đź’‰ Helpful Doctors: Arizona

Donna’s Doctor. She said on the message boards

“I Went to my Endo appt yesterday (prepared) I had a list of all of my symptoms and a few photos of me to show the dramatic changes that my body has gone through over a short period of time. Without my prompting, He is sure that I have Cushings. …The endo walked in the room, introduced himself, took a good look at me and my pictures and asked me if I had ever heard of Cushings? He told me that I was in good hands and that he would set me up with a great neurosurgeon.”

Dr. Alexander Zwart. He is located in Tucson Arizona.

Tucson Endocrine Associates.

5910 N La Cholla Blvd.

Tucson Arizona, 85741.

(520) 297-0404

HOME | Sitemap | Abbreviations | Adrenal Crisis! | Glossary | Forums | Bios | Add Your Bio | Add Your Doctor | MemberMap | CushieWiki

Helpful Doctors: Dr. Fernandez-Miranda

This month the spotlight focuses on Dr. Juan Carlos Fernandez-Miranda, a Professor of Neurosurgery and the Surgical Director of Brain Tumor, Skull Base and Pituitary Centers at Stanford University. Dr. Fernandez-Miranda did a neurosurgery residency at La Paz University Hospital in Madrid, Spain. He completed a fellowship in microsurgical neuroanatomy at the University of Florida. He did clinical training in cerebrovascular surgery at the University of Virginia, and in endoscopic endonasal and open skull base surgery at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC). He joined the faculty at Stanford earlier this year. He was kind enough to answer some questions from the PNA. His answers are below:

What inspired you to choose your career path?

When I was a young kid, about 10-11 years old, I got sick with a skin rash and high fever; the family doctor visited our home, carefully examined me, and based on a number of clues, he determined I got a very rare bacterial infection known as scarlet fever; a few days of antibiotic medication and I was back to normal. I now realized that I was fascinated by the wisdom, expertise, and detective attitude of the physician, and this personal event was (I now know) key to my future decision to become a doctor.

As I started medical school, I became deeply interested in the structure of the brain and how it explains brain and perhaps even mind function. I realized that the closest I could get to know the brain was actually as a surgeon operating on it.

I became a neurosurgery resident, and I immediately felt that entering into a patient’s brain, skull base, or pituitary gland was a huge privilege and a unique experience that will require my entire devotion and attention. I learned from my mentors the importance of precise knowledge of surgical neuroanatomy to perform gentle, accurate, and safe surgery. After residency training, I decided to spend 2 entire years in the lab – fully dedicated to mastering the understanding of the complex tridimensional surgical neuroanatomy required to safely and efficiently navigate the brain and skull base. These years, under the guidance of legendary neurosurgeon Albert Rhoton, served as the basis of everything I have accomplished thus far.

I was then fortunate to continue my clinical training at University of Virginia with several giants of neurosurgery, and I was greatly influenced by the meticulous approach of Dr. Ed Oldfield’s pituitary surgeries, particularly for Cushing’s disease. It was such a joy to watch his precise extracapsular tumor resections. At the same time, I had become totally enchanted by the endoscopic endonasal operations that Dr. Amin Kassam was performing at University of Pittsburgh, and after many requests he finally accepted me for specialized training with him and his team. That was a life changing event for me, as my career was about to be centered in the development and refinement of endoscopic endonasal skull base and pituitary surgery.

What is the primary focus of your work/research?

My primary clinical focus is the treatment of patients with pituitary, skull base, and brain tumors. I have particular technical expertise in endoscopic endonasal surgery for pituitary tumors and other skull base lesions, such as craniopharyngiomas, meningiomas, and chordomas, with an accumulated surgical experience of more than 1,000 cases. My clinical practice includes a full range of minimally invasive approaches, in addition to complex open skull base and brain surgery.

My research interests lie in the study of surgical neuroanatomy and the application of innovative techniques into the operating room that aim to improve surgical safety and effectiveness. As an example, along with my fellows, we have recently provided a new compartmental classification of the cavernous sinus that may help improve resection rates of pituitary tumors that invade the cavernous sinus, while preserving cranial nerve function. We have also described the structure of the medial wall of the cavernous sinus and the ligaments that anchor it to the carotid artery, and we have implemented an innovative surgical technique to selectively remove the medial wall of the cavernous sinus; this is extraordinarily important to achieve complete remission in certain functional tumors causing Cushing’s disease or acromegaly, and our results have proven not only the efficacy of this novel technique, but its safety when appropriately performed.

What do you consider to be the future of your field?

There is no doubt that the field is already moving towards multidisciplinary super-specialization, promoting the creation of Pituitary Centers of Excellence that provide dedicated clinical care, research, and education. This favorable trend will facilitate the development of more effective surgical and medical treatments. Pituitary tumors should only be treated by fellowship-trained neurosurgeons in this field at high-volume surgical centers.

In spite of the multiple advances in the treatment of pituitary tumors, we are still in need of further improvement at all levels. From the surgical point of view, the future is on developing better visualization tools and mini-robotic instruments that will allow more effective and less invasive operations. From the imaging point of view, I believe functional imaging, such as PET-MRI, may improve the diagnosis and localization of hormonally active microadenomas with “negative” MRI studies. The future will hopefully bring newer and more effective medical therapies for active and even inactive pituitary tumors.

What should patients know about your field/what deserves more recognition/awareness?

I think the most important message for current and future patients is to make sure they seek the best team around to treat their disease. It is important to emphasize the team approach, because experience, knowledge, and collaboration is critical to obtaining the best outcome. This extends to all members of the team, including not only the neurosurgeon and the endocrinologist, but also ENT, neuro-ophthalmologist, radiation therapist, neuroradiologist, and neuropathologist.

