Jump to content

MaryO

~Chief Cushie~
  • Posts

    7,578
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    300

MaryO last won the day on July 29

MaryO had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About MaryO

  • Birthday September 22

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://cushingsbios.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Northern Virginia
  • Interests
    My family, computers, music, reading, ice cream, handbells, the Internet, Chinese Food, chocolate, watching ice skating competitions, napping, piano duets, Kindle, iPad...in no particular order.

Recent Profile Visitors

33,289 profile views

MaryO's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

626

Reputation

  1. Ahmed Saeed Mubarak Mohamed1, Ahmed Iqbal2, Suveera Prasad3, Nigel Hoggard4, Daniel Blackburn1 Correspondence to Dr Daniel Blackburn, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Department of Clinical Neurology, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK; d.blackburn@sheffield.ac.uk Abstract Cushing’s disease is a rare endocrine condition in which a pituitary corticotroph adenoma drives excess adrenal cortisol production, and is one cause of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome. We present a young woman with 3 weeks of headaches and cognitive disturbance who subsequently developed florid psychosis requiring multiple admissions under neurology and psychiatry. Her clinical stigmata of hypercortisolism and biochemical abnormalities prompted an MR scan of the pituitary, which confirmed a pituitary microadenoma. Treatment with metyrapone and subsequent surgery led to complete recovery within 2 months. Cushing’s disease commonly causes neuropsychiatric symptoms and can present with psychosis. Diagnosing Cushing’s disease can be challenging, but with early diagnosis and treatment it has an excellent prognosis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2021-002974 Get the full text
  2. All of our country is very encouraged by the declining rates in both COVID-19 infections and death, due mostly to President Trump’s vaccine production and trial effort called Operation Warp Speed and President Biden’s vaccine distribution efforts. As of July 2021, The United States has administered 334,600,770 doses of COVID-19 vaccines, 184,132,768 people had received at least one dose while 159,266,536 people are fully vaccinated. The pandemic is by no means over, as people are still getting infected with COVID-19 with the emergence of the Delta Variant. In fact, recently cases, hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19 have gone up. In Los Angeles, the increased infection rate has led to indoor mask requirements. The main reason that COVID-19 has not been eliminated is because of vaccine hesitancy, which is often due to misinformation propagated on websites and social media. One of Dr. Friedman's patients gave him a link of an alternative doctor who gave multiple episodes of misinformation subtitled “Evidence suggests people who have received the COVID “vaccine” may have a reduced lifespan” about the COVID-19 vaccine that Dr. Friedman wants to address. Almost 30% of American say they will not get the vaccine, up from 20% a few months ago. Statistics are that people who are vaccinated have a 1:1,000,000 chance of dying from COVID, while people who are unvaccinated have a 1:500 chance of dying from COVID. I think most people would take the 1:1,000,000 risk. Dr. Friedman has always been a proponent of the COVID-19 vaccine because he is a scientist and bases his decisions on peer-reviewed literature and not social media posts. As we are getting to the stage where the COVID-19 pandemic could end if vaccination rates increase, he feels that it is even more important for people to get correct information about the COVID-19 vaccine. MYTH: People are dying at high rates from the COVID-19 vaccine and the rates of complications and deaths are underreported. FACT: The rates of complications and deaths from the vaccine are overreported. It is a fact that when 200 million people get a vaccine, some of them will get blood clots, some of them will have a heart attack, some of them will have strokes, some of them will have optic neuritis and some will have Guillain-Barré syndrome. These complications may not be due to the vaccine, but people remember that they got the vaccine recently. Anti-vaccine websites seem to play up on this and give false information that COVID-19 complications are underreported and fail to note that there is no control group, so we do not know how many people would have gotten blood clots, strokes, and heart attacks if they did not get the vaccine. For example, one anti-vaccine website highlighted a Tamil (Indian) actor Vivek, who died of a massive heart attack 5 days after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and tried to make a case that the vaccine caused that. Of course, the massive heart attack was due to years of buildup of cholesterol in his coronary arteries and had nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccine. In fact, the complications attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine occur less frequently in those vaccinated than unvaccinated. The only complication that seems to possibly be more common in people who get vaccinated is blood clots, and the rate of that is still quite low. Overwhelmingly, the COVID-19 vaccine is effective and safe. MYTH: I had COVID-19 before. I don't need a vaccine. Natural immunity is better than a vaccine immunity. FACT: Most studies have shown that the COVID-19 vaccines are more effective, with longer-lasting immunity, than only having the COVID-19 infection. The immunity after natural infection varies and may be quite minimal in patients who had mild COVID-19 and likely declines within a couple of months of infection. In contrast, those who got the vaccine seem to have high levels of immunity even months after getting the vaccine. The vaccine also protects against the COVID-19 variants. If someone had one variant, it is unlikely that their natural immunity would protect them against other variants. MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccine leads to spike proteins circulating in your body for months after the vaccine. FACT: The mRNA from the vaccine, the spike protein that it generates, and all of the products of the COVID-19 vaccine are gone within hours, if not days, and do not hang around the body. MYTH: There is likely to be long-term effects, including infertility effects, of the COVID-19 vaccine. FACT: As the viral particles and proteins are gone within a couple hours to days and the vaccine only enters the cytoplasm and does not enter the DNA, it is very unlikely that there will be long-term effects. So far, the clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccine have not resulted in any detrimental effects, and it has been a year since the trials started. Other vaccines have been used safely and do not give long-term side effects. There is no reason to think that this vaccine would give long-term side effects, and we have not seen any evidence of long-term side effects currently. Pregnant women who received COVID-19 vaccines have similar rates adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes (e.g., fetal loss, preterm birth, small size for gestational age, congenital anomalies, and neonatal death) as with pregnant women who did not receive vaccines. MYTH: People with autoimmune disease should not get the vaccine. FACT: Persons with autoimmune disease are likely more susceptible to COVID-19, and they should especially get the vaccine. People with preexisting conditions, including autoimmune diseases, have been shown to be give generally excellent immune responses to the vaccine, and it should especially be given to patients with Addison’s disease or Cushing's disease who may have higher rates of getting more severe COVID-19. In fact, the CDC as well Dr. Friedman recommends EVERYONE getting the vaccine, except 1) those under 12, 2) those who had an anaphylactic reaction to their first COVID-19 vaccine. Patients with AIDS, and those on immunosuppressive therapy for cancers, organ transplants and rheumatological conditions, may not be fully protected from vaccines and should be cautious (including wearing masks and social distancing), but still should get vaccinated. MYTH: Patients with autoimmune diseases, and other conditions do not mount an adequate immune response to the vaccine and may even should get a booster shot. FACT: The only patients that have been found not to have a good immune response to the vaccine is those with AIDS or on immunosuppressive drugs that are used in people with rheumatological diseases or transplants. With these exception, patients appear to mount a good immune response to the vaccine regardless of their preexisting condition and do not need a booster shot. MYTH: Why should I bother with the vaccine if it is going to require a booster shot? FACT: It is unclear whether booster shots will be required or not. Currently, the CDC and FDA do not recommend a booster shot, but Pfizer has petitioned the FDA to consider it and is starting more studies on whether a booster shot is effective. It is currently believed that the vaccine retains effectiveness for months to years after it is given. MYTH: We are almost at herd immunity now. Why bother getting a vaccine? FACT: We are not at herd immunity as people are still getting sick and dying from COVID-19. Dr. Friedman recently lost to COVID-19 his 43-year old patient with obesity and diabetes at MLK Outpatient Center. There are pockets in the United States with low vaccine rates, especially in the South. The vaccine is spreading among unvaccinated people, while the rate of spread among vaccinated people is quite low. Approximately 98% of those hospitalized with COVID-19 are unvaccinated. It is important from a public health viewpoint for all Americans to get vaccinated. MYTH: There is nothing to be concerned with about the variants. FACT: Especially the delta variant appears to be more contagious and aggressive than the other variants currently. The vaccines do appear to be effective against the delta variant but possibly a little less so. Variants multiply and can generate new variants only if they are infected into patients who are unvaccinated. To end the emergence of new variants, it is important for all Americans to get vaccinated. MYTH: I could just be careful, and I will not get the COVID-19 vaccine. FACT: Thousands of people who were careful and got COVID-19 and either died from it or became extremely sick. The best prevention against getting COVID-19 is to get vaccinated. MYTH: I am young. I do not have to worry about getting COVID. FACT: Many young people have gotten sick and died of COVID-19 and also, they are contagious and can spread COVID-19 if they are not vaccinated. Everyone, regardless of their age, as long as they are over 12, should get vaccinated. MYTH: If children under 12 are not vaccinated, the virus will still spread. FACT: The FDA and CDC do not recommend the vaccine for those under 12. They are very unlikely to get COVID-19 and are very unlikely to transmit it to others. They are the one group that does not need to get vaccinated. MYTH: COVID-19 vaccines are an experimental vaccine. FACT: While it is true that the FDA approved COVID-19 vaccines were granted emergency use authorization in December 2020 (Pfizer and Moderna) and Johnson and Johnson in February 2021. Both Pfizer and Moderna have petitioned the FDA for full approval, but by no means are these vaccines experimental. As mentioned, over 180 million Americans and many more worldwide have received the vaccine. This is more than any other FDA approved medication. Clinical trials are still ongoing and have enrolled thousands of people and Israel has monitored the effect of COVID-19 vaccines in 7 million Israelis. MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccine is a government plot to kill or injure people or a war against G-d. FACT: Yeah right If you want the pandemic to end, please get vaccinated and encourage your friends and colleagues to get vaccinated. For more information or to schedule an appointment with Dr. Friedman, go to goodhormonehealth.com
