The presence of a pituitary tumor in patients with prostate cancer is not a contraindication for leuprolide therapy.

PURPOSE: Gonadotropin analogs like leuprolide play an important role in the management of prostate cancer. Pituitary apoplexy has been reported after leuprolide therapy. This report examines whether the presence of a pituitary tumor is a contraindication for leuprolide therapy in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two patients with prostate cancer and pituitary tumors were treated with leuprolide and radiation therapy. The first patient with a previously unknown pituitary adenoma had a leuprolide injection for prostate gland downsizing prior to brachytherapy. The second patient with a known pituitary microadenoma had a biochemical recurrence and was treated with leuprolide and radiation therapy. RESULTS: The first patient developed symptoms of apoplexy a few hours after the leuprolide injection. He underwent a transsphenoidal resection of the sellar mass with complete neurologic recovery. The second patient did not have any adverse events after leuprolide with follow-up MRI scans showing no growth of the microadenomas. CONCLUSION: The presence of a pituitary tumor is not a contraindication for leuprolide therapy. While patients with a macroadenoma should have surgery first, those with a microadenoma may be considered for leuprolide therapy after careful evaluation by a multidisciplinary team.

Role of intrathyroidal calcifications detected on ultrasound as a marker of malignancy.

OBJECTIVES: Clinically palpable thyroid nodules are present in between 4% and 7% of the population, with only a small percentage of those harboring malignancy. Thus, it is important to find a cost-effective way to determine which nodules are more likely to be malignant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of intrathyroidal calcifications detected on ultrasound as a risk factor for malignancy. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: One hundred fifty-nine patients with thyroid disease were included in this study. Patients were selected from a thyroid ultrasound (TUS) database. Charts were then reviewed, and only those patients who had a preoperative TUS and underwent surgery for tissue diagnosis were included. RESULTS: Of the 159 patients, 66 (41.5%) were diagnosed with cancer. Of those with malignancy, 52 (78.8%) had calcifications noted on TUS. Ninety-three of the patients were diagnosed with benign pathology. Of those 93 patients, 36 (38.7%) had TUS findings consistent with calcifications, whereas 57 (61.3%) did not. Statistical analysis using a chi-square test showed a strong association between cancer status and calcification, with P <.001. In our study, calcifications on TUS had a sensitivity of 78.8% and a specificity of 61.3%, with an odds ratio of 5.88. CONCLUSION: The presence of calcifications detected on TUS should alert the physician for the possibility of malignancy, and further work-up should be pursued. This information may be used to improve the sensitivity of other diagnostic tests such as fine needle aspiration biopsies. Given the relatively low sensitivity and specificity of the test, its use alone as a marker of malignancy is limited, but it may be used in combination with other known risk factors and tests to decide on the most appropriate treatment plan.