Abstract

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.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call