  3. Rachel Acree, Caitlin M Miller, Brent S Abel, Nicola M Neary, Karen Campbell, Lynnette K Nieman Journal of the Endocrine Society, Volume 5, Issue 8, August 2021, bvab109, https://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvab109 Abstract Context Cushing syndrome (CS) is associated with impaired health-related quality of life (HRQOL) even after surgical cure. Objective To characterize patient and provider perspectives on recovery from CS, drivers of decreased HRQOL during recovery, and ways to improve HRQOL. Design Cross-sectional observational survey. Participants Patients (n = 341) had undergone surgery for CS and were members of the Cushing’s Support and Research Foundation. Physicians (n = 54) were Pituitary Society physician members and academicians who treated patients with CS. Results Compared with patients, physicians underestimated the time to complete recovery after surgery (12 months vs 18 months, P = 0.0104). Time to recovery did not differ by CS etiology, but patients with adrenal etiologies of CS reported a longer duration of cortisol replacement medication compared with patients with Cushing disease (12 months vs 6 months, P = 0.0025). Physicians overestimated the benefits of work (26.9% vs 65.3%, P < 0.0001), exercise (40.9% vs 77.6%, P = 0.0001), and activities (44.8% vs 75.5%, P = 0.0016) as useful coping mechanisms in the postsurgical period. Most patients considered family/friends (83.4%) and rest (74.7%) to be helpful. All physicians endorsed educating patients on recovery, but 32.4% (95% CI, 27.3-38.0) of patients denied receiving sufficient information. Some patients did not feel prepared for the postsurgical experience (32.9%; 95% CI, 27.6-38.6) and considered physicians not familiar enough with CS (16.1%; 95% CI, 12.2-20.8). Conclusion Poor communication between physicians and CS patients may contribute to dissatisfaction with the postsurgical experience. Increased information on recovery, including helpful coping mechanisms, and improved provider-physician communication may improve HRQOL during recovery. Read the entire article in the enclosed PDF. bvab109.pdf
  4. With the goal of reducing false positives for adrenal insufficiency (AI), scientists are recommending a new, more precise diagnostic cutoff of 14-15 μg/dL of serum cortisol, rather than the current 18 μg/dL. The new data were published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society. Among the 110 patients evaluated in the retrospective analysis, new cortisol cutoffs after adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation were identified when using several of the newer, more widely used diagnostic assays currently available, including Elecsys II (14.6 μg/dL), Access (14.8 μg/dL), and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) (14.5 μg/dL). Bradley Javorsky, MD, an endocrinologist and researcher at the Medical College of Wisconsin, served as the study's first author. He recently discussed the findings with MedPage Today. The exchange has been edited for length and clarity. What was the key knowledge gap your study was designed to address? Javorsky: It is safe to say that most clinicians, including many endocrinologists -- not to mention practice guidelines and clinical information resources -- still regard 18 μg/dL as the cutoff for making the biochemical diagnosis of AI after ACTH stimulation testing. However, this cutoff was derived from older polyclonal immunoassays that are no longer being used in many institutions. Newer, more specific monoclonal immunoassays and LC-MS/MS are being used instead. With these more specific assays, one might expect the cutoffs to be lower. What was your finding? Javorsky: After ACTH stimulation, the cutoff values for the newer, more specific cortisol assays were indeed lower at 14-15 μg/dL. Although there was excellent correlation between the new and older assays, the results from the new assays were 22-39% lower than those found by the older and less-specific Elecsys I assay, hence the lowered threshold. Did anything surprise you about the study results? Javorsky: Baseline cortisol had to be very low (approximately <2 μg/dL) in order to be predictive of subnormal cortisol values. This underscores the observation that ACTH stimulation testing is not perfectly sensitive. What are the clinical takeaways from these results? Javorsky: To avoid false-positive ACTH stimulation testing results -- and by extension avoid over-treating patients with glucocorticoids -- clinicians should be aware of the cortisol assay used in their institution and the new cortisol cutoff when evaluating patients for adrenal insufficiency. It should also be reinforced that careful interpretation in the context of clinical history is still essential to making the correct diagnosis. Discordant results among different assays underscore the importance of clinical judgment from an experienced physician when diagnosing AI. What are the takeaways? Javorsky: I think it is important that laboratories make the type of cortisol assay used in their institution easily accessible to clinicians and strongly consider posting the new cortisol cutoff after ACTH stimulation testing when reporting results. Read the study here and expert commentary on the clinical implications here. Disclosures Javorsky reported being a consultant for Clarus Therapeutics and a research investigator for Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Primary Source Journal of the Endocrine Society Source Reference: Javorsky BR, et al "New cutoffs for the biochemical diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency after ACTH stimulation using specific cortisol assays" J Endocrine Soc 2021; 5(4): bvab022. From https://www.medpagetoday.com/endocrine-society/adrenal-disorders/93188
  5. DEER PARK, Ill., June 15, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Eton Pharmaceuticals, Inc (Nasdaq: ETON), the U.S. marketer of ALKINDI SPRINKLE®, a treatment for adrenocortical insufficiency in pediatric patients, today announced that it has acquired U.S. and Canadian rights to Crossject’s ZENEO® hydrocortisone needleless autoinjector, which is under development as a rescue treatment for adrenal crisis. “The ZENEO autoinjector is a revolutionary delivery system, and this product is a terrific strategic fit with our current adrenal insufficiency business. Patients, advocacy groups, and physicians in the adrenal insufficiency community have repeatedly expressed to us the need for a hydrocortisone autoinjector, so we are excited to be partnering with Crossject to bring this product to patients in need,” said Sean Brynjelsen, CEO of Eton Pharmaceuticals. Patrick Alexandre, CEO of Crossject, added: ‘‘We are proud to announce a sound commercial agreement for ZENEO® Hydrocortisone in the US and Canada with an American leader in adrenal insufficiency. ETON has successfully established strong relations with the patient communities and medical specialists that are its core focus. ZENEO® Hydrocortisone answers a medical need. This strong partnership will contribute to saving lives by bringing to patients and their families a modern autoinjection possibility.’’ “We are delighted about Eton Pharmaceuticals' plans to partner with Crossject to bring this incredibly needed product to patients in the U.S.”, said Dina Matos, Executive Director of CARES Foundation, a leading North American advocacy foundation for patients with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, the most common presentation of adrenal insufficiencies in children. “The challenge for patients and caregivers facing an adrenal crisis is serious; an easy-to-use needleless autoinjector of hydrocortisone will be a game changer for our patients. We welcome this advancement.” ZENEO® is a proprietary needleless device developed and manufactured by Crossject. The pre-filled, single-use device propels medication through the skin in less than a tenth of a second. The device’s compact form factor, simple two-step administration, and needle-free technology make it an ideal delivery system for emergency medications that need to be administered in stressful situations by non-healthcare professionals. Crossject holds more than 400 global patents on the device, including 24 issued in the United States that extend as far as 2037, and has successfully completed bioequivalence and human factor studies with the ZENEO device using various medications. Crossject has developed a proprietary, room-temperature stable liquid formulation of hydrocortisone to be delivered via the ZENEO device. ZENEO hydrocortisone is expected to be the first and only hydrocortisone autoinjector available for patients that require a rescue dose of hydrocortisone. Currently, injectable hydrocortisone is only available in the United States in a lyophilized powder formulation that must be reconstituted and manually delivered via a traditional syringe. Eton expects to submit a New Drug Application for the product to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2023 and plans to request Orphan Drug Designation. In the United States, it is estimated that approximately 100,000 patients currently suffer from adrenocortical insufficiency and are at risk for adrenal crisis. Under the terms of the agreement, Crossject will receive development and regulatory milestone payments