Annales d'endocrinologie · 2024
Diagnostic performance of various imaging modalities in localizing ectopic ACTH syndrome: A systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Channaiah Chethan Yami, Memon Saba Samad, Lila Anurag Ranjan, Sarathi Vijaya, Karlekar Manjiri, Barnabas Rohit, Patil Virendra Ashokrao, Sharma Anima, Phadte Aditya, Malhotra Gaurav, Shah Nalini, Bandgar Tushar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To elucidate the role of various imaging modalities for tumor localization in ectopic ACTH Cushing's syndrome (EAS).
DESIGN AND METHOD: Systematic review of the literature published between January 2015-2024 was performed. Patients (290 EAS patients, 23.8% Occult) who underwent contrast enhanced CT (CECT) and at least one PET/CT-scan (68Ga-SSTR, FDG and/or F-DOPA) were included.
RESULTS: The sensitivity for identifying EAS tumor was comparable across CECT (63.1%, n=290), SSTR-PET/CT (58.2%, n=187), and FDG-PET/CT (57.6%, n=191), but was poor for DOPA-PET/CT (30.8%, n=26). Sensitivity for detecting metastasis was also comparable across CECT (78%, n=73), SSTR-PET/CT (85.3%, n=41), and FDG-PET (73.7%, n=38). For localised lesions, sensitivity as per etiology and grade of NET were similar for three scans, with exception of Thymic NET and grade 1 NET where CECT was better than FDG PET/CT. In patients not localised on CECT, sensitivity of SSTR PET/CT was 33.3% (vs. 18.9% FDG-PET/CT) whereas for patients negative on CECT and FDG-PET, sensitivity of SSTR-PET/CT was 15%. In cases where CECT and SSTR-PET/CT failed to localize, the sensitivities of FDG-PET/CT and DOPA-PET/CT were only 5.7% (2/35) and 0% (0/9), respectively. SSTR-PET/CT has a distinct advantage with significantly lesser false positive (FP) lesions (2.6%, mostly in thyroid/or pancreas). In comparison, CECT and FDG-PET/CT had FP ∼11% (mostly in lung and/or mediastinum), most of which were negative on SSTR-PET/CT.
CONCLUSIONS: As per the current evidence, SSTR-PET/CT can be considered as the scan of choice in EAS evaluation, and further research is needed as one-fourth of the lesions remain occult.
DESIGN AND METHOD: Systematic review of the literature published between January 2015-2024 was performed. Patients (290 EAS patients, 23.8% Occult) who underwent contrast enhanced CT (CECT) and at least one PET/CT-scan (68Ga-SSTR, FDG and/or F-DOPA) were included.
RESULTS: The sensitivity for identifying EAS tumor was comparable across CECT (63.1%, n=290), SSTR-PET/CT (58.2%, n=187), and FDG-PET/CT (57.6%, n=191), but was poor for DOPA-PET/CT (30.8%, n=26). Sensitivity for detecting metastasis was also comparable across CECT (78%, n=73), SSTR-PET/CT (85.3%, n=41), and FDG-PET (73.7%, n=38). For localised lesions, sensitivity as per etiology and grade of NET were similar for three scans, with exception of Thymic NET and grade 1 NET where CECT was better than FDG PET/CT. In patients not localised on CECT, sensitivity of SSTR PET/CT was 33.3% (vs. 18.9% FDG-PET/CT) whereas for patients negative on CECT and FDG-PET, sensitivity of SSTR-PET/CT was 15%. In cases where CECT and SSTR-PET/CT failed to localize, the sensitivities of FDG-PET/CT and DOPA-PET/CT were only 5.7% (2/35) and 0% (0/9), respectively. SSTR-PET/CT has a distinct advantage with significantly lesser false positive (FP) lesions (2.6%, mostly in thyroid/or pancreas). In comparison, CECT and FDG-PET/CT had FP ∼11% (mostly in lung and/or mediastinum), most of which were negative on SSTR-PET/CT.
CONCLUSIONS: As per the current evidence, SSTR-PET/CT can be considered as the scan of choice in EAS evaluation, and further research is needed as one-fourth of the lesions remain occult.