Question 1 · Hard
An 81-year-old woman, admitted with a hip fracture after a fall, is poorly nourished. Results: total calcium 2.42 mmol/L (9.7 mg/dL; reference 2.15-2.55), albumin 24 g/L (2.4 g/dL; reference 35-50), phosphate 0.72 mmol/L (2.2 mg/dL; reference 0.80-1.50), intact PTH 11.5 pmol/L (108 ng/L; reference 1.6-6.9), creatinine 66 µmol/L (0.75 mg/dL) and 25-hydroxyvitamin D 68 nmol/L (27 ng/mL; sufficient above 50). The laboratory corrects calcium as measured calcium + 0.02 x (40 - albumin in g/L). Her corrected calcium and the diagnosis the results suggest are:
- A2.42 mmol/L; normal calcium, low albumin
- B2.10 mmol/L; secondary hyperparathyroidism
- C2.74 mmol/L; primary hyperparathyroidism
- D2.74 mmol/L; hypercalcemia of malignancy
Show answerHide answer
Answer: C · 2.74 mmol/L; primary hyperparathyroidism
Corrected calcium = 2.42 + 0.02 x (40 - 24) = 2.42 + 0.32 = 2.74 mmol/L (11.0 mg/dL), so she is hypercalcemic although her total calcium looks normal. A raised PTH alongside a raised calcium is inappropriate and points to autonomous parathyroid secretion, and the low phosphate fits the phosphate-wasting action of PTH on the kidney. A normal creatinine and a sufficient 25-hydroxyvitamin D argue against secondary hyperparathyroidism, which has a low or normal calcium. Malignancy, whether from bone metastases, myeloma or PTHrP, suppresses PTH. Because the correction is only an estimate when albumin is very low, an ionized calcium is the best confirmation.
- A: This uses the measured total calcium and ignores the very low albumin.
- B: This subtracts the correction; a low albumin makes the corrected calcium higher than the measured value.
- D: The calculation is right, but hypercalcemia of malignancy suppresses PTH instead of raising it.