What would you like to convey about yourself to your patients?

I strive to offer my patients the best possible treatment, that combines ultimate surgical and technological applications with compassionate care. I believe in teamwork and I am privileged to work with such a stellar team at Stanford. I have dedicated my life to becoming the best possible surgeon for my patients.

Why did you get involved with the PNA and what is the extent of your involvement?

I have always been fascinated by the diagnosis and treatment of pituitary tumors and pituitary diseases, and I feel extremely fortunate to dedicate a large portion of my practice to helping pituitary patients. My motivations perfectly align with the PNA goals, and this is the main reason I got involved. I have contributed to the education and counseling of patients through the PNA and I hope to continue to do so for the years to come.

Adapted from https://pituitary.org/highlights-enewsletter-child/spotlight-dr-fernandez-miranda/

đź’‰ Helpful Doctors: Pennsylvania

 

Dr. Julia Kharlip
Hospital of University of Pennsylvania
Spruce St
Philadelphia, PA

Endocrinologist specializing in Cushing’s

 

HOME | Sitemap | Abbreviations | Adrenal Crisis! | Glossary | Forums | Bios | Add Your Bio | Add Your Doctor | MemberMap | CushieWiki

👥 Interview: False Positives for Adrenal Insufficiency

– AI false positives pose serious danger to patients; cutoff changes recommended

by Scott Harris , Contributing Writer, MedPage Today November 15, 2021

This Reading Room is a collaboration between MedPage Today® and:

Medpage Today

For adrenal insufficiency (AI), reducing false positives means more than reducing resource utilization. Treatments like glucocorticoid replacement therapy can cause serious harm in people who do not actually have AI.

Research published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society makes multiple findings that report authors say could help bring down false positive rates for AI. This retrospective study ultimately analyzed 6,531 medical records from the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in the United Kingdom.

Sirazum Choudhury, MBBS, an endocrinologist-researcher with the trust, served as a co-author of the report. He discussed the study with MedPage Today. The exchange has been edited for length and clarity.

This study ultimately addressed two related but distinct questions. What was the first?

Choudhury: Initially the path we were following had to do with when cortisol levels are tested.

Cortisol levels follow a diurnal pattern; levels are highest in the morning and then decline to almost nothing overnight. This means we ought to be measuring the level in the morning. But there are logistical issues to doing so. In many hospitals, we end up taking measurements of cortisol in the afternoon. That creates a dilemma, because if it comes back low, there’s an issue as to what we ought to do with the result.

Here at Imperial, we call out results of <100 nmol/L among those taken in the afternoon. Patients and doctors then have to deal with these abnormal results, when in fact they may not actually be abnormal. We may be investigating individuals who should really not be investigated.

So the first aim of our study was to try and ascertain whether we could bring that down to a lower level and in doing so stop erroneously capturing people who are actually fine.

What was the second aim of the study?

Choudhury: As we went through tens of thousands of data sets, we realized we could answer more than that one simple question. So the next part of the study became: if an individual is identified as suspicious for AI, what’s the best way to prove this diagnosis?

We do this with different tests like short Synacthen Tests (SST), all with different cutoff points. Obviously, we want to get the testing right, because if you falsely label a person as having AI, the upshot is that treatments will interfere with their cortisol access and they will not do well. Simply put, we would be shortening their life.

So, our second goal was to look at all the SSTs we’ve done at the center and track them to see whether we could do better with the benchmarks.

What did you find?

Choudhury: When you look at the data, you see that you can bring those benchmarks down and potentially create a more accurate test.

First, we can be quite sure that a patient who is tested in the afternoon and whose cortisol level is >234 does not have AI. If their level is <53.5 then further investigation is needed

There were similar findings for SSTs, which in our case were processed using a platform made by Abbott. For this platform, we concluded that the existing cut-offs should be dropped down to 367 at 30 minutes or 419 at about 60 minutes.

Did anything surprise you about the study or its findings?

Choudhury: If you look at the literature, the number of individuals who fail at 30 minutes but pass at 60 minutes is around 5%. But I was very surprised to see that our number at Imperial was about 20%.

This is a key issue because, as I mentioned, if individuals are wrongly labelled adrenally insufficient, you’re shortening their life. It’s scary to think about the number of people who might have been given steroids and treated for AI when they didn’t have the condition.

What do you see as the next steps?

Choudhury: I see centers unifying their cutoffs for SST results and making sure we’re all consistent in the way we treat these results.

From a research perspective, on the testing we’re obviously talking about one specific platform with Abbott, so research needs to be done on SST analyzers from other manufacturers to work out what their specific cutoffs should be.

Read the study here and expert commentary on the clinical implications here.

The study authors did not disclose any relevant relationship with industry.

đź’‰ Helpful Doctors: California

Dr. Daniel Kelly, a board certified neurosurgeon, is Director of the Pacific Neuroscience Institute and Professor of Neurosurgery at the John Wayne Cancer Institute.

Considered to be one of the best neurosurgeons in the US and a multiple recipient of the Patients’ Choice Award, Dr. Kelly is internationally recognized in the field of minimally invasive keyhole surgery for brain, pituitary and skull base tumors.

He has one of the world’s largest series in endonasal surgery with over 2000 procedures performed including over 800 endonasal endoscopic surgeries, and over 2000 craniotomies for brain and skull base tumors. His current surgical practice encompasses the full spectrum of brain and skull base tumors, both benign and malignant, treated with minimally invasive and conventional approaches.

HOME | Sitemap | Abbreviations | Adrenal Crisis! | Glossary | Forums | Bios | Add Your Bio | Add Your Doctor | MemberMap | CushieWiki