U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Evidence review for surgical localisation

Evidence review for surgical localisation

Hyperparathyroidism (primary): diagnosis, assessment and initial management

Evidence review D

NICE Guideline, No. 132

.

London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); .
ISBN-13: 978-1-4731-3415-7

1. Surgical localisation

1.1. Review question: What is the clinical and cost effectiveness of using non-invasive imaging techniques (for example parathyroid ultrasound, sestamibi scanning, CT and MRI scanning) prior to surgery?

Review question: What is the clinical and cost effectiveness of using invasive imaging techniques (for example parathyroid venous sampling) prior to surgery?

Review question: What is the clinical and cost effectiveness of using intraoperative parathyroid hormone assays, methylene blue and intra operative frozen sections?

1.2. Introduction

This review focuses on the role of pre-operative imaging and intra-operative techniques to localise suspected abnormal parathyroid tissue. Without imaging, bilateral neck exploration is curative in approximately 95% of cases. However, pre-operative imaging is used to support the decision to perform a focused parathyroidectomy or to identify ectopic glands or multiglandular disease. Intraoperative monitoring may be used to verify the absence of other hypersecretory glands.

1.3. PICO table

For full details see the review protocol in appendix A.

Table 1. PICO characteristics of review question.

Table 1

PICO characteristics of review question.

1.4. Clinical evidence

This review aimed to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of various pre-operative and intra-operative tests to aid parathyroid surgery. These tests included both pre-operative/intra-operative localisation techniques to aid localisation of the affected gland(s), and intra-operative techniques to determine when all affected tissue has been excised and aid the decision to terminate surgery. Evidence for both of these is presented separately in the review. The latter intra-operative tests included intra-operative parathyroid hormone monitoring (IOPTH) and intra-operative frozen sections. All other index tests in the protocol were localisation techniques. Additionally, for both categories evidence was sought from both test-and-treat RCT studies and from diagnostic accuracy studies. Therefore, the clinical evidence in this review was organised as follows:

  • Imaging localisation tests – evidence from test-and-treat RCTs
  • Imaging localisation tests – evidence from diagnostic accuracy studies
  • Intra-operative tests (IOPTH and frozen section) – evidence from test-and-treat RCTs
  • Intra-operative tests (IOPTH and frozen section) – evidence from diagnostic accuracy studies

1.4.1. Localisation and intra-operative techniques

1.4.1.1. Imaging localisation tests – diagnostic accuracy methods

The following adapted methods were used to assess the accuracy of the localisation index tests. Localisation index tests included ultrasound (US), sestamibi scanning (including planar, subtraction, SPECT or SPECT/CT), MRI, CT, 4D-CT, venous sampling and methylene blue. All of these index tests are used pre-operatively with the exception of methylene blue which is used intra-operatively. An adapted diagnostic accuracy method was used for this part of the review, as described below.

A standard diagnostic accuracy 2×2 table could not be used for this review, as there is more than 1 possible outcome for each person (unlike a standard diagnostic accuracy study where each person either has the disease or not). As each person has more than 1 parathyroid gland, there is more than 1 possible outcome for both the index test and the reference standard (i.e. imaging could predict 1 or more possible affected glands, and the final outcome could be a single adenoma, more than 1 adenoma, or hyperplasia).

Therefore, to overcome this problem, the following 2×2 table was devised at protocol stage for this review. This method was chosen as it allows the accuracy of the tests to be determined according to whether the imaging test would have predicted the correct surgical approach in each person (focused surgery or exploratory surgery). It was agreed that this approach would give the most relevant information for determining the most clinically effective localisation test.

By the reference standard there was a single adenoma
YESNO
Index test –True positive (correct application of focused surgery)
-

imaging identifies a single adenoma location correctly

False positive (either focused surgery would fail or would convert to exploratory)
-

Imaging shows a single adenoma but there is actually a double adenoma

-

Imaging shows a single adenoma but there is actually hyperplasia

-

single on imaging but nothing found

False Negative
-

nothing on imaging so single adenoma missed (do another imaging or exploratory surgery)

-

Imaging incorrectly identifies the location of a single adenoma (either surgery would fail or would convert to exploratory)

-

multiple findings on imaging but only a single located

True Negative (correct application of exploratory surgery)
-

Imaging shows nothing and there are no adenomas found

-

Imaging correctly identifies hyperplasia

-

Imaging correctly identifies double adenoma

-

Imaging shows nothing but there is actually a double

-

Imaging shows nothing but there is hyperplasia

-

Imaging shows multiple glands but not all in hyperplasia

TOTAL Number of people with a single adenoma/should have focused Number of people who should have exploratory surgery (either as no adenomas, hyperplasia or double adenomas).

