease that took doctors years of my life to diagnose and treat – even after I gave them the information to diagnose me.  I didn’t want anyone else to suffer for years like I did.  I wanted doctors to pay more attention to Cushing’s disease.

The first website (http://www.cushings-help.com) went “live” July 21, 2000.  It was just a single page of information. The message boards began September 30, 2000 with a simple message board which then led to a larger one, and a larger.  Today, in 2016, we have over 12 thousand members and many others on Facebook.  Some “rare disease”!

The message boards are now very active and we have weekly online text chats, weekly live interviews, local meetings, conferences, email newsletters, a clothing exchange, a Cushing’s Awareness Day Forum, podcasts, phone support and much more. Because I wanted to spread the word to others not on “the boards” we have extended out to social networking sites – twitter groups, facebook groups, interviews, websites, chat groups, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Pinterest and much, much more.

People are becoming more empowered and participating in their own diagnoses, testing and treatment.  This have changed a lot since 1983!

When I had my Cushing’s nearly 30 years ago, I never thought that I would meet another Cushing’s patient in real life or online. Back then, I’d never even been aware that there was anything like an “online”. I’m so glad that people struggling with Cushing’s today don’t have to suffer anymore thinking that they’re the only one who deals with this.

Because of my work on the websites – and, believe me it is a ton of work! – I have had the honor of meeting over a hundred other Cushies personally at local meetings, conferences, at NIH (the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD where I had my final diagnosis and surgery). It occurred to me once that this is probably more than most endocrinologists will ever see in their entire career. I’ve also talked to countless others on the phone. Amazing for a “rare” disease!

I don’t know what pushed me in 1983, how I got the confidence and self-empowerment to challenge these doctors and their non-diagnoses over the years.  I’m glad that I didn’t suffer any longer than I did and I’m glad that I have a role in helping others to find the medical help that they need.

What do *YOU* think?  How are you becoming empowered?

Day 6, Cushing’s Awareness Challenge

In March of 1987, after the endo finally  confirmed that I had Cushing’s, I was sent to a local hospital where they repeated all those same tests for another week and decided that it was not my adrenal gland (Cushing’s Syndrome) creating the problem. The doctors and nurses had no idea what to do with me, so they put me on the brain cancer ward.

When I left this hospital after a week, we didn’t know any more than we had before.

As luck would have it, NIH (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland) was doing a clinical trial of Cushing’s. I live in the same area as NIH so it was not too inconvenient but very scary at first to think of being tested there. At that time I only had a choice of NIH, Mayo Clinic and a place in Quebec to do this then-rare pituitary surgery called a Transsphenoidal Resection.

My husband asked my endo if it were his wife, if he would recommend this surgery.  The endo responded that he was divorcing his wife – he didn’t care what happened to her.  Oh, my!

I chose NIH – closest and free. After I was interviewed by the doctors there, I got a letter that I had been accepted into the clinical trial.

The night before I was admitted, I signed my will.  I was sure I was going to die there.  If not during testing, as a result of surgery.

The first time I was there was for 6 weeks as an inpatient. More of the same tests.

There were about 12 of us there and it was nice not to be alone with this mystery disease. Many of these Cushies (mostly women) were getting bald, couldn’t walk, having strokes, had diabetes. One was blind, one had a heart attack while I was there. Several were from Greece.

My first roommate was a nurse.  She spent the entire first night screaming in pain.  I was very glad when they moved me to a new room!

Towards the end of my testing period, I was looking forward to the surgery just to get this whole mess over with – either a cure or dying. While I was at NIH, I was gaining about a pound a day!

During the time I was home the weekend  before surgery, a college classmate of mine (I didn’t know her) DID die at NIH of a Cushing’s-related problem. I’m so glad I didn’t find out until reading the alumnae magazine a couple months later!  She was the same class, same major, same home-town, same disease…

We have a Scottish doctor named James Lind to thank for the clinical trial.  He  conducted the first ever clinical trial in 1747 and developed the theory that citrus fruits cured scurvy.  Lind  compared the effects of various different acidic substances, ranging from vinegar to cider, on groups of afflicted sailors, and found that the group who were given oranges and lemons had largely recovered from scurvy after 6 days.

I’d like to think that I advanced the knowledge of Cushing’s at least a little bit by being a guinea  pig in 1987-1989.

From the NIH: http://endocrine.niddk.nih.gov/pubs/cushings/cushings.aspx

Hope through Research

Several components of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) conduct and support research on Cushing’s syndrome and other disorders of the endocrine system, including the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Center for Research Resources.

NIH-supported scientists are conducting intensive research into the normal and abnormal function of the major endocrine glands and the many hormones of the endocrine system. Researchers continue to study the effects of excess cortisol, including its effect on brain structure and function. To refine the diagnostic process, studies are under way to assess the accuracy of existing screening tests and the effectiveness of new imaging techniques to evaluate patients with ectopic ACTH syndrome. Researchers are also investigating jugular vein sampling as a less invasive alternative to petrosal sinus sampling. Research into treatment options includes study of a new drug to treat the symptoms of Cushing’s syndrome caused by ectopic ACTH secretion.

Studies are under way to understand the causes of benign endocrine tumor formation, such as those that cause most cases of Cushing’s syndrome. In a few pituitary adenomas, specific gene defects have been identified and may provide important clues to understanding tumor formation. Endocrine factors may also play a role. Increasing evidence suggests that tumor formation is a multistep process. Understanding the basis of Cushing’s syndrome will yield new approaches to therapy.

The NIH supports research related to Cushing’s syndrome at medical centers throughout the United States. Scientists are also treating patients with Cushing’s syndrome at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, MD. Physicians who are interested in referring an adult patient may contact Lynnette Nieman, M.D., at NICHD, 10 Center Drive, Room 1-3140, Bethesda, MD 20892-1109, or by phone at 301-496-8935. Physicians interested in referring a child or adolescent may contact Constantine Stratakis, M.D., D.Sc., at NICHD, 10 Center Drive, Room 1-3330, Bethesda, MD 20892-1103, or by phone at 301-402-1998.