Advertisement

Parathyroid scintigraphy in primary hyperparathyroidism: comparison between double-phase and subtraction techniques and possible affecting factors

  • D. MaccoraEmail author
  • V. Rizzo
  • D. Fortini
  • M. Mariani
  • L. Giraldi
  • A. Giordano
  • I. Bruno
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Parathyroid scintigraphy is superior to other imaging techniques in detecting hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands. It is mainly performed using double-phase or dual-tracer subtraction methods. Neither of the techniques is perfect and different protocols are being used. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of double-phase and subtraction methods in detecting abnormal gland as well as the potential effects of coexisting thyroid disease and clinical-laboratory data.

Methods

We considered patients with primary hyperparathyroidism who underwent parathyroid surgery, after a parathyroid scintigraphy between April 2015 and February 2017. Sixty-eight patients were included; in 45 cases (66.2%), a thyroid disease was coexistent. Diagnostic performances of the two techniques were compared. The effect of thyroid disease and clinical-pathological data on examination interpretation was considered.

Results

Double-phase scintigraphy showed higher sensitivity and accuracy in detecting the exact abnormal gland compared to the digital subtraction (90% and 75% vs. 76% and 66%, respectively). For double-phase technique, sensitivity and accuracy were higher in cases with no thyroid disease when compared to those with thyroid disease (92% and 86% vs. 88% and 69%, respectively). Similarly, for digital subtraction, sensitivity and accuracy were higher in the absence of thyroid disease compared to their presence (84% and 79% vs. 70% and 58%, respectively). There was no significant variation in the performance of both techniques, considering clinical-laboratory data.

Conclusions

Double-phase scintigraphy has been more accurate than digital subtraction. The presence of thyroid disease could be a possible limit, affecting the subtraction more than the double-phase technique. Clinical data did not influence the scintigraphic outcome.

