Warning: Declaration of My_Walker::start_el(&$output, $item, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Nav_Menu::start_el(&$output, $data_object, $depth = 0, $args = NULL, $current_object_id = 0) in /home2/ajnrblog/public_html/ajnrdigest/wp-content/themes/ajnr/functions.php on line 258
Accuracy of 2-Phase Parathyroid CT for the Preoperative Localization of Parathyroid Adenomas in Primary Hyperparathyroidism - AJNR News Digest
July-August 2016
Head & Neck

Accuracy of 2-Phase Parathyroid CT for the Preoperative Localization of Parathyroid Adenomas in Primary Hyperparathyroidism

Brent Griffith

Brent Griffith

Primary hyperparathyroidism, a disorder caused by the presence of one or more hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands, is ideally treated by surgical removal of the hyperfunctional tissue. In the past, this required bilateral cervical exploration, but improvements in preoperative gland localization and intraoperative parathyroid hormone assays have led to increased use of minimally invasive, or focused, parathyroidectomy techniques.1,2 These techniques can achieve the same outcomes while offering a lower risk profile for the patient.

The success of these minimally invasive techniques, however, is dependent on accurate preoperative localization of a potentially hyperfunctioning gland, which can sometimes prove challenging. While a number of imaging modalities are used for preoperative localization, multiphase CT has emerged in the last decade as a technique that not only offers the ability to detect parathyroid adenomas but also allows for precise anatomic localization. Since the initial description of multiphase CT by Rodgers et al3 in 2006 for localization of hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands, many studies have attempted to define the optimal number of phases needed for detection.

Our institution initially performed multiphase CT for parathyroid localization with 4 phases. However, due to concerns about radiation exposure, as well as our own clinical experience showing little added value to all 4 phases, the protocol was changed in 2009 to include only 2 phases, an arterial and venous phase.

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of our 2-phase parathyroid CT for localizing surgically proven parathyroid adenomas in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and to compare these accuracy rates with those of other techniques reported in the literature. Our study, which includes 278 patients, is the largest to date evaluating the accuracy of multiphase CT in the preoperative localization of pathologic parathyroid glands.

Our results demonstrated a more modest success rate of the 2-phase CT protocol when compared with rates reported in the literature, with an overall sensitivity of 55.4% and specificity of 85.9% for localizing disease to a specific quadrant and 78.8% and 67.8%, respectively, for correct lateralization. Yet, these lower accuracy rates must be balanced with the potential reduction in radiation dose that comes with only scanning the patient twice. In addition, our study was designed to reflect the performance of 2-phase CT in a true clinical setting, which subjects radiologists to the same limitations routinely encountered in clinical practice and which we believe may more fairly represent the accuracy of this technique.

We continue to use our 2-phase parathyroid CT for parathyroid adenoma localization. Future research evaluating which patients most benefit from this technique would help clinicians determine the optimal imaging study for individual patients.

References

  1. Udelsman R, Lin Z, Donovan P. The superiority of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy based on 1650 consecutive patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Annals Surg 2011;253:585–91, 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318208fed9
  2. Udelsman R. Six hundred fifty-six consecutive explorations for primary hyperparathyroidism. Annals Surg 2002;235:665–70; discussion 670–72
  3. Rodgers SE, Hunter GJ, Hamberg LM, et al. Improved preoperative planning for directed parathyroidectomy with 4-dimensional computed tomography. Surgery 2006;140:932–40; discussion 940–41,
    10.1016/j.surg.2006.07.028

 

Read this article at AJNR.org …