If a study provided enough evidence to categorise each included participant according to the above 2×2 table (both as to the localisation of affected tissue according to the index test and the final localisation outcome from the reference standard) then it was included. For example, if a study stated that a participant had an imaging scan suggesting a single adenoma but the final outcome determined by the histology and post-operative normocalcaemia was a 4-gland hyperplasia, this person would be counted as a false positive. If it was not possible to categorise all the included participants for a given study into the above 2×2 table, then the study was excluded (for example, in people with persistent hypercalcaemia following surgery, unless the results of a further operation were provided in order to determine the final location according to the reference standard, then it would not be possible to determine whether the location of the affected tissue found on pre-operative imaging was correct or not).

The reference standard test must be the best available method to determine the actual location(s) of the affected tissue. It was agreed that the reference standard should include both histology and post-operative serum calcium levels. Histology alone was not sufficient as the reference standard, as although it can prove the presence of an adenoma, post-operative normocalcaemia is also required to prove that there was no further affected tissue remaining. Normocalcaemia in isolation is also not sufficient, unless the person was normocalcaemic after a single gland was removed. This is because, if more than 1 gland is removed, normocalcaemia could result if 1 or both of the glands were abnormal, and histology is required to determine if 1 or both were abnormal. Any studies not reporting both histology and post-operative normocalcaemia, in order to determine the actual location of abnormal tissue, were excluded.

By the above method, sensitivity and specificity would not have the same interpretation as in a standard diagnostic review. Sensitivity and specificity could be interpreted as follows:

  • Sensitivity = % of people who have a single adenoma, who are correctly picked up by imaging tests (also the % of people who would get correctly applied focused surgery).
  • Specificity = % of people who should get exploratory surgery (final diagnosis is >1 adenoma or hyperplasia), that do (imaging shows no adenoma, hyperplasia or double adenoma).

An index test with a low sensitivity (resulting from a high number of people in the bottom left cell) may mean that more people end up getting exploratory surgery who could have had focused surgery (if imaging shows more adenomas then there actually are), or it may mean that more people having failed surgery (if imaging shows the incorrect location of a single adenoma, although this may be picked up during the surgical procedure). An index test with a low specificity (resulting from a high number of people in the top right cell) may mean that more people would fail focused surgery and have persistent PHPT (as imaging would predict a single adenoma but they actually have >1).

Some diagnostic accuracy studies identified in the search provided accuracy data in different formats. These studies were only included in this review if it was possible to categorise all included participants in the study according to the above 2×2 table method. Some studies used a ‘per-gland’ method, assuming each person had 4 parathyroid glands and therefore determining 4 possible outcomes in the 2×2 table for each person. For example, if a person had 1 suspected adenoma located on imaging, and the reference standard confirmed a single adenoma at the same location, that person would have 1 true positive and 3 true negative results. Or, if a person had 1 suspected adenoma located on imaging but the final outcome according to the reference standard was 4-gland hyperplasia, then that person would be deemed to have 1 true positive and 3 false negative results. Another method adopted by some studies was an adapted ‘per-person’ method. If a person had all affected glands (either a single adenoma or more than 1 gland) correctly identified on imaging then they would be deemed a true positive. However, this causes problems of how to categorise people who have all their affected glands correctly identified on imaging, but the imaging also suggests further affected tissue in a location which is normal according to the reference standard. These people would be deemed to be true positives, even though relying on the imaging result alone would result in more glands being explored at surgery than was necessary.

Neither of the above methods (‘per-gland’ and ‘per-person’) were used for this review. The method used in this review was chosen as it allows the accuracy of the tests to be determined according to whether the imaging test would have predicted the correct surgical approach (focused surgery or exploratory surgery).

All clinical evidence was stratified according to whether the participants had undergone previous parathyroidectomy. Results were stratified into studies only including people having their first operation, studies only including people having re-operation, and studies with a mixed population of first operation or re-operation that could not be analysed separately. Data were available for the following tests for each population stratum:

-

1st operation (or studies including ≤5% people with re-operation)

  • US
  • MIBI
  • MIBI (subtraction)
  • SPECT
  • SPECT/CT
  • MRI
  • SPECT + US

-

Mixed 1st operation and re-operation (>5% re-operation and not reported separately)

  • US
  • MIBI
  • MRI
  • CT

-

Reoperation only

  • MIBI

For the localisation tests, sub selection of people based on the pre-operative imaging may introduce heterogeneity in the results, as studies using a pre-selection process will not be representative of the whole population. Therefore, sensitivity analysis was performed to stratify results into studies reporting all people (no pre-selection for the study based on imaging), studies only reporting people with a suspected single adenoma from imaging, and studies only reporting people with negative imaging. Results of this sensitivity analysis are reported in Table 13.

1.4.1.2. Intra-operative tests – diagnostic accuracy methods

The intra-operative tests of IOPTH and intra-operative frozen sections are not used to aid localisation of the affected tissue, but rather are used to determine whether all the affected tissue has been excised and whether surgery can be terminated. Therefore the method of assessing accuracy of these tests is different to the localisation tests.

The following 2×2 table was used to assess the accuracy of IOPTH and intra-operative frozen sections for predicting whether all abnormal tissue has been removed or not:

Reference standard
+ve−ve
Index test+veTrue positive (>50%fall in PTH and all adenomas removed)False positive (>50% fall in PTH but not all adenomas removed – person remains hypercalcaemic (up to 6 months) or requires re-op or subsequent glands resected in the same op)
−veFalse Negative (no fall in PTH but all adenomas removed)True Negative (no fall in PTH and not all adenomas removed – person remains hypercalcaemic (up to 6 months) or requires re-op or subsequent glands resected in the same op)
TOTALReference standard positiveReference standard negative

Again, the reference standard was histology and post-operative serum calcium. Studies only stating the accuracy for prediction of post-operative normocalcaemia, without mention of histology, were excluded (unless all participants had normocalcaemia after removal of a single gland only). This is because, if >1 gland is removed, normocalcaemia is insufficient to determine whether 1 or both were abnormal. For example, IOPTH may not have fallen after removal of the first gland, so surgery continued and IOPTH fell after removal of the second gland. Without histology, it is not possible to classify the IOPTH result after removal of the first gland as a false negative or a true negative.

In this context:

  • Sensitivity = the ability to identify people who have had all adenomas removed
  • Specificity = the ability to identify people who have remaining abnormal tissue

An index test with a low sensitivity may result from a high proportion of people not having a drop in the IOPTH even when all abnormal tissue has been removed and therefore, may result in continuing to explore other glands unnecessarily if the decision to terminate surgery is based on the IOPTH alone. An index test with a low specificity may result from a high proportion of people having a drop in the IOPTH even though there is still abnormal tissue remaining and therefore, if the decision to terminate surgery is based on the IOPTH alone, the surgery would be terminated and the person would remain hypercalcaemic and require further surgery.

For IOPTH, it is possible to calculate the 2×2 table values in different ways for people who had >1 gland removed (i.e. for people with multigland disease). As there will be an IOPTH results after excision of the first gland (if this is negative in people who have remaining abnormal tissue and go on to have further glands excised, then people with MGD will be counted as true negatives) and an IOPTH result after excision of all abnormal glands (if this is positive in people with MGD once all their glands have been removed then people with MGD will be counted as true positives). In some studies, both methods can be calculated as they may report (in people with MGD) a negative IOPTH after excision of their first gland (a true negative due to remaining abnormal tissue), but a positive IOPTH after excision of all the abnormal glands (a true positive if all glands are removed and the person is rendered normocalcaemic). The preferred method for this review is to find the IOPTH accuracy after excision of a single gland or excision of the first gland (in people with MGD). This is because the predominant use of IOPTH is likely to be in focused surgery and the accuracy for predicting whether further abnormal tissue remains. Therefore, if it was possible to calculate both methods from a study, the result after excision of the first gland was preferred. The protocol stated a sensitivity analysis would be performed if there was heterogeneity to only include studies which give IOPTH results after excision of the first gland (or in studies where all included participants had single gland disease). Results from the sensitivity analysis are reported in table 14.

There are various criteria for the IOPTH test to indicate a positive result. The criterion specified in this review was the Miami criteria (a drop in parathyroid hormone at 10 minutes post-excision of at least 50% of the highest baseline value (either pre-incision or pre-excision). However, studies were also included if they used a 50% drop in PTH from either baseline value. Studies using the criteria of a 50% drop and into the normal/reference range for PTH were excluded (unless a drop of 50% alone (regardless of whether it went into the normal range) could be calculated).

The protocol also specified PTH values taken at 5 or 20 minutes post-excision.

Studies were stratified according to the time point at which IOPTH was measured; studies reporting up to 10 minutes (sample taken at ≤10 minutes) and studies reporting at >10 minutes (7 studies analysed in this stratum: 4 studies85, 94, 183, 537 took samples at 5, 10 and 15 minutes and the drop could be at any time point within 15 minutes, 1 study207 only reported the median sample time of 13 minutes, 1 study321 the sample was taken at 12 minutes and 1 study314 the sample was taken at 20 minutes). Twenty-six studies were analysed in the stratum up to 10 minutes.

Some studies reported in a narrative in the results that some people had a delayed drop in IOPTH at 20 or 30 minutes. These studies did not specify in the methods that the 20-minute time point would be taken for all people without a drop in IOPTH at 10 minutes. Therefore it is unclear whether the 20-minute time point was assessed for everyone with an IOPTH negative at 10 minutes. Only the 10-minute time point was analysed for these studies153, 224, 464, 504. In addition, some studies reporting that some people had a delayed drop, the delayed drop was at 30 minutes290, 291, 459 only the 10-minute data were analysed as 30 minutes is not included in the review protocol. Four studies actually reported in the methods that if the IOPTH did not fall at 10 minutes, a 20-minute sample would be taken before exploration continued34, 69, 96, 486. These studies have been analysed separately, as this is not the same criterion as everyone having the sample taken at 20 minutes. Three of these studies are also included in the up to 10 minute stratum as it was possible to calculate the results at 10 minutes only.

All clinical evidence was also stratified according to whether the participants had undergone previous parathyroidectomy. Results were stratified into studies only including people having their first operation, studies only including people having re-operation, and studies with a mixed population of first operation or re-operation that could not be analysed separately. For the IOPTH test, data were available for all time points for studies looking at first operation. For re-operation or mixed studies, only the ≤10 minute time point was available as summarised below:

-

1st operation (or studies including ≤5% people with re-operation)

  • >50% drop at ≤10 minutes
  • >50% drop at >10 minutes
  • >50% drop at 10 minutes (but in people without a drop at 10 minutes, a 20 minute time point sample was taken before continuing exploration).

-

Mixed 1st operation and re-operation (>5% re-operation and not reported separately)

  • >50% drop at ≤10 minutes
    Data not available for any other time points

-

Reoperation only

  • >50% drop at ≤10 minutes (data only available from a study subgroup analyses)
    Data not available for any other time points

The protocol stated a sensitivity analysis would be performed if there was heterogeneity to only include studies which give IOPTH results after excision of the first gland (or in studies where all included participants had single gland disease). Results of this sensitivity analysis are reported in Table 13.

1.4.2. Included studies

Fifty six studies were included in the clinical evidence review, (Aarum 20071, Agarwal 20124, Agha 20077, Barczynski 200734, Bobanga 201755, Bonjer 199757, Bradley 201660, Calo 201369, Casas 199479, Cayo 200985, Chen 200594, Chick 201796, Garner 1999153, Hamilton 1988181, Hanif 2006183, Harris 2008186, Hathaway 2013189, Hindie 1998197, Hughes 2011207, Hwang 2010209, Iacobone 2005210, Jaskowiak 2002224, Kairaluoma 1994234, Kim 2015250, Krausz 2006264, Kumar 2000268, Lee 2014276, Lo 2003290, Lo 2007291, Lombardi 2008292, Michel 2013314, Miccoli 2008313 Miura 2002317, Morks 2001321, Mozzon 2004325, Nilsen 2006343, Nordin 2001347, Orloff 2001355, Ozkul 2015358, Patel 1998365, Richards 2011391, Rossi 2000397, Rubello 2006401, Saaristo 2002409, Sagan 2010412, Sprouse 2001457, Stalberg 2006459, Stenner 2009464, Tampi 2014476, Timm 2004486, van Ginhoven 2011502, Vignali 2002504, Wade 2012508, Wei 1997515, Witteveen 2011524, Ypsilantis 2010537)

Three studies were RCT test-and-treat studies assessing the use of pre-operative imaging (2 studies) or IOPTH (1 study). Fifty-three studies assessed the accuracy of pre-operative imaging or intra-operative tests. All the included studies are summarised in table 2 and table 3 below.

1.4.3. Excluded studies

See the excluded studies list in appendix J.

1.4.4. Summary of clinical studies included in the evidence review

Table 2. Summary of test-and-treat studies included in the evidence review.

Table 2

Summary of test-and-treat studies included in the evidence review.

Table 3. Summary of diagnostic accuracy studies included in the evidence review.

Table 3

Summary of diagnostic accuracy studies included in the evidence review.

See appendix D for full evidence tables.

1.4.5. Clinical Evidence Summaries

1.4.5.1. Imaging localisation tests – test and treat studies
Table 4. Clinical evidence summary (first operation stratum): MIBI+US pre-operative localisation versus no pre-operative localisation.

Table 4

Clinical evidence summary (first operation stratum): MIBI+US pre-operative localisation versus no pre-operative localisation.

Table 5. Clinical evidence summary (first operation stratum): US pre-operative localisation versus no pre-operative localisation.

Table 5

Clinical evidence summary (first operation stratum): US pre-operative localisation versus no pre-operative localisation.

1.4.5.2. Imaging localisation tests – diagnostic accuracy studies
Table 6. Clinical evidence summary: 1st operation stratum.

Table 6

Clinical evidence summary: 1st operation stratum.

Table 7. Clinical evidence summary: Mixed 1st and re-operation stratum.

Table 7

Clinical evidence summary: Mixed 1st and re-operation stratum.

Table 8. Clinical evidence summary: Re-operation stratum.

Table 8

Clinical evidence summary: Re-operation stratum.

1.4.5.3. Intra-operative tests – test and treat studies
Table 9. Clinical evidence summary (first operation stratum): IOPTH versus no IOPTH.

Table 9

Clinical evidence summary (first operation stratum): IOPTH versus no IOPTH.

1.4.5.4. Intra-operative tests – diagnostic accuracy studies
Table 10. Clinical evidence summary: 1st operation stratum.

Table 10

Clinical evidence summary: 1st operation stratum.

Table 11. Clinical evidence summary: Mixed 1st and re-operation stratum.

Table 11

Clinical evidence summary: Mixed 1st and re-operation stratum.

Table 12. Clinical evidence summary: Re-operation stratum.

Table 12

Clinical evidence summary: Re-operation stratum.

Table 13. Summary of sensitivity analyses for Imaging results.

Table 13

Summary of sensitivity analyses for Imaging results. Sensitivity analysis (if heterogeneity) to subgroup into only those studies recruiting people with a single positive adenoma on imaging, those studies recruiting people with negative imaging and those (more...)

Table 14. Summary of sensitivity analyses for IOPTH results.

Table 14

Summary of sensitivity analyses for IOPTH results. Sensitivity analysis (if heterogeneity) to subgroup into those studies reporting IOPTH results after excision of the first gland only.

1.5. Economic evidence

1.5.1. Included studies

Two health economic studies were identified with the relevant comparison and have been included in this review.29, 363 These are summarised in the health economic evidence profiles below (Table 15 and Table 16) and the health economic evidence tables in appendix H.

1.5.2. Excluded studies

No health economic studies that were relevant to this question were excluded due to assessment of limited applicability or methodological limitations.

See also the health economic study selection flow chart in appendix G.

1.5.3. Summary of studies included in the economic evidence review

Table 15. Health economic evidence profile: Non-invasive imaging.

Table 15

Health economic evidence profile: Non-invasive imaging.

Table 16. Health economic evidence profile: Intra-operative techniques.

Table 16

Health economic evidence profile: Intra-operative techniques.

1.5.4. Unit costs of pre-operative imaging

Table 17. UK costs of non-invasive imaging techniques.

Table 17

UK costs of non-invasive imaging techniques.

Table 18. UK costs of invasive imaging techniques.

Table 18

UK costs of invasive imaging techniques.

1.5.5. Health economic analysis for intra-operative imaging

An exploratory analysis was conducted to consider whether the use of a rapid intra-operative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) test during parathyroidectomy could be justified on an economic basis. This analysis sought to answer two questions:

  1. What is the improvement in probability of successful surgery required to make IOPTH testing during a parathyroidectomy cost neutral?
  2. What is the improvement in quality of life required following successful surgery to make IOPTH testing during a parathyroidectomy cost effective?

A detailed write up of this analysis is available in appendix I.

The results of the exploratory analysis indicate that including IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy is highly unlikely to be cost-neutral, as the required improvement in probability of surgical cure attributable to IOPTH testing is too large to be realistic. Results also show that the required improvement in quality of life following successful surgery is higher than can be realistically expected for successful cure of PHPT, therefore IOPTH testing during a parathyroidectomy is highly unlikely to be cost effective.