Keywords

Hyperparathyroidism Scintigraphy Double phase Subtraction Thyroid disease Gland size 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr. Paolo Campanella (Institute of Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome) who collaborated on earlier drafts and prematurely left us in 2017.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Mullan BP (2004) Nuclear medicine imaging of the parathyroid. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 37:909–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Udelsman R, Lin Z, Donovan P (2011) The superiority of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy based on 1650 consecutive patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Ann Surg 253:585–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fraker DL, Harsono H, Lewis R (2009) Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy: benefits and requirements of localization, diagnosis, and intraoperative PTH monitoring. long-term results. World J Surg 33:2256–2265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Westerdahl J, Bergenfelz A (2007) Unilateral versus bilateral neck exploration for primary hyperparathyroidism: five-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 246:976–980 (discussion 980-981) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Medas F, Erdas E, Longheu A, Gordini L, Pisano G, Nicolosi A, Calò PG (2016) Retrospective evaluation of the pre- and postoperative factors influencing the sensitivity of localization studies in primary hyperparathyroidism. Int J Surg 25:82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hindié E, Ugur O, Fuster D, O’Doherty M, Grassetto G, Ureña P, Kettle A, Gulec SA, Pons F, Rubello D, Parathyroid Task Group of the EANM (2009) 2009 EANM parathyroid guidelines. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:1201–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber T, Maier-Funk C, Ohlhauser D, Hillenbrand A, Cammerer G, Barth TF, Henne-Bruns D, Boehm BO, Reske SN, Luster M (2013) Accurate preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas with C-11 methionine PET/CT. Ann Surg 257:1124–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kluijfhout WP, Vorselaars WM, van den Berk SA, Vriens MR, Borel Rinkes IH, Valk GD, van Dalen T, de Klerk JM, de Keizer B (2016) Fluorine-18 fluorocholine PET-CT localizes hyperparathyroidism in patients with inconclusive conventional imaging: a multicenter study from the Netherlands. Nucl Med Commun 37:1246–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuzminski SJ, Sosa JA, Hoang JK (2018) Update in parathyroid imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 26:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bossert I, Chytiris S, Hodolic M, Croce L, Mansi L, Chiovato L, Mariani G, Trifirò G (2018) PETC/CT with 18F-Choline localizes hyperfunctioning parathyroid adenomas equally well in normocalcemic hyperparathyroidism as in overt hyperparathyroidism. J Endocrinol Invest.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-018-0931-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giordano A, Rubello D, Casara D (2001) New trends in parathyroid scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med 28:1409–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lorberboym M, Minski I, Macadziob S, Nikolov G, Schachter P (2003) Incremental diagnostic value of preoperative 99mTc-MIBI SPECT in patients with a parathyroid adenoma. J Nucl Med 44:904–908PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sukan A, Reyhan M, Aydin M, Yapar AF, Sert Y, Canpolat T, Aktas A (2008) Preoperative evaluation of hyperparathyroidism: the role of dual-phase parathyroid scintigraphy and ultrasound imaging. Ann Nucl Med 22:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lavely WC, Goetze S, Friedman KP, Leal JP, Zhang Z, Garret-Mayer E, Dackiw AP, Tufano RP, Zeiger MA, Ziessman HA (2007) Comparison of SPECT/CT, SPECT, and planar imaging with single- and dual-phase (99 m)Tc-sestamibi parathyroid scintigraphy. J Nucl Med 48:1084–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caveny SA, Klingensmith WC 3rd, Martin WE, Sage-El A, McIntyre RC Jr, Raeburn C, Wolfe P (2012) Parathyroid imaging: the importance of dual-radiopharmaceutical simultaneous acquisition with 99mTc-sestamibi and 123I. J Nucl Med Technol 40:104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spanu A, Schillaci O, Piras B, Madeddu G (2014) SPECT/CT in hyperparathyroidism. Clin Transl Imaging 2:537–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hindié E, Zanotti-Fregonara P, Tabarin A, Rubello D, Morelec I, Wagner T, Henry JF, Taïeb D (2015) The role of radionuclide imaging in the surgical management of primary hyperparathyroidism. J Nucl Med 56:737–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yuan L, Liu J, Kan Y, Yang J, Wang X (2017) The diagnostic value of 11C-methionine PET in hyperparathyroidism with negative 99mTc-MIBI SPECT: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiol 58:558–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bhatt PR, Klingensmith WC 3rd, Bagrosky BM, Walter JC, McFann KK, McIntyre RC Jr, Raeburn CD, Koo PJ (2015) Parathyroid imaging with simultaneous acquisition of 99mTc-sestamibi and 123I: the relative merits of pinhole collimation and SPECT/CT. J Nucl Med Technol 43:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kobylecka MI, Bajera A, Fronczewska-Wieniawska K, Mączewska J, Płazińska MT, Królicki L (2016) Computer program for analysis of parathyroid scintigraphy examinations: combination of dual-tracer (subtraction) and double phase single-tracer washout techniques. