Evaluation of Surgeon-Performed Ultrasonography With or Without Contrast Enhancement vs Scintigraphy in Patients With Primary Hyperparathyroidism.
Adult
Humans
Female
Adolescent
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Male
Hyperparathyroidism, Primary
/ diagnostic imaging
Cohort Studies
Prospective Studies
Technetium Tc 99m Sestamibi
Radionuclide Imaging
Parathyroid Glands
/ diagnostic imaging
Ultrasonography
/ methods
Parathyroidectomy
Surgeons
Sensitivity and Specificity
Journal
JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery
ISSN: 2168-619X
Titre abrégé: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589542
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2023
01 06 2023
Historique:
pmc-release:
13
04
2024
medline:
12
6
2023
pubmed:
14
4
2023
entrez:
13
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Scintigraphy and ultrasonography are common imaging modalities for the preoperative localization of enlarged parathyroid glands in primary hyperparathyroidism. When comparing the 2 modalities, the benefits of ultrasonography in terms of convenience, patient comfort, duration, cost, and lack of radiation should be taken into account. To investigate whether surgeon-performed ultrasonography, with or without contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), is noninferior to scintigraphy for localizing pathological parathyroid glands in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Prospective, paired, noninferiority cohort study performed at a high-volume tertiary referral center for parathyroidectomy with blinded examiners and a 6-month follow-up. Participants were adults (age ≥18 years) referred for parathyroidectomy due to primary hyperparathyroidism. Of 207 eligible patients, 35 were excluded, leaving 172 enrolled in the study. Inclusion lasted from September 2019 until February 2021. Follow-up ended in December 2021. 99mTechnetium-pertechnetate/99mtechnetium-sestamibi subtraction scintigraphy with 99mtechnetium-sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography, followed by surgeon-performed ultrasonography and CEUS. The sensitivity of each imaging modality in localizing pathological parathyroid glands, calculated on a per-quadrant and a per-patient basis, respectively. The a priori noninferiority margin was a lower 95% confidence limit for the difference in sensitivity not falling below -10%. Out of 172 participants, 139 (80.8%) were women, the median (range) age was 65 (24-87) years, and the median (IQR) follow-up was 200.5 (181-280.25) days. Quadrant sensitivity (95% CI) was 70.9% (63.2%-78.5%) for ultrasonography, 68.4% (60.4%-76.5%) for ultrasonography plus CEUS, and 67.0% (60.0%-74.0%) for scintigraphy. The sensitivity difference (95% CI) compared with scintigraphy was 3.9% (-4.1% to 11.8%) for ultrasonography and 1.5% (-6.4% to 9.3%) for ultrasonography plus CEUS, establishing noninferiority for both modalities. Per-patient sensitivity was 81.4% (74.8%-86.9%) for ultrasonography and 79.1% (72.2%-84.9%) for both scintigraphy and ultrasonography plus CEUS. The sensitivity difference compared with scintigraphy was 2.3% (-6.8% to 11.4%) for ultrasonography and 0.0% (-9.1% to 9.1%) for ultrasonography plus CEUS, establishing noninferiority for both modalities. In this cohort study, conventional ultrasonography by an experienced parathyroid surgeon-sonographer was noninferior to scintigraphy and may constitute a valid first-line imaging modality in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism, even without the addition of CEUS. Further imaging should be reserved for cases that are equivocal or nonlocalizing on ultrasonography.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37052913
pii: 2803831
doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2023.0389
pmc: PMC10102920
doi:
Substances chimiques
Technetium Tc 99m Sestamibi
971Z4W1S09
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04305561']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
531-539Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Eur J Endocrinol. 2014 Apr 10;170(5):719-25
pubmed: 24569082
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Apr;212(4):522-9; discussion 529-31
pubmed: 21463783
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2010 Sep;395(7):925-8
pubmed: 20623136
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2014;58(4):515-20
pubmed: 24165576
Ultraschall Med. 2004 Aug;25(4):280-4
pubmed: 15300502
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2009 Sep;394(5):761-4
pubmed: 19575214
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Dec;155(6):956-960
pubmed: 27329424
Head Neck. 2019 Jul;41(7):2398-2409
pubmed: 31002214
Arch Surg. 2011 Mar;146(3):280-5
pubmed: 21422358
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Oct 1;144(10):929-937
pubmed: 30193297
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2018 Feb;26(1):151-166
pubmed: 29128002
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 Feb 17;107(3):e1242-e1248
pubmed: 34643707
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2019 Dec;404(8):919-927
pubmed: 31595330
Surgery. 2004 Oct;136(4):872-80
pubmed: 15467674
Ultrasound Int Open. 2018 Jan;4(1):E2-E15
pubmed: 29423461
Radiol Med. 2009 Oct;114(7):1159-72
pubmed: 19774444
Nucl Med Commun. 2015 Apr;36(4):363-75
pubmed: 25642803
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Dec;19(13):4202-9
pubmed: 22825773
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021 Aug 1;147(8):692-706
pubmed: 34081083
Surgery. 2014 Nov;156(5):1127-31
pubmed: 25444313
JAMA Surg. 2016 Oct 1;151(10):959-968
pubmed: 27532368
J Ultrasound. 2019 Sep;22(3):291-308
pubmed: 30357759
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2018;70(4):423-431
pubmed: 30347604
Br J Surg. 2021 Jun 22;108(6):675-683
pubmed: 34157082
World J Surg. 2009 Mar;33(3):412-6
pubmed: 19148701
Surgery. 2003 Dec;134(6):973-9; discussion 979-81
pubmed: 14668730
World J Surg. 2016 Mar;40(3):582-8
pubmed: 26661636
Invest Radiol. 2012 Dec;47(12):711-6
pubmed: 23095862
BMC Med Imaging. 2017 Dec 28;17(1):65
pubmed: 29281991
J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Sep;209(3):332-43
pubmed: 19717037
Ann Surg. 2011 Mar;253(3):585-91
pubmed: 21183844
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2009 Sep;394(5):861-7
pubmed: 19547997
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 Mar;132(3):359-72
pubmed: 15746845
Surgery. 2011 Dec;150(6):1153-60
pubmed: 22136835
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021 Feb 1;147(2):135-143
pubmed: 33211086
J Int Med Res. 2019 Feb;47(2):836-845
pubmed: 30556441
J Am Coll Surg. 2006 Jan;202(1):18-24
pubmed: 16377493
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2011;49(1-4):83-90
pubmed: 22214680
Nucl Med Commun. 2015 Jan;36(1):45-52
pubmed: 25299470
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Am Surg. 2013 Jul;79(7):681-5
pubmed: 23816000
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2011;48(1):95-103
pubmed: 21876238
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Feb;19(2):577-83
pubmed: 21710322
Osteoporos Int. 2017 Jan;28(1):1-19
pubmed: 27613721
Ultrasound Q. 2006 Dec;22(4):253-62
pubmed: 17146333
Surgery. 2006 Dec;140(6):932-40; discussion 940-1
pubmed: 17188140
J Ultrasound Med. 2023 Jan;42(1):91-98
pubmed: 35357028
J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Oct;38(10):2565-2571
pubmed: 30693978
Surgery. 2012 Apr;151(4):580-6
pubmed: 21982525
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131
Laryngoscope. 2006 Aug;116(8):1380-4
pubmed: 16885740
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022 Feb 25;12:760419
pubmed: 35283807
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 May;98(5):2019-25
pubmed: 23515449