from Eton of up to $5.0 million, commercial milestones of up to $6.0 million, and a 10% royalty on net sales of the product. Crossject will be responsible for the management and expense of development, clinical, and manufacturing activities. Eton will be responsible for all regulatory and commercial activities. About Adrenal Crisis Patients with adrenal insufficiency can go into adrenal crisis if their cortisol levels are too low. Adrenal crisis is typically caused by missed doses of maintenance hydrocortisone, trauma, surgery, illness, fever, or major psychological distress. Signs of adrenal crisis include hyperpigmentation, severe weakness, nausea, abdominal pain, and confusion. It is estimated that approximately 8% of adrenal insufficiency patients will report an adrenal crisis in any given year and more than 6% of cases result in death. About Crossject Crossject (ISIN: FR0011716265; Ticker: ALCJ; LEI: 969500W1VTFNL2D85A65) is developing and is soon to market a portfolio of drugs dedicated to emergency situations: epilepsy, overdose, allergic shock, severe migraine and asthma attack. The company’s portfolio currently contains eight products in advanced stages of development, including 7 emergency treatments, 5 of which are intended for life-threatening situations. Thanks to its patented needle-free self-injection system, Crossject aims to become the world leader in self-administered emergency drugs. The company has been listed on the Euronext Growth market in Paris since 2014, and benefits from Bpifrance funding. About Eton Pharmaceuticals Eton Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an innovative pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing treatments for rare diseases. The company currently owns or receives royalties from three FDA-approved products, including ALKINDI® SPRINKLE, Biorphen®, and Alaway Preservative Free®, and has six additional products that have been submitted to the FDA. Company Contact: David Krempa dkrempa@etonpharma.com 612-387-3740 From https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/06/15/2247745/0/en/Eton-Pharmaceuticals-Acquires-U-S-and-Canadian-Rights-to-ZENEO-Hydrocortisone-Autoinjector.html
  6. until
    More information at
  7. Those who wish to gain practical tools for living optimally with rare diseases are encouraged to attend the annual Living Rare Living Stronger Patient and Family Forum, hosted by the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) and set this year for June 26-27. The conference brings together patients, families, healthcare professionals, and other supporters for learning, sharing, and connecting. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the general sessions, breakout workshops, and networking will again be virtual. The sessions, which will offer perspectives from patients, caregivers, and the medical community, will air live and be recorded for later viewing. Throughout the forum, participants will be able to visit the exhibit hall and have peer meetings with other attendees. Also this year, the Rare Impact Awards will return as part of the program. That presentation, on June 28, honors individuals, organizations, and industry innovators for exceptional work benefitting the rare disease community. “The health and well-being of people living with rare diseases, their loved ones and those working to improve their lives continues to remain a top priority for all of us here at NORD,” the organization stated in its forum announcement. “The COVID-19 pandemic brought us new ways to engage with our community and our 2020 virtual program was the most successful forum to date! In 2021 we will continue to work hard to keep our community healthy and safe while engaging in this impactful program,” NORD said. Registration for the “patient-centric” event is $39 for patients, caregivers, students, and NORD patient organization representatives. The cost is $75 for professional advocates, people from academia, physicians, and government representatives, and $500 for NORD corporate council members. For pharmaceutical, insurance, or other representatives, registration is $650. As for the agenda, the opening discussion will be on “The Patient-Professional Partnership” and will include three stories on the close bond between patients and their care professionals. Breakout sessions for Saturday, June 26 will include “Coping with Grief and Anticipatory Grief,” “Shared Decision-Making with Your Care Team,” and “Working While Rare” as first offerings, followed by “Getting Involved in Clinical Research: Finding and Preparing for Clinical Trials,” “Navigating Insurance, Social Security Disability and Patient Assistance Programs,” and “The ABCs of Advocating for Your Child’s Education” in the second group of workshops. Those will be followed by a plenary discussion on the topic “Building Resilience in a Time of Unknowns.” The speakers will explore how patients coped while waiting for a diagnosis, how they are faring while waiting for new treatments, and how they have kept it together during the pandemic. June 27 will start with an opening plenary discussion titled “The Rare Sibling Experience.” Here, three siblings of rare disease patients will share their experiences, including how they became advocates. Breakout sessions on this day will include “Fighting Back and Fighting Forward Through Advocacy,” “Palliative Care: Debunking the Myths,” “Rare in the Family: Navigating the Roles of Patient, Parent, and Caregiver” in the first set of discussion groups. Later offerings that Sunday will include “Aging with a Rare Condition,” “Finding Your Community and Building Your Support Network,” and “The Intersection of Race, Ethnicity, and Equity with Diagnosis and Treatment Access.” The closing plenary discussion, titled “Rare Breakthroughs Now and on the Horizon,” will cover the latest advances in the diagnosis, treatment, and care of rare diseases. Early this year, NORD put out a call out for individuals who were willing to share their real-life experiences with rare diseases at the conference. In all, including physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, the conference will feature some 55 speakers. Access to the virtual program will be provided via email the week of the event.
  8. Wow, that's tough but thank you for being a concerned mom. Does she know your family history? Maybe talking about that would be a way in to discus symptoms and so on. Is she aware/concerned about any of the symptoms she's dealing with? If she doesn't live at home, perhaps she's already seeking medical attention but hasn't shared that with you to keep you from worrying. Please keep us posted on how this goes. Best of luck!
  9. Mayela, I'm so sorry you went through COVID but glad you're on the other side of it now. And a relapse doesn't sound like any fun Thanks for the update on The GRACE trial, though. Please keep us updated on your recovery from COVID and your relapse.
  10. Eleni Papakokkinou, Marta Piasecka, Hanne Krage Carlsen, Dimitrios Chantzichristos, Daniel S. Olsson, Per Dahlqvist, Maria Petersson, Katarina Berinder, Sophie Bensing, Charlotte Höybye, Britt Edén Engström, Pia Burman, Cecilia Follin, David Petranek, Eva Marie Erfurth, Jeanette Wahlberg, Bertil Ekman, Anna-Karin Åkerman, Erik Schwarcz, Gudmundur Johannsson, Henrik Falhammar & Oskar Ragnarsson Abstract Purpose Bilateral adrenalectomy (BA) still plays an important role in the management of Cushing's disease (CD). Nelson’s syndrome (NS) is a severe complication of BA, but conflicting data on its prevalence and predicting factors have been reported. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of NS, and identify factors associated with its development. Data sources Systematic literature search in four databases. Study Selection Observational studies reporting the prevalence of NS after BA in adult patients with CD. Data extraction Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by three independent investigators. Data synthesis Thirty-six studies, with a total of 1316 CD patients treated with BA, were included for the primary outcome. Pooled prevalence of NS was 26% (95% CI 22–31%), with moderate to high heterogeneity (I2 67%, P < 0.01). The time from BA to NS varied from 2 months to 39 years. The prevalence of NS in the most recently published studies, where magnet resonance imaging was used, was 38% (95% CI 27–50%). The prevalence of treatment for NS was 21% (95% CI 18–26%). Relative risk for NS was not significantly affected by prior pituitary radiotherapy [0.9 (95% CI 0.5–1.6)] or pituitary surgery [0.6 (95% CI 0.4–1.0)]. Conclusions Every fourth patient with CD treated with BA develops NS, and every fifth patient requires pituitary-specific treatment. The risk of NS may persist for up to four decades after BA. Life-long follow-up is essential for early detection and adequate treatment of NS. Introduction Cushing´s disease (CD) is a rare disorder associated with excess morbidity and increased mortality [1, 2]. Previously, bilateral adrenalectomy (BA) was the mainstay treatment for CD. During the last decades, however, other treatment modalities have emerged, including pituitary surgery, radiotherapy and medical treatments. Despite this, BA is still considered when other treatment options have failed to achieve remission, or when a rapid relief of hypercortisolism is necessary [3]. BA is considered to be a safe and effective treatment for CD [4], especially after the laparoscopic approach was introduced during the 1990s [5]. There are, however, significant drawbacks with BA, mainly the unavoidable chronic adrenal insufficiency, as well as the risk for Nelson’s syndrome (NS), i.e., growth of the remaining pituitary tumor and excessive production of ACTH, that may cause optic nerve or chiasmal compression and mucocutaneous hyperpigmentation [6]. The prevalence of NS varies between studies, mainly due to a lack of consensus on the definition and diagnostic criteria for the syndrome [7, 8]. Previously published studies are also inconsistent as to whether factors such as previous radiotherapy, age at BA, gender and duration of CD, may affect the risk of developing NS. Furthermore, high ACTH concentrations after BA have been suggested as a risk factor for developing NS [9,10,11,12]. Thus, the primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the prevalence of NS after BA for CD, both the total prevalence of NS as well the prevalence of NS requiring treatment with pituitary surgery and/or radiotherapy. The secondary aim was to investigate risk factors associated with development of NS. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [13]. The PICO process was applied for the definition of the research question and eligibility criteria for the literature search. The protocol of this review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020163918). Search strategy We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science on February 25th 2020, with no start date restriction, for relevant articles by using the following terms: “Cushing´s syndrome” or “Cushing´s disease” or “Hypercortisolism” or “Pituitary ACTH hypersecretion” or “corticotroph tumor” or “corticotroph tumors” or “corticotroph adenoma” or “corticotroph adenomas” or “corticotropinoma” or “corticotropinomas” or “corticotrophinoma” or “corticotrophinomas” or “ACTH pituitary adenoma” or “ACTH pituitary adenomas” or “adrenocorticotropin pituitary adenoma” or “adrenocorticotropin pituitary adenomas” AND “bilateral adrenalectomy” or “bilateral adrenalectomies” or “total adrenalectomy” or “total adrenalectomies”. A detailed description of the search strategy is given in the Supplementary. Also, references of the included studies and relevant review articles were checked manually for additional articles. A new search was performed on January 12th 2021, prior submission, to identify any new publications. Study selection and eligibility criteria Eligible studies were observational studies (cohort or cross-sectional studies) reporting the prevalence of NS in adult patients with CD treated with BA. Studies including only children (age < 18 years), review articles, letters, commentaries and meeting abstracts were excluded. Moreover, case reports, case-series and studies with a population of fewer than 10 cases were excluded. Also, studies written in languages other than English were not considered for inclusion. Data collection process and data extraction Titles and abstracts from all identified articles were screened for eligibility and further full-text assessment by three independent investigators (EP, MP, OR). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. Duplicate articles and studies with overlapping populations were excluded. In the latter case, the publication with the largest population, more comprehensive information on relevant clinical variables and/or lowest risk of bias was included. Full-text assessment and data extraction were conducted independently by the same investigators as above. Data on the following predefined variables were extracted: first author, year of publication, region/hospital, study period, characteristics of the study population (number of patients, gender, follow-up, age at CD, age at BA, previous treatment with radiotherapy and/or pituitary surgery, ACTH concentrations at BA, MRI findings at CD and at BA), intervention (BA as primary or secondary treatment, remission status) and outcome (criteria for NS, number of patients with NS, age at NS, time from BA to NS, ACTH concentrations one year after BA, number of patients treated for NS, type of treatment; pituitary radiotherapy and/or pituitary surgery). One of the studies included in the meta-analysis is our nationwide Swedish study on CD [2]. Additional clinical data, not provided in the original publication, was retrieved and used in the current analysis (Table 1). Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies Full size table Risk of bias assessment The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale [14], modified to suit the current study, was used for assessment of risk of bias of all included studies. Three investigators (EP, MP, OR) assessed the studies independently, and any disagreements were resolved by discussion. Selection, comparability and outcome were assessed through predefined criteria. All studies that provided information on NS as outcome, and/or corticotroph tumor progression, were included, and the definition as well as the treatment of NS were recorded (Table 1 and Table S1). A clear definition of NS and information on treatment were considered to be two of the most important components of the quality assessment. We considered the definition of NS to be clear when it included either a new visible pituitary tumor or progression of a pituitary tumor remnant following BA, alone, or in combination with high ACTH concentrations and/or hyperpigmentation. Detailed description of the criteria for the risk of bias assessment is provided in the Supplementary file. Studies with an overall score ≥ 5 (max overall grade 😎 and a clear definition of NS, were considered to have a low risk of bias. Data synthesis and statistical analysis Primary endpoints were the prevalence of NS, as well as the prevalence of pituitary-specific treatment for NS. Descriptive data are presented as median (range or interquartile range; IQR). Meta-analysis was performed by using the meta package in R (version 4.0.3) [15]. Statistical pooling was performed according to random-effects model due to the clinical heterogeneity among the included studies [16]. For all analyses, indices of heterogeneity, I2 statistics and Cochrane’s Q test, are reported. For the primary outcomes we estimated pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. The possibility of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots as well as with the Egger’s test [17]. Sensitivity analyses were performed by excluding studies with an overall risk of bias < 5, and studies where information on diagnostic criteria for NS was lacking. By choosing the overall risk of bias < 5, all studies without adequate follow-up were also excluded (Table S2). Also, another sensitivity analysis was performed by including all studies reporting the number of patients with NS who received treatment for NS (Table 1). Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate factors that may affect the prevalence of NS, namely pituitary radiotherapy prior to BA, prophylactic pituitary radiotherapy, overall radiotherapy (prior to BA or prophylactic), pituitary surgery (transcranial or transsphenoidal surgery) prior to BA, and BA as primary or secondary treatment. For these outcomes, we estimated relative risks (RRs), or pooled prevalence, with 95% CIs. Also, in a subgroup analysis, the prevalence (with 95% CI) of NS and treatment for NS were estimated in studies where MRI was used at diagnosis and during follow-up. Uni- and bivariate meta-regression was used to investigate whether the prevalence of NS was influenced by median follow-up time or age at BA. The meta-analysis was performed by using the Metareg command in R. The estimated association is reported as β coefficient. Role of funding source The funding source had no role in the design and conduction of the study; i.e., collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Results Identification and description of included studies After removal of duplicates, 1702 articles were identified (Fig. 1). Three additional articles were found after checking the reference lists of identified articles and review papers. After reviewing titles, abstracts and full-text articles, 48 articles were considered eligible for further analysis. Of these, however, 11 articles were excluded due to overlapping or identical patient cohorts. Thus, 37 studies published between 1976 and 2020, were included in the current meta-analysis (Fig. 1). All studies had a retrospective observational design. Characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. Two of the included studies had an overlapping cohort where one was used for the main outcome [18] and one [19] for the subgroup analyses on the influence of radiotherapy on the development of NS. An overview of risk of bias assessment of the eligible studies is provided in Table S2. Fig. 1 Flowchart of study selection Full size image In total, 1316 patients with CD treated with BA were included. The median follow-up after BA was 7 years (23 studies, range 3.3–22). Median age at BA in patients with NS was 31 years (13 studies, IQR 26–34). Median time from BA to the diagnosis of NS was 4 years (19 studies) with the shortest reported time being 2 months [20] and the longest 39 years [2]. At diagnosis of NS, hyperpigmentation was reported in 155 of 188 (82%) patients (19 studies) and chiasmal compression in 24 of 129 (19%) patients [11 studies]. Prevalence of NS Thirty-six of 37 studies, with total 1316 patients with CD treated with BA, were included [2, 18, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Reported prevalence of NS ranged from 4 to 60%. The mean pooled prevalence was 26% (95% CI 22–31%) with a moderate to high heterogeneity (I2 67%, P < 0.01) (Fig. 2). The Egger’s test was statistically significant (P = 0.01), but visual inspection showed no obvious asymmetry. The significant Egger’s test indicates publication bias, probably explained by the fact that case reports and cohorts with fewer than 10 participants were excluded (Fig. S1). Fig. 2 Forest plot showing individual studies and pooled prevalence of Nelson’s syndrome after bilateral adrenalectomy in patients with Cushing’s disease. *Additional data Full size image In a sensitivity analysis, excluding all studies with high risk of bias (overall score < 5) and no clear definition of NS, the pooled prevalence was 31% (95% CI 24–38%; I2 76%, 17 studies, 822 patients; P < 0.01) (Fig. S2). In a subgroup analysis, the prevalence of NS in studies where MRI was used at diagnosis and during follow-up was 38% (Fig. 3; 95% CI 27–50%; I2 71%, 7 studies, 280 patients; P < 0.01). Fig. 3 Forest plot showing individual studies using magnetic resonance imaging and pooled prevalence of Nelson’s syndrome after bilateral adrenalectomy in patients with Cushing’s disease Full size image Prevalence of treated NS The pooled prevalence of treatment for NS was 21% (95% CI 18–26%; I2 52%, P < 0.01) (Table 1; 29 studies with 1074 patients). Thus, the pooled prevalence was slightly lower, compared to the pooled prevalence of NS in total, as well as the heterogeneity (Fig. S3). The funnel plot showed no asymmetry and Egger’s test was not statistically significant, indicating low possibility of publication bias (Fig. S4). In a subgroup analysis, the prevalence of treated NS in studies where MRI was used at diagnosis and during follow-up was 25% (95% CI 17–35%; I2 61%, 7 studies; P = 0.02). The indication for treatment was progression of the pituitary tumor in 23 out of 28 patients (82%, five studies), optic chiasmal compression in 11 out of 91 patients (12%, 11 studies), while four patients out of 14 (one study) had both these indications for treatment. Twenty-six studies provided information on treatment modalities (pituitary surgery and/or radiotherapy). Seventy-three out of 201 patients with NS (36%) were treated with pituitary surgery, 86 (43%) with radiotherapy and 41 (20%) received both treatments. Radiotherapy Nineteen studies provided information on radiotherapy prior to BA. However, nine studies had no events and no patients in one of the arms (radiotherapy or no radiotherapy) (Table S3). Thus, ten studies were eligible for further estimation, showing that the risk for NS in patients treated with radiotherapy prior to BA was comparable to the risk in patients not treated with radiotherapy (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5–1.6; 10 studies with 564 patients) (Fig. 4). Fig. 4 Forest plot showing the RR (relative risk) and 95% CI for Nelson’s syndrome in patients treated with radiotherapy prior to bilateral adrenalectomy versus no radiotherapy. RR could not be calculated when there were no cases in the RTX or no RTX arms, and when no events in either arm. *Additional data. RTX, radiotherapy prior to bilateral adrenalectomy or prophylactic radiotherapy Full size image Thirteen studies provided information on prophylactic radiotherapy. However, only one study provided applicable data for calculating RR, thus subgroup analysis was not performed (Table S4). In that study [20], none of the seventeen patients who received prophylactic radiotherapy developed NS, while 11 of 22 patients without radiotherapy developed NS after a mean follow-up of 4.4 years (range 10–16 years). By using studies with information on either previous or prophylactic radiotherapy (11 studies with 603 patients; Table S5), the pooled RR was 0.8 (95% CI 0.5–1.5). Pituitary surgery prior to BA Of 21 studies with information on pituitary surgery prior to BA (Table S6), only ten provided information for estimation of RR. A pooled RR of 0.6 (10 studies with 430 patients; 95% CI 0.4–1.0) was found (Fig. 5), indicating that the risk for developing NS was not influenced by previous pituitary surgery. Fig. 5 Forest plot showing the RR (relative risk) and 95% CI for Nelson’s syndrome in patients treated with pituitary surgery prior to bilateral adrenalectomy versus no pituitary surgery. RR could not be calculated when there were no cases in the surgery or no surgery arms, and when no events in either arm. *additional data. Abbreviations: Surgery, pituitary surgery prior to bilateral adrenalectomy Full size image BA as primary or secondary treatment for CD Information on whether patients with NS were treated primarily with BA or not, was provided in ten and nine studies, respectively (Fig. S5 and S6). The pooled prevalence of NS was 26% (95% CI 20–33%) for patients treated primarily with BA and 22% (95% CI 15–31%) for patients who had been treated with pituitary surgery and/or radiotherapy prior to BA. ACTH concentrations one year after BA Four studies provided information on ACTH concentrations during the first year after BA [45, 49, 52, 53]. In a study by Assié et al. the median ACTH concentration in patients who developed NS was 301 pmol/L, compared to 79 pmol/L in patients without NS (upper range of limit; URL 13 pmol/L) [52]. The median ACTH concentration in a study by Cohen et al. was 105 pmol/L in the NS group compared to 18 pmol/L in patients without NS (P = 0.007) (URL 10 pmol/L) [49]. Also, in a study by Das et al., there was a statistically significant difference in ACTH concentrations one year after BA between patients with and without NS (110 vs 21 pmol/L respectively; P = 0.002) [53]. On the contrary, Espinosa-de-Los-Monteros et al.found no difference in ACTH concentrations between the patients with NS and those without NS [45]. Thus, three of four studies found that high ACTH concentrations one year after BA were associated with the development of NS. However, since the ACTH assays and the conditions when ACTH was collected were different in these studies (Table S7), further comparison or a meta-analysis on ACTH levels after BA was not considered feasible. Influence of age at BA and duration of follow-up on prevalence of NS In a meta-regression analysis, age at BA (β-coefficient = – 0.03, P = 0.4; Fig. 6) and median duration of follow-up (β-coefficient = 0.01, P = 0.7; Fig. S7) were not associated with prevalence of NS. After adjustment for follow-up, age at BA was still not associated with prevalence of NS (β-coefficient = -0.03, P = 0.4). Fig. 6 Bubble plot showing the influence of age at BA on the prevalence of Nelson’s syndrome. The bubble sizes are proportional to the weight of the studies in the meta-analysis. Coefficient estimate (β) and p value for the effect of age at BA are indicated by the regression line Full size image Discussion In this study we have for the first time evaluated the pooled prevalence of NS by using a meta-analysis on data from 36 studies, including more than 1300 patients with CD treated with BA. The overall prevalence of NS was 26% and the median time from BA to diagnosis of NS was 4 years, ranging from 0.2 to 39 years. The prevalence of patients requiring pituitary-specific treatment for NS was 21%. Furthermore, radiotherapy and pituitary surgery prior to BA, as well as age at BA, did not seem to affect the risk of developing NS. Various definitions have been used for NS over the past decades [12]. Historically, the diagnosis was based on clinical findings related to mucocutaneous hyperpigmentation and chiasmal compression, together with signs of an enlarged sella turcica on skull radiography [6]. Since then, the diagnosis of NS in most studies has been based on (i) radiological evidence of a pituitary tumor that becomes visible, or a progression of a preexisting tumor, (ii) “high” ACTH concentrations, and (iii) hyperpigmentation [54]. In the studies with the highest prevalence of NS [45, 46], the diagnosis was based on rising ACTH concentrations and an expanding pituitary mass, where 2 mm increment in tumor size on MRI was considered to be a significant growth. On the contrary, the criteria for NS in studies with the lowest prevalence were based on hyperpigmentation, often but not always combined with a pituitary tumor responding to radiotherapy and/or a radiographic evidence of pituitary tumor on skull radiography [21, 23]. Thus, the great variance in the prevalence of NS between studies can, at least partly, be explained by the different definitions of NS. Consequently, in an expert opinion published in 2010, it was suggested that the diagnosis of NS should be based on an elevated level of ACTH >500 ng/L (110 pmol/L) in addition to rising levels of ACTH on at least three consecutive occasions and/or an expanding pituitary mass on MRI or CT following BA [54]. Similarly, in a recently published expert consensus recommendation, based on a systematic review, it was suggested that NS should be defined as radiological progression or new detection of a pituitary tumor on a thin-section MRI [55]. Furthermore, the authors recommend active surveillance with MRI three months after BA, and every 12 months for the first 3 years, and every 2–4 years thereafter, based on clinical findings. The meta-regression of the current analysis did not show an association between median follow-up time and prevalence of NS. Nevertheless, NS occurred as early as 2 months [20], and up to 39 years after BA [2], supporting that life-long surveillance after BA is necessary for patients with CD. Active surveillance with MRI was more common in studies published during the last two decades. In fact, the use of MRI in recent studies resulted in earlier detection of a growing pituitary adenoma and, subsequently, contributed to a higher prevalence of NS. Namely, the seven studies including patients treated with BA after 1990 and using MRI reported higher prevalence of NS, both overall NS and treated NS. Whether factors such as pituitary radiotherapy affects the risk for development of NS has been evaluated in several studies. Some studies have shown that radiotherapy prior to BA, or administrated prophylactically, can prevent or delay the development of NS [20, 39]. On the contrary, other studies have not demonstrated a protective effect of radiotherapy prior to BA [18, 37] and, moreover, one study found an association with tumor progression [46]. Nevertheless, the current meta-analysis indicates that radiotherapy prior to BA does not decrease the risk of developing NS. Neither did previous pituitary surgery affect the risk for NS. Elevated ACTH concentrations during the first year after BA have been considered to be a strong predictor of NS [49, 52]. In fact, seven studies in the current analysis included cut-off levels for ACTH concentration, arbitrarily defined, for the diagnosis of NS [18, 25, 34, 36, 41, 45, 49]. Due to the different ACTH assays, and different conditions when ACTH was collected, no further analysis on ACTH levels was performed. Nevertheless, four studies [45, 49, 52, 53] reported ACTH concentrations one year after BA in both patients with and without NS. Three of these studies found that high ACTH concentrations one year after BA [49, 52, 53] were associated with pituitary tumor progression. Thus, these findings support the suggestion that ACTH should be monitored following BA in patients with CD [54, 55]. The prevalence of treatment for NS (21%), and the heterogeneity index (52%), were slightly lower than in the analysis of total prevalence of NS (26%, I2 67%). The majority of the patients was treated with radiotherapy, followed by pituitary surgery and combination of pituitary surgery and radiotherapy. Today, surgical removal of the pituitary tumor is considered to be the first-line therapy of NS whereas radiotherapy is considered if surgery has failed or is not possible [12, 54, 56]. In a large multi-center study by Fountas et al., the 10-year progression-free survival rates after surgery alone, or with radiotherapy, for patients with NS was 80% and 81%, respectively [57]. In comparison, progression-free survival rate in patients who did not receive treatment was 51%. Reports on the efficacy of medical therapy for NS have shown inconsistent results [56]. Strengths and limitations This is the largest systematic review, and the first meta-analysis, on NS published to date. However, some limitations have to be acknowledged. Most important are the different diagnostic methods used to detect NS, and the different definitions of the syndrome between the studies. The majority of the studies have used the combination of hyperpigmentation, high ACTH concentrations and radiological findings for the diagnosis of NS. Notwithstanding these common criteria, there were still differences in the cut-offs of ACTH levels, the use of different radiological modalities over time as well as the radiological definition of progress of pituitary tumors. Moreover, in some studies radiological findings were used solely or in combination with either hyperpigmentation and/or bitemporal hemianopsia, ACTH concentrations or response to treatment of NS. Furthermore, in several studies a clear definition of NS was not provided. Nevertheless, we consider our attempt to address the heterogeneity of the included studies, through systematic review, quality assessment, and sensitivity and