Highly specific preoperative selection of solitary parathyroid adenoma cases in primary hyperparathyroidism by quantitative image analysis of the early-phase Technetium-99m sestamibi scan.

INTRODUCTION: Highly specific preoperative localizing test is required to select patients for minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) in lieu of traditional four-gland exploration. We hypothesized that Tc-99m sestamibi scan interpretation incorporating numerical measurements on the degree of asymmetrical activity from bilateral thyroid beds can be useful in localizing single adenoma for MIP. METHODS: We devised a quantitative interpretation method for Tc-99m sestamibi scan based on the numerically graded asymmetrical activity on early phase. The numerical ratio value of each scan was obtained by dividing the number of counts from symmetrically drawn regions of interest (ROI) over bilateral thyroid beds. The final pathology and clinical outcome of 109 patients were used to perform receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Receiver operating curve analysis revealed the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to be 0.71 (P = 0.0032), validating this method as a diagnostic tool. The optimal cut-off point for the ratio value with maximal combined sensitivity and specificity was found with corresponding sensitivity of 67.9% (56.5-77.2%, 95% CI) and specificity of 75.0% (52.8-91.8%, 95% CI). An additional higher cut-off with higher specificity with minimal possible sacrifice on sensitivity was also selected, yielding sensitivity of 28.6% (18.8-38.6%, 95% CI) and specificity of 90.0% (69.6-98.8%, 95% CI). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that the more asymmetrical activity on the initial phase, the more successful it is to localize a single parathyroid adenoma on sestamibi scans. Using early-phase Tc-99m sestamibi scan only, we were able to select patients for minimally invasive parathyroidectomy with 90% specificity.

NCCN Guidelines as a Model of Extended Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.

Background: This review assessed the performance of patients in NCCN high-risk group 2 in a clinical CT lung screening (CTLS) program. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed screening results for all patients from our institution undergoing clinical CTLS from January 2012 through December 2016, with follow-up through June 2017. To qualify for screening, patients had to meet the NCCN Guidelines high-risk criteria for CTLS, have a physician order for screening, be asymptomatic, be lung cancer-free for 5 years, and have no known metastatic disease. We compared demographics and screening performance of NCCN high-risk groups 1 and 2 across >4 rounds of screening. Screening metrics assessed included rates of positive and suspicious examinations, significant incidental and infectious/inflammatory findings, false negatives, and cancer detection. We also compared cancer stage and histology detected in each NCCN high-risk group. Results: A total of 2,927 individuals underwent baseline screening, of which 698 (24%) were in NCCN group 2. On average, group 2 patients were younger (60.6 vs 63.1 years), smoked less (38.8 vs 50.8 pack-years), had quit longer (18.1 vs 6.3 years), and were more often former smokers (61.4% vs 44.2%). Positive and suspicious examination rates, false negatives, and rates of infectious/inflammatory findings were equivalent in groups 1 and 2 across all rounds of screening. An increased rate of cancer detection was observed in group 2 during the second annual (T2) screening round (2.7% vs 0.5%; P=.005), with no difference in the other screening rounds: baseline (T0; 2% vs 2.3%; P=.61), first annual (T1; 1.2% vs 1.7%; P=.41), and third annual and beyond (≥T3; 1.2% vs 1.1%; P=1.00). Conclusions: CTLS appears to be equally effective in both NCCN high-risk groups.

Experience With a CT Screening Program for Individuals at High Risk for Developing Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare results of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk group 2 with those of NCCN high-risk group 1 in a clinical CT lung screening program. METHODS: The results of consecutive clinical CT lung screening examinations performed from January 2012 through December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. All examinations were interpreted by radiologists credentialed in structured CT lung screening reporting, following the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Lung Cancer Screening (version 1.2012). Positive results required a solid nodule ≥4 mm, a ground-glass nodule ≥5 mm, or a mediastinal or hilar lymph node >1 cm, not stable for >2 years. Significant incidental findings and findings suspicious for pulmonary infection were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1,760 examinations were performed (464 in group 2, 1,296 in group 1); no clinical follow-up was available in 432 patients (28%). Positive results, clinically significant incidental findings, and suspected pulmonary infection were present in 25%, 6%, and 6% in group 2 and 28.2%, 6.2%, and 6.6% in group 1, respectively. Twenty-three cases of lung cancer were diagnosed (6 in group 2, 17 in group 1), for annualized rates of malignancy of 1.8% in group 2 and 1.6% in group 1. CONCLUSION: NCCN group 2 results were substantively similar to those for group 1 and closely resemble those reported in the National Lung Screening Trial. Similar rates of positivity and lung cancer diagnosis in both groups suggest that thousands of additional lives may be saved each year if screening eligibility is expanded to include this particular high-risk group.

Experience with a CT screening program for individuals at high risk for developing lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare results of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk group 2 with those of NCCN high-risk group 1 in a clinical CT lung screening program. METHODS: The results of consecutive clinical CT lung screening examinations performed from January 2012 through December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. All examinations were interpreted by radiologists credentialed in structured CT lung screening reporting, following the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Lung Cancer Screening (version 1.2012). Positive results required a solid nodule ≥4 mm, a ground-glass nodule ≥5 mm, or a mediastinal or hilar lymph node >1 cm, not stable for >2 years. Significant incidental findings and findings suspicious for pulmonary infection were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1,760 examinations were performed (464 in group 2, 1,296 in group 1); no clinical follow-up was available in 432 patients (28%). Positive results, clinically significant incidental findings, and suspected pulmonary infection were present in 25%, 6%, and 6% in group 2 and 28.2%, 6.2%, and 6.6% in group 1, respectively. Twenty-three cases of lung cancer were diagnosed (6 in group 2, 17 in group 1), for annualized rates of malignancy of 1.8% in group 2 and 1.6% in group 1. CONCLUSION: NCCN group 2 results were substantively similar to those for group 1 and closely resemble those reported in the National Lung Screening Trial. Similar rates of positivity and lung cancer diagnosis in both groups suggest that thousands of additional lives may be saved each year if screening eligibility is expanded to include this particular high-risk group.