4.5 Article

Cavernous and inferior petrosal sinus sampling and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of Cushing's disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 116, 期 3, 页码 593-600

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-013-1342-9

关键词

Cushing's disease; Sinus sampling; Dynamic MRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The surgical management of Cushing's disease is often complicated by difficulties detecting corticotropic adenomas. Various diagnostic modalities are used when conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is negative or inconclusive. We sought to analyze our use of two such modalities in the surgical management of Cushing's disease: (1) cavernous/inferior petrosal sinus sampling (central venous sampling, CVS) for adrenocorticotropic hormone and (2) dynamic MRI (dMRI). We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of all patients with Cushing's disease treated by a single neurosurgeon with endonasal transsphenoidal surgery. Accuracy of adenoma localization with CVS and dMRI was analyzed. Ninety-one consecutive patients were included. Pathology confirmed an adenoma in 66. Preoperative dMRI and CVS were performed in 40 and 37 patients, respectively, with 20 undergoing both studies. Surgical pathology was positive for adenoma in 31 dMRI patients, 25 CVS patients, and 13 who underwent both. Among patients with pathology confirming an adenoma, dMRI identified a lesion in 96.8 % and correctly lateralized the lesion in 89.7 %, while CVS correctly lateralized in 52.2-65.2 % (depending on location of sampling). Among patients with both studies, dMRI and CVS correctly lateralized in 76.9 and 61.5-69.2 %, respectively. Accuracy of CVS improved if only patients with symmetric venous drainage were considered. In this mixed population of Cushing's disease patients, dMRI was more accurate than CVS at localizing adenomas, supporting the use of advance MRI techniques in the work-up of Cushing's disease. CVS, however, remains an important tool in the workup of Cushing's syndrome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据