4.7 Article

CaPTHUS Scoring Model in Primary Hyperparathyroidism: Can It Eliminate the Need for ioPTH Testing?

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 1191-1195

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-4080-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [KL2 TR000428, UL1 TR000427] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CaPTHUS model was reported to have a positive predictive value of 100 % to correctly predict single-gland disease in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism, thus obviating the need for intraoperative parathyroid hormone (ioPTH) testing. We sought to apply the CaPTHUS scoring model in our patient population and assess its utility in predicting long-term biochemical cure. We retrospective reviewed all parathyroidectomies for primary hyperparathyroidism performed at our university hospital from 2003 to 2012. We routinely perform ioPTH testing. Biochemical cure was defined as a normal calcium level at 6 months. A total of 1,421 patients met the inclusion criteria: 78 % of patients had a single adenoma at the time of surgery, 98 % had a normal serum calcium at 1 week postoperatively, and 96 % had a normal serum calcium level 6 months postoperatively. Using the CaPTHUS scoring model, 307 patients (22.5 %) had a score of a parts per thousand yen3, with a positive predictive value of 91 % for single adenoma. A CaPTHUS score of a parts per thousand yen3 had a positive predictive value of 98 % for biochemical cure at 1 week as well as at 6 months. In our population, where ioPTH testing is used routinely to guide use of bilateral exploration, patients with a preoperative CaPTHUS score of a parts per thousand yen3 had good long-term biochemical cure rates. However, the model only predicted adenoma in 91 % of cases. If minimally invasive parathyroidectomy without ioPTH testing had been done for these patients, the cure rate would have dropped from 98 % to an unacceptable 89 %. Even in these patients with high CaPTHUS scores, multigland disease is present in almost 10 %, and ioPTH testing is necessary.

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

4.7
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