subgroup analyses to be a strength. Conclusions The risk of NS after BA in patients with CD is considerable and may first become clinically evident many decades later. Thus, life-long close follow-up is necessary for an early detection of a growing pituitary tumor, and adequate treatment when needed. Although this meta-analysis did not find prior surgery or radiotherapy to be associated with risk of NS, the findings are based on a limited number of studies. Thus, in order to individualize the treatment for patients with CD, further studies are needed where these and other factors possibly associated with risk of NS are evaluated. Data availability The data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article or in the Supplementary file. Abbreviations CD: Cushing's disease BA: Bilateral adrenalectomy NS: Nelson’s syndrome ACTH: Adrenocorticotropic hormone RR: Relative risk MRI: Magnet resonance imaging CT: Computer tomography References 1. Papakokkinou E, Olsson DS, Chantzichristos D, Dahlqvist P, Segerstedt E, Olsson T, Petersson M, Berinder K, Bensing S, Hoybye C, Eden-Engstrom B, Burman P, Bonelli L, Follin C, Petranek D, Erfurth EM, Wahlberg J, Ekman B, Akerman AK, Schwarcz E, Bryngelsson IL, Johannsson G, Ragnarsson O (2020) Excess morbidity persists in patients with cushing's disease during long-term remission: a swedish nationwide study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 105(8):2616–2624 2. Ragnarsson O, Olsson DS, Papakokkinou E, Chantzichristos D, Dahlqvist P, Segerstedt E, Olsson T, Petersson M, Berinder K, Bensing S, Hoybye C, Eden-Engstrom B, Burman P, Bonelli L, Follin C, Petranek D, Erfurth EM, Wahlberg J, Ekman B, Akerman AK, Schwarcz E, Bryngelsson IL, Johannsson G (2019) Overall and disease-specific mortality in patients with cushing disease: a swedish nationwide study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 104(6):2375–2384 PubMed Article Google Scholar 3. Nieman LK, Biller BM, Findling JW, Murad MH, Newell-Price J, Savage MO, Tabarin A, Endocrine S (2015) Treatment of cushing’s syndrome: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(8):2807–2831 CAS PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 4. Ritzel K, Beuschlein F, Mickisch A, Osswald A, Schneider HJ, Schopohl J, Reincke M (2013) Clinical review: outcome of bilateral adrenalectomy in Cushing’s syndrome: a systematic review. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98(10):3939–3948 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 5. Reincke M, Ritzel K, Osswald A, Berr C, Stalla G, Hallfeldt K, Reisch N, Schopohl J, Beuschlein F (2015) A critical reappraisal of bilateral adrenalectomy for ACTH-dependent Cushing’s syndrome. Eur J Endocrinol 173(4):M23-32 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 6. Nelson DH, Meakin JW, Dealy JB Jr, Matson DD, Emerson K Jr, Thorn GW (1958) ACTH-producing tumor of the pituitary gland. N Engl J Med 259(4):161–164 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 7. Guerin C, Taieb D, Treglia G, Brue T, Lacroix A, Sebag F, Castinetti F (2016) Bilateral adrenalectomy in the 21st century: when to use it for hypercortisolism? Endocr Relat Cancer 23(2):R131-142 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 8. Katznelson L (2015) Bilateral adrenalectomy for Cushing’s disease. Pituitary 18(2):269–273 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 9. Banasiak MJ, Malek AR (2007) Nelson syndrome: comprehensive review of pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. Neurosurg Focus 23(3):E13 PubMed Article Google Scholar 10. Assie G, Bahurel H, Bertherat J, Kujas M, Legmann P, Bertagna X (2004) The Nelson’s syndrome revisited. Pituitary. 7(4):209–215 PubMed Article Google Scholar 11. Ragnarsson O (2020) Cushing’s syndrome disease monitoring: recurrence, surveillance with biomarkers or imaging studies. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 34(2):101382 PubMed Article Google Scholar 12. Fountas A, Karavitaki N (2020) Nelson’s syndrome: an update. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 49(3):413–432 PubMed Article Google Scholar 13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097 PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 14. Wells GA SB, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp 15. Balduzzi S, Rucker G, Schwarzer G (2019) How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health 22(4):153–160 PubMed Article Google Scholar 16. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH (1998) Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 351(9096):123–127 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 17. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634 CAS PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 18. Smith PW, Turza KC, Carter CO, Vance ML, Laws ER, Hanks JB (2009) Bilateral adrenalectomy for refractory Cushing disease: a safe and definitive therapy. J Am Coll Surg 208(6):1059–1064 PubMed Article Google Scholar 19. Mehta GU, Sheehan JP, Vance ML (2013) Effect of stereotactic radiosurgery before bilateral adrenalectomy for Cushing’s disease on the incidence of Nelson’s syndrome. J Neurosurg 119(6):1493–1497 PubMed Article Google Scholar 20. Gil-Cardenas A, Herrera MF, Diaz-Polanco A, Rios JM, Pantoja JP (2007) Nelson's syndrome after bilateral adrenalectomy for Cushing's disease. Surgery. 141(2):147–151 21. Moore TJ, Dluhy RG, Williams GH, Cain JP (1976) Nelson’s syndrome: frequency, prognosis, and effect of prior pituitary irradiation. Ann Intern Med 85(6):731–734 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 22. Nabarro JDN (1977) ACTH secreting pituitary tumours. J R Coll Physicians Lond 11(4):363–375 CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 23. Scott HW Jr, Liddle GW, Mulherin JL Jr, McKenna TJ, Stroup SL, Rhamy RK (1977) Surgical experience with Cushing’s disease. Ann Surg 185(5):524–534 PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 24. Cohen KL, Noth RH, Pechinski T (1978) Incidence of pituitary tumors following adrenalectomy. A long-term follow-up study of patients treated for Cushing’s disease. Arch Internal Med 138(4):575–579 CAS Article Google Scholar 25. Jordan RM, Cook DM, Kendall JW, Kerber CW (1979) Nelson’s syndrome and spontaneous pituitary tumor infarction. Arch Intern Med 139(3):340–342 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 26. Barnett AH, Livesey JH, Friday K, Donald RA, Espiner EA (1983) Comparison of preoperative and postoperative ACTH concentrations after bilateral adrenalectomy in Cushing’s disease. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 18(3):301–305 CAS Article Google Scholar 27. Kasperlik-Zaluska AA, Nielubowicz J, Wislawski J, Hartwig W, Zaluska J, Jeske W, Migdalska B (1983) Nelson’s syndrome: incidence and prognosis. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 19(6):693–698 CAS Article Google Scholar 28. Kelly WF, MacFarlane IA, Longson D, Davies D, Sutcliffe H (1983) Cushing’s disease treated by total adrenalectomy: long-term observations of 43 patients. Q J Med 52(206):224–231 CAS PubMed Google Scholar 29. Kuhn JM, Proeschel MF, Seurin DJ, Bertagna XY, Luton JP, Girard FL (1989) Comparative assessment of ACTH and lipotropin plasma levels in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with Cushing’s syndrome: a study of 210 cases. Am J Med 86(6 Pt 1):678–684 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 30. Grabner P, Hauerjensen M, Jervell J, Flatmark A (1991) Long-term results of treatment of cushings-disease by adrenalectomy. Acta Chirurgica- Eur J Surgery 157(8):461–464 CAS Google Scholar 31. McCance DR, Russell CF, Kennedy TL, Hadden DR, Kennedy L, Atkinson AB (1993) Bilateral adrenalectomy: low mortality and morbidity in Cushing’s disease. Clin Endocrinol 39(3):315–321 CAS Article Google Scholar 32. Zeiger MA, Fraker DL, Pass HI, Nieman LK, Cutler GB Jr, Chrousos GP, Norton JA (1993) Effective reversibility of the signs and symptoms of hypercortisolism by bilateral adrenalectomy. Surgery 114(6):1138–1143 CAS PubMed Google Scholar 33. Favia G, Boscaro M, Lumachi F, D’Amico DF (1994) Role of bilateral adrenalectomy in Cushing’s disease. World J Surg 18(4):462–466 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 34. Kemink L, Pieters G, Hermus A, Smals A, Kloppenborg P (1994) Patient’s age is a simple predictive factor for the development of Nelson’s syndrome after total adrenalectomy for Cushing’s disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 79(3):887–889 CAS PubMed Google Scholar 35. Misra D, Kapur MM, Gupta DK (1994) Incidence of Nelson’s syndrome and residual adrenocortical function in patients of Cushing’s disease after bilateral adrenalectomy. J Assoc Physicians India 42(4):304–305 CAS PubMed Google Scholar 36. Jenkins PJ, Trainer PJ, Plowman PN, Shand WS, Grossman AB, Wass JA, Besser GM (1995) The long-term outcome after adrenalectomy and prophylactic pituitary radiotherapy in adrenocorticotropin-dependent Cushing’s syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 80(1):165–171 CAS PubMed Google Scholar 37. Pereira MA, Halpern A, Salgado LR, Mendonca BB, Nery M, Liberman B, Streeten DH, Wajchenberg BL (1998) A study of patients with Nelson’s syndrome. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 49(4):533–539 CAS Article Google Scholar 38. Imai T, Kikumori T, Funahashi H, Nakao A (2000) Surgical management of Cushing’s syndrome. Biomed Pharmacother 54(1):140–145 Article Google Scholar 39. Nagesser SK, van Seters AP, Kievit J, Hermans J, Krans HM, van de Velde CJ (2000) Long-term results of total adrenalectomy for Cushing’s disease. World J Surg 24(1):108–113 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 40. Hofmann BM, Fahlbusch R (2006) Treatment of Cushing’s disease: A retrospective clinical study of the latest 100 cases. Pituitary Surgery - A Modern Approach 34:158–184 Article Google Scholar 41. Thompson SK, Hayman AV, Ludlam WH, Deveney CW, Loriaux DL, Sheppard BC (2007) Improved quality of life after bilateral laparoscopic adrenalectomy for Cushing’s disease: a 10-year experience. Ann Surg 245(5):790–794 PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 42. Ding XF, Li HZ, Yan WG, Gao Y, Li XQ (2010) Role of adrenalectomy in recurrent Cushing’s disease. Chin Med J 123(13):1658–1662 PubMed Google Scholar 43. Osswald A, Plomer E, Dimopoulou C, Milian M, Blaser R, Ritzel K, Mickisch A, Knerr F, Stanojevic M, Hallfeldt K, Schopohl J, Kuhn KA, Stalla G, Beuschlein F, Reincke M (2014) Favorable long-term outcomes of bilateral adrenalectomy in Cushing’s disease. Eur J Endocrinol 171(2):209–215 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 44. Prajapati OP, Verma AK, Mishra A, Agarwal G, Agarwal A, Mishra SK (2015) Bilateral adrenalectomy for Cushing’s syndrome: pros and cons. Indian J Endocrinol Metabol 19(6):834–840 CAS Article Google Scholar 45. Espinosa-de-Los-Monteros AL, Sosa-Eroza E, Espinosa E, Mendoza V, Arreola R, Mercado M (2017) Long-term outcome of the different treatment alternatives for recurrent and persistent cushing disease. Endocrine Pract: Off J Am College Endocrinol Am Assoc Clin Endocrinol 23(7):759–767 Article Google Scholar 46. Graffeo CS, Perry A, Carlstrom LP, Meyer FB, Atkinson JLD, Erickson D, Nippoldt TB, Young WF, Pollock BE, Van Gompel JJ (2017) Characterizing and predicting the Nelson-Salassa syndrome. J Neurosurg 127(6):1277–1287 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 47. Nankova A, Yaneva M, Elenkova A, Tcharaktchiev D, Marinov M, Hadzhiyanev A, Sechanov T, Gantchev G, Todorov G, Kirilov G, Kalinov K, Andreeva M, Zacharieva S (2018) Cushing’s syndrome: a historic review of the treatment strategies and corresponding outcomes in a single tertiary center over the past half-century. Hormone Metab Res 50(4):280–289 CAS Article Google Scholar 48. Chiloiro S, Giampietro A, Raffaelli M, D’Amato G, Bima C, Lauretti L, Anile C, Lombardi CP, Rindi G, Bellantone R, De Marinis L, Pontecorvi A, Bianchi A (2019) Synchronous bilateral adrenalectomy in ACTH-dependent hypercortisolism: predictors, biomarkers and outcomes. Endocrine 66(3):642–649 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 49. Cohen AC, Goldney DC, Danilowicz K, Manavela M, Rossi MA, Gomez RM, Cross GE, Bruno OD (2019) Long-term outcome after bilateral adrenalectomy in Cushing’s disease with focus on Nelson’s syndrome. Arch Endocrinol Metab 63(5):470–477 50. Nagendra L, Bhavani N, Pavithran PV, Kumar GP, Menon UV, Menon AS, Kumar L, Kumar H, Nair V, Abraham N, Narayanan P (2019) Outcomes of bilateral adrenalectomy in Cushing’s syndrome. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 23(2):193–197 PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 51. Sarkis P, Rabilloud M, Lifante JC, Siamand A, Jouanneau E, Gay E, Chaffanjon P, Chabre O, Raverot G (2019) Bilateral adrenalectomy in Cushing’s disease: altered long-term quality of life compared to other treatment options. Ann Endocrinol 80(1):32–37 Article Google Scholar 52. Assie G, Bahurel H, Coste J, Silvera S, Kujas M, Dugue MA, Karray F, Dousset B, Bertherat J, Legmann P, Bertagna X (2007) Corticotroph tumor progression after adrenalectomy in Cushing’s disease: a reappraisal of Nelson’s Syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92(1):172–179 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 53. Das L, Bhansali A, Pivonello R, Dutta P, Bhadada SK, Ahuja CK, Mavuduru R, Kumar S, Behera A, Saikia UN, Dhandapani S, Walia R (2020) ACTH increment post total bilateral adrenalectomy for Cushing’s disease: a consistent biosignature for predicting Nelson’s syndrome. Pituitary 23(5):488–497 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 54. Barber TM, Adams E, Ansorge O, Byrne JV, Karavitaki N, Wass JA (2010) Nelson’s syndrome. Eur J Endocrinol 163(4):495–507 CAS PubMed Article Google Scholar 55. Reincke M, Albani A, Assie G, Bancos I, Brue T, Buchfelder M, Chabre O, Ceccato F, Daniele A, Detomas M, Di Dalmazi G, Elenkova A, Findling J, Grossman AB, Gomez-Sanchez CE, Heaney AP, Honegger J, Karavitaki N, Lacroix A, Laws ER, Losa M, Murakami M, Newell-Price J, Pecori Giraldi F, Perez-Rivas LG, Pivonello R, Rainey WE, Sbiera S, Schopohl J, Stratakis CA, Theodoropoulou M, van Rossum EFC, Valassi E, Zacharieva S, Rubinstein G, Ritzel K (2021) Corticotroph tumor progression after bilateral adrenalectomy (Nelson’s syndrome): systematic review and expert consensus recommendations. Eur J Endocrinol. https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-20-1088 56. Patel J, Eloy JA, Liu JK (2015) Nelson’s syndrome: a review of the clinical manifestations, pathophysiology, and treatment strategies. Neurosurg Focus 38(2):E14 PubMed Article Google Scholar 57. Fountas A, Lim ES, Drake WM, Powlson AS, Gurnell M, Martin NM, Seejore K, Murray RD, MacFarlane J, Ahluwalia R, Swords F, Ashraf M, Pal A, Chong Z, Freel M, Balafshan T, Purewal TS, Speak RG, Newell-Price J, Higham CE, Hussein Z, Baldeweg SE, Dales J, Reddy N, Levy MJ, Karavitaki N (2020) Outcomes of patients with Nelson's syndrome after primary treatment: a multicenter study from 13 UK pituitary centers. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 105(5):1527–1537 Download references Acknowledgements We would like to thank Therese Svanberg, librarian at the Medical Library at Sahlgrenska University Hospital for her expert assistance with the literature search. Funding Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg. The study was financed by grants from the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils, the ALF-agreement (ALFGBG-593301) and a grant from the Gothenburg Society of Medicine. Author information Affiliations Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden Eleni Papakokkinou, Marta Piasecka, Dimitrios Chantzichristos, Daniel S. Olsson, Gudmundur Johannsson & Oskar Ragnarsson The Department of Endocrinology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Blå stråket 5, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden Eleni Papakokkinou, Marta Piasecka, Dimitrios Chantzichristos, Daniel S. Olsson, Gudmundur Johannsson & Oskar Ragnarsson Department of Environmental and Occupational Health School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Gothenburg, 4053, Gothenburg, Sweden Hanne Krage Carlsen Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden Per Dahlqvist Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, 17176, Stockholm, Sweden Maria Petersson, Katarina Berinder, Sophie Bensing, Charlotte Höybye & Henrik Falhammar Department of Endocrinology, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden Maria Petersson, Katarina Berinder, Sophie Bensing, Charlotte Höybye & Henrik Falhammar Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Uppsala University Hospital, and Department of Medical Sciences, Endocrinology and Mineral Metabolism, Uppsala University, 751 85, Uppsala, Sweden Britt Edén Engström Department of Endocrinology, Skåne University Hospital, University of Lund, 205 02, Malmö, Sweden Pia Burman Department of Endocrinology, Skåne University Hospital, 222 42, Lund, Sweden Cecilia Follin, David Petranek & Eva Marie Erfurth Department of Endocrinology and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden Jeanette Wahlberg & Bertil Ekman Department of Internal Medicine, School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, 702 81, Örebro, SE, Sweden Jeanette Wahlberg, Anna-Karin Åkerman & Erik Schwarcz Corresponding author Correspondence to Oskar Ragnarsson. Ethics declarations Conflict of interest The authors have nothing to disclose. Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Supplementary Information Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1208 kb) Rights and permissions Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and Permissions About this article Cite this article Papakokkinou, E., Piasecka, M., Carlsen, H.K. et al. Prevalence of Nelson’s syndrome after bilateral adrenalectomy in patients with cushing’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pituitary (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-021-01158-z Download citation Accepted18 May 2021 Published25 May 2021 DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-021-01158-z Share this article Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative Keywords Bilateral adrenalectomy Cushing’s disease Corticotroph adenoma Nelson’s syndrome From https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11102-021-01158-z
  11. Osilodrostat therapy was found to be effective in improving blood pressure parameters, health-related quality of life, depression, and other signs and symptoms in patients with Cushing disease, regardless of the degree of cortisol control, according to study results presented at the 30th Annual Scientific and Clinical Congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (ENVISION 2021). Investigators of the LINC 3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02180217), a phase 3, multicenter study with a double-blind, randomized withdrawal period, sought to assess the effects of twice-daily osilodrostat (2-30 mg) on signs, symptoms, and health-related quality of life in 137 patients with Cushing disease. Study endpoints included change in various parameters from baseline to week 48, including mean urinary free cortisol (mUFC) status, cardiovascular-related measures, physical features, Cushing Quality-of-Life score, and Beck Depression Inventory score. Participants were assessed every 2, 4, or 12 weeks depending on the study period, and eligible participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to withdrawal at week 24. The median age of participants was 40.0 years, and women made up 77.4% of the cohort. Of 137 participants, 132 (96%) achieved controlled mUFC at least once during the core study period. At week 24, patients with controlled or partially controlled mUFC showed improvements in blood pressure that were not seen in patients with uncontrolled mUFC; at week 48, improvement in blood pressure occurred regardless of mUFC status. Cushing Quality-of-Life and Beck Depression Inventory scores, along with other metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors, improved from baseline to week 24 and week 48 regardless of degree of mUFC control. Additionally, most participants reported improvements in physical features of hypercortisolism, including hirsutism, at week 24 and week 48. The researchers indicated that the high response rate with osilodrostat treatment was sustained during the 48 weeks of treatment, with 96% of patients achieving controlled mUFC levels; improvements in clinical signs, physical features, quality of life, and depression were reported even among patients without complete mUFC normalization. Disclosure: This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG; however, as of July 12, 2019, osilodrostat is an asset of Recordati AG. Please see the original reference for a full list of authors’ disclosures. Visit Endocrinology Advisor‘s conference section for complete coverage from the AACE Annual Meeting 2021: ENVISION. Reference Pivonello R, Fleseriu M, Newell-Price J, et al. Effect of osilodrostat on clinical signs, physical features and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) by degree of mUFC control in patients with Cushing’s disease (CD): results from the LINC 3 study. Presented at: 2021 AACE Virtual Annual Meeting, May 26-29, 2021. From https://www.endocrinologyadvisor.com/home/conference-highlights/aace-2021/osilodrostat-improves-blood-pressure-hrqol-and-depression-in-patients-with-cushing-disease/
  12. MaryO