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 19:58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Araz M, Çayir D, Erdoğan M, Uçan B, Çakal E (2017) Factors affecting the sensitivity of Tc-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile dual-phase parathyroid single photon emission computed tomography in primary hyperparathyroidism. Nucl Med Commun 38:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nichols KJ, Tomas MB, Tronco GG, Palestro CJ (2012) Sestamibi parathyroid scintigraphy in multigland disease. Nucl Med Commun 33:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilhelm SM, Wang TS, Ruan DT, Lee JA, Asa SL, Duh QY, Doherty GM, Herrera MF, Pasieka JL, Perrier ND, Silverberg SJ, Solórzano CC, Sturgeon C, Tublin ME, Udelsman R, Carty SE (2016) The American association of endocrine surgeons guidelines for definitive management of primary hyperparathyroidism. JAMA Surg 151:959–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peeler BB, Martin WH, Sandler MP, Goldstein RE (1997) Sestamibi parathyroid scanning and preoperative localization studies for patients with recurrent/persistent hyperparathyroidism or significant comorbid conditions: development of an optimal localization strategy. Am Surg 63:37–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hindié E, Mellière D, Jeanguillaume C, Ureña P, deLabriolle-Vaylet C, Perlemuter L (2000) Unilateral surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism on the basis of technetium Tc99m sestamibi and iodine 123 subtraction scanning. Arch Surg 135:1461–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heiba SI, Jiang M, Rivera J, Genden E, Inabnet W 3rd, Machac J, Kostakoglu L (2015) Direct comparison of neck pinhole dual-tracer and dual-phase MIBI accuracies with and without SPECT/CT for parathyroid adenoma detection and localization. Clin Nucl Med 40:476–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krakauer M, Wieslander B, Myschetzky PS, Lundstrøm A, Bacher T, Sørensen CH, Trolle W, Nygaard B, Bennedbæk FN (2016) A prospective comparative study of parathyroid dual-phase scintigraphy, dual-isotope subtraction scintigraphy, 4D-CT, and ultrasonography in primary hyperparathyroidism. Clin Nucl Med 41:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klingensmith WC 3rd, Koo PJ, Summerlin A, Fehrenbach BW, Karki R, Shulman BC, Raeburn CD, McIntyre RC Jr (2013) Parathyroid imaging: the importance of pinhole collimation with both single- and dual-tracer acquisition. J Nucl Med Technol 41:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leslie WD, Dupont JO, Bybel B, Riese KT (2002) Parathyroid (99m)Tc-sestamibi scintigraphy: dual-tracer subtraction is superior to double-phase washout. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:1566–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gotthardt M, Lohmann B, Behr TM, Bauhofer A, Franzius C, Schipper ML, Wagner M, Höffken H, Sitter H, Rothmund M, Joseph K, Nies C (2004) Clinical value of parathyroid scintigraphy with technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile: discrepancies in clinical data and a systematic metaanalysis of the literature. World J Surg 28:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gómez-Ramírez J, Sancho-Insenser JJ, Pereira JA, Jimeno J, Munné A, Sitges-Serra A (2010) Impact of thyroid nodular disease on 99mTc-sestamibi scintigraphy in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395:929–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ruda MJ, Hollenbeak CS, Stack BC (2005) A systematic review of the diagnosis and treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism from 1995 to 2003. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:359–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sebag F, Hubbard JG, Maweja S, Misso C, Tardivet L, Henry JF (2003) Negative preoperative localization studies are highly predictive of multiglandular disease in sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery 134:1038–1041 (discussion 1041-1042) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nichols KJ, Tronco GG, Palestro CJ (2016) Influence of multigland parathyroid disease on 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT. Clin Nucl Med 41:282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Erbil Y, Barbaros U, Tükenmez M, Işsever H, Salmaslioğlu A, Adalet I, Ozarmağan S, Tezelman S (2008) Impact of adenoma weight and ectopic location of parathyroid adenoma on localization study results. World J Surg 32:566–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Adkisson CD, Koonce SL, Heckman MG, Thomas CS, Harris AS, Casler JD (2013) Predictors of accuracy in preoperative parathyroid adenoma localization using ultrasound and Tc-99m-Sestamibi: a 4-quadrant analysis. Am J Otolaryngol 34:508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khorasani N, Mohammadi A (2014) Effective factors on the sensitivity of preoperative sestamibi scanning for primary hyperparathyroidism. Int J Clin Exp Med 7:2639–2644PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hughes DT, Sorensen MJ, Miller BS, Cohen MS, Gauger PG (2014) The biochemical severity of primary hyperparathyroidism correlates with the localization accuracy of sestamibi and surgeon-performed ultrasound. J Am Coll Surg 219:1010–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dugonjić S, Šišić M, Radulović M, Ajdinović B (2017) Positive 99mTc-MIBI and the subtraction parathyroid scan are related to intact parathyroid hormone but not to total plasma calcium in primary hyperparathyroidism. Hell J Nucl Med 20:46–50PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UOC di Medicina Nucleare, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed EmatologiaFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCSRomeItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Nuclear MedicineUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreRomeItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Public HealthUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations