When Do You Search for a Tumor in the Hirsute Woman?

Article

Although the condition is exceedingly rare, tumor-caused hirsutism does occur and today, Richard S. Legro, MD of Penn State University College of Medicine, discussed the ways in which clinicians can best identify them in their patients.

Hirsutism: Differential Diagnosis

• Congenital adrenal hyperplasia

• Cushing’s Syndrome

• Androgen-producing tumor (ovary or adrenal)

• Exogenous sex steroids

• Hyperprolactinemia

• Simple obesity

• Severely insulin resistant states

• PCOS

• Idiopathic

Dr. Legro cautions that idiopathic hirsutism is a debatable differential diagnosis because it is a very rare disorder.

Prevalence

Studies demonstrate that tumor-caused hirsutism is exceedingly rare, representing approximately 0.2 percent of cases, even among hyperandrogenic women. However, findings that are suggestive of a tumor include increasing age, a defined onset of symptoms, and a relatively rapid onset of symptoms.

Evaluation

When evaluating your patient for a tumor, you “should establish cause, using the history and physical, laboratory ultrasound, and radiologic studies, as needed,” in order to exclude 21-OH deficient NCAH, androgen-secreting tumors, syndromes of severe insulin resistance, Cushing’s Disease, acromegaly, and drug-induced hirsutism.

In the presence of symptoms and elevated T levels, imaging—transvaginal ultrasound and an adrenal CT and MRI—is required.

Circulating Androgens and their Source

There is no clear cutoff for a circulating androgen level that identifies a woman with a tumor. The standard measures (T > 200 ng/dL; DHEAS > 8000 mcg/mL) do not offer much positive predictive value.

Suppression Tests

Dr. Legro states unequivocally that suppression tests are not useful in the diagnosis of tumors because the tumors themselves may be suppressing ACTH secretion.

Summary

Dr. Legro summarizes his presentation thusly:

1) The history and physical are very useful for diagnosing tumors.

2) Markedly elevated serum androgen levels are suggestive, but not diagnostic of a tumor.

3) There is no clear cutoff for diagnosing tumors.

4) Imaging can diagnose most tumors.

5) The role of selective venous catheterization is limited.

6) Definitive treatment is surgical removal with follow-up to confirm normalization.

Recent Videos
Arshad Khanani, MD: Four-Year Outcomes of Faricimab for DME in RHONE-X | Image Credit: Sierra Eye Associates
Dilraj Grewal, MD: Development of MNV in Eyes with Geographic Atrophy in GATHER | Image Credit: Duke Eye Center
Margaret Chang, MD: Two-Year Outcomes of the PDS for Diabetic Retinopathy | Image Credit: Retina Consultants Medical Group
Carl C. Awh, MD: | Image Credit:
Raj K. Maturi, MD: 4D-150 for nAMD in PRISM Population Extension Cohort | Image Credit: Retina Partners Midwest
Charles C. Wykoff, MD, PhD: Interim Analysis on Ixo-Vec Gene Therapy for nAMD | Image Credit: Retina Consultants of Texas
Sunir J. Garg, MD: Pegcetacoplan Preserves Visual Function on Microperimetry | Image Credit: Wills Eye Hospital
Edward H. Wood, MD: Pharmacodynamics of Subretinal RGX-314 for Wet AMD | Image Credit: Austin Retina Associates
Dilsher Dhoot, MD: OTX-TKI for NPDR in Interim Phase 1 HELIOS Results  | Image Credit: LinkedIn
Katherine Talcott, MD: Baseline EZ Integrity Features Predict GA Progression | Image Credit: LinkedIn
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.