    Advice

    Wow, Letisia - your numbers are very high. I'd definitely ask the endo about your numbers and the possibility of Cushing's. If s/he blows you off please try to find another one. You said you were taking progesterone. That can cause your cortisol numbers to go up but you need to talk to your doctor so s/he is aware of your concerns. What are your symptoms? Your doctor needs to hear about those, too. If you have "before" pictures, those can be really useful, especially if you've gained a lot of weight, gotten a buffalo hump, grown facial hair, etc. Best of luck to you and please keep up posted! If you join these boards, you'll find lots of potentially helpful info already available to you.
  13. Data from LINC3 and LINC4 provide insight into the impact of dosing titration schedules on risk of hypocortisolism-related adverse events associated with osilodrostat use in patients with Cushing's disease. Data from a pair of phase 3 studies presented at the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinology’s 30th Annual Meeting (AACE 2021) is providing insight into the effect of dose titration schedules with use of osilodrostat (Isturisa) in patients with Cushing’s disease. Presented by Maria Fleseriu, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University, the analysis of the LINC3 and LINC4 demonstrated the more gradual titration occurring in LINC4 resulted in a lower proportion of hypocortisolism-related adverse events, suggesting up-titration every 3 weeks rather than every 2 weeks could help lower event risk without compromising mean urinary free cortisol (mUFC) control. “For patients with Cushing’s disease, osilodrostat should be initiated at the recommended starting dose with incremental dose increases, based on individual response/tolerability aimed at normalizing cortisol levels,” concluded investigators. With approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in March 2020 for patients not eligible for pituitary surgery or have undergone the surgery but still have the disease, osilodrostat became the first FDA-approved therapy address cortisol overproduction by blocking 11β-hydroxylase. Based on results of LINC3, data from the trial, and the subsequent LINC4 trial, provide the greatest available insight into use of the agent in this patient population. The study presented at AACE 2021 sought to assess whether slow dose up titration might affect rates of hypocortisolism-related adverse events by comparing titration schedules from both phase 3 trials. Median osilodrostat exposure was 75 (IQR, 48-117) weeks and 70 (IQR, 49-87) weeks in LINC3 and LINC4, respectively. The median time to first mUFC equal to or less than ULN was 41 (IQR, 30-42) days in LINC3 and 35 (IQR, 34-52) days in LINC4. Adverse events potentially related to hypocortisolism were more common among patients in LINC3 (51%, n=70) than LINC4 (27%, n=20). Upon analysis of adverse events, investigators found the most commonly reported type of adverse event was adrenal insufficiency, which included events of glucocorticoid deficiency, adrenocortical insufficiency, steroid withdrawal syndrome, and decreased urinary free cortisol. Results incited the majority of hypocortisolism-related adverse events occurred during the dos titration periods of each trial. In LINC3, 54 of the 70 (77%) hypocortisolism-related adverse events occurred by week 26. In comparison, 58% of hypocortisolism-related adverse events occurring in LINC4 occurred prior to week 12. Investigators noted most of events that occurred were mild or moderate and managed with dose interruption or reduction of osilodrostat or concomitant medications. This study, “Effect of Dosing and Titration of Osilodrostat on Efficacy and Safety in Patients with Cushing's Disease (CD): Results from Two Phase III Trials (LINC3 and LINC4),” was presented at AACE 2021. From https://www.endocrinologynetwork.com/view/fda-panels-votes-to-support-teplizumab-potential-for-delaying-type-1-diabetes
  14. Dr. Irmanie Hemphill, who first thought her weight gain was due to having a baby. Doctors at Cleveland Clinic Florida in Weston diagnosed her with a tumor in the pituitary gland in her brain. In the summer of 2019, Irmanie Hemphill gained a lot of weight, developed acne and had high blood pressure. She attributed it to her body adjusting from giving birth just six weeks prior. “I was thinking maybe it was just hormonal changes from having a baby,” said Hemphill, 38, of Pembroke Pines. But when Hemphill, a family medicine physician, saw that her nails were turning dark and she gained five pounds within a week, she knew it was something more serious. Blood tests ordered by her physician came back normal, with the exception of high levels of cortisol detected via a urine cortisol test, which she requested after researching her symptoms online. The next step was to find out where the excess cortisol was coming from: either her kidneys or her adrenal glands, which produce hormones in response to signals from the pituitary gland in the brain. The first MRI of her brain did not detect anything abnormal, so her endocrinologist attributed her symptoms to her body adjusting post-pregnancy. Hemphill sought a second opinion at Cleveland Clinic Weston, where more MRIs of her brain, combined with an Inferior Petrosal Sinus Sampling (IPSS) procedure, detected she had a tumor on her pituitary gland. That led her to be diagnosed with Cushing’s Disease — caused by excess cortisol. TWO TYPES OF PITUITARY TUMORS There are two types of pituitary tumors: those that produce active hormones, like the one Hemphill had, and those that do not, which grow in size over time and do not manifest symptoms right away. Hemphill’s tumor was producing adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), which causes the adrenal gland to produce more cortisol. Many people with Cushing’s Disease experience high blood pressure and high blood sugar, muscle fatigue, easy bruising and brain fog. If left untreated, the condition can lead to pulmonary embolisms, diabetes, osteoporosis, strokes and heart attacks. “It was a little bit of relief but also sadness,” said Hemphill, of finding out her diagnosis. “I was very happy that I got a diagnosis but now it’s like, what’s the next step?” LESS INVASIVE WAY TO REMOVE A PITUITARY TUMOR Hospitals in South Florida are at the forefront in developing new research, techniques and technologies for pituitary tumors. The tiny bean-shaped pituitary gland is located at the base of the brain and controls many of the body’s hormonal and metabolic functions. Last June, neurosurgeon Dr. Hamid Borghei-Razavi of Cleveland Clinic Weston removed Hemphill’s pituitary tumor through her nose. This type of procedure allows surgeons to remove the tumor without damaging the brain. “It’s a less-invasive approach compared to 20 years ago, when pituitary tumors were removed through the cranium,” he said. “Now, with new technologies, more than 95% of pituitary tumors can be removed through the nose.” The procedure takes just a few hours to complete, based on the size and location of the tumor. Patients usually stay at the hospital for one to two days afterward for observation. The removal of Hemphill’s tumor, which was three to four millimeters in size, put an end to her Cushing’s Disease and her symptoms, though it took six months to a year for Hemphill to feel normal. (She was prescribed cortisol for six months until her adrenal glands could restart producing cortisol on their own.) “Sometimes it’s very hard to make a diagnosis for pituitary tumors because we don’t see them in the MRIs,” said Borghei-Razavi. “We call it MRI Negative Cushing’s Syndrome. It means we don’t see it in the MRI, but the cells are there,” he said. Borghei-Razavi and Hemphill credit the Inferior Petrosal Sinus Sampling (IPSS) test as pinpointing her tumor. Cleveland Clinic Weston is among only a handful of medical practices in South Florida that use this technique. Three Ways to Remove the Tumor Most pituitary tumors are benign. The challenge is when it comes to removing the tumor. “Pituitary tumors come in all shapes and sizes,” says Dr. Zoukaa Sargi, a head and neck surgeon at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami. “There are non-functional tumors that do not secrete hormones that can reach extreme sizes of up to 10 centimeters before coming to medical attention. This is the equivalent of the size of a grapefruit,” he says. “Then there are functional tumors that produce hormones that are typically discovered much sooner and can be only a few millimeters in size before coming to medical attention. A small proportion, less than 1%, are malignant,” he adds. There are three treatment options for pituitary tumors: surgical removal, medical therapy and radiation. “Medical therapy is only applicable in certain functional tumors that produce hormones,” says Dr. Ricardo Komotar, a neurosurgeon who is director of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center Brain Tumor Initiative. “Radiation is an option primarily for inoperable tumors with high surgical risk. Surgical removal is the optimal treatment in the vast majority of pituitary cases, conferring the greatest benefit with the lowest morbidity,” he says. Dr. Rupesh Kotecha, chief of radiosurgery at Miami Cancer Institute (MCI), part of Baptist Health South Florida, says there are a number of different hormones that the pituitary gland can secrete. “Prolactin is the most common form of pituitary adenoma that’s functioning and accounts for 30% to 50%,” he said. Excess prolactin can cause the production of breast milk in men and in women who are not pregnant or breastfeeding. Kotecha said the next most common are growth-hormone secreting tumors, which occur in 10% of patients. ACTH-secreting adenomas — the kind that Hemphill had — account for 5% of patients, while 1% secrete TSH, which causes the thyroid gland to be overactive. MCI’s Proton Therapy delivers high-dose radiation that treats the tumor’s area, allowing for surrounding tissues and organs to be spared from the effects of radiation. “The pituitary gland essentially sits in the middle of the brain,” says Kotecha. “It’s sitting in the middle of all of these critical structures.” From https://www.miamiherald.com/living/health-fitness/article251653033.html
×
×
  • Create New...