1.6. Resource impact

The recommendations made in this review are not expected to have a substantial impact on resources.

1.7. Evidence statements

1.7.1. Clinical evidence statements

1.7.1.1. MIBI+ US pre-operative localisation versus no pre-operative localisation (first operation stratum) (test and treat studies)

There was no difference between MIBI+US pre-operative localisation and no pre-operative localisation for the outcomes normocalcaemia (1 study; n=99; follow up 6 months; Moderate quality); and adverse event of transient recurrent nerve paralysis (1 study; n=99; follow up 6 months; Very Low quality).

No evidence was identified for HRQOL, mortality, success (cure)/failure, BMD of the distal radius or the lumbar spine; deterioration of renal function, fractures; length of hospital stay; occurrence of kidney stones; reoperation; unnecessary neck exploration.

1.7.1.2. US pre-operative localisation versus no pre-operative localisation (first operation stratum) (test and treat studies)

There was clinically important benefit of US pre-operative localisation for cure (no missed glands and normocalcaemia) (1 study; n=28; follow up 12 months; Very Low quality).

There was no difference between US pre-operative localisation and no pre-operative localisation for length of hospital stay (days) (1 study; n=28; follow up 12 months; Very Low quality).

No evidence was identified for HRQOL, mortality, adverse events, BMD of the distal radius or the lumbar spine; deterioration of renal function, fractures; occurrence of kidney stones; reoperation; unnecessary neck exploration.

1.7.1.3. Diagnostic accuracy of imaging localisation tests in people with first time surgery stratum (diagnostic accuracy studies)

One study showed that ultrasound had a sensitivity of 87% (CI 74% to 95%) and a corresponding specificity of 0% (CI 0% to 84%) (n=49; Very Low quality).

Seven studies showed that MIBI had a sensitivity range of 78–98% and a corresponding specificity range of 0–100% (n=274; Very Low quality).

Three studies showed that MIBI subtraction had a sensitivity range of 88–100% and a corresponding specificity range of 0–100% (n=81; Very Low quality).

Four studies showed that MIBI (SPECT) had a sensitivity range of 61–100% and a corresponding specificity range of 92–100% (n=88; Very Low quality).

One study showed that MIBI (SPECT/CT) had a sensitivity of 89% (CI 65% to 99%) and a corresponding specificity of 60% (CI 15% to 95%) (n=10; Very Low quality).

One study showed that MRI had a sensitivity of 90% (CI 55% to 100%) (n=10; Low quality). Corresponding specificity was not estimable.

One study showed that SPECT +US had a sensitivity of 98% (CI 94% to 100%) and a corresponding specificity of 0% (CI 0% to 52%) (n=127; Very Low quality).

There was no evidence for the sensitivity and specificity of CT scanning in people undergoing first time surgery.

1.7.1.4. Diagnostic accuracy of imaging localisation tests in mixed first and re-operation stratum (diagnostic accuracy studies)

Three studies showed that ultrasound had a sensitivity range of 64–68% and a corresponding specificity range of 33–71% (not estimable in one study) (n=114; Very Low quality).

Three studies showed that MIBI had a sensitivity range of 64–97% and a corresponding specificity range of 57–100% (not estimable in one study (n=104; Very Low quality).

One study showed that MRI had a sensitivity of 50% (CI 7% to 93%) (corresponding specificity non-estimable) (n=4; Very Low quality).

One study showed that CT had a sensitivity of 33% (CI 1% to 91%) (corresponding specificity non-estimable) (n=3; Very Low quality).

There was no evidence for the sensitivity and specificity of MIBI subtraction, MIBI SPECT, MIBI with SPECT/CT for mixed first and re-operation stratum.

1.7.1.5. Diagnostic accuracy of imaging localisation tests in a re-operation stratum (diagnostic accuracy studies)

One study showed that MIBI had 100% (CI 40% to 100%) sensitivity in participants undergoing re-operation. Corresponding specificity was not estimable (n=4; Low quality).

1.7.1.6. Intra-operative localisation tests: IOPTH versus no IOPTH in first operation stratum (test and treat studies)

There was no difference between IOPTH and no intra-operative localisation for normocalcaemia (1 study, n=40; follow up 6 months; Moderate quality) and post-operative complications (1 study, n=40; follow up 6 months; Very Low quality) in patients having first time surgery.

No evidence was identified for HRQOL, mortality, success (cure)/failure, BMD of the distal radius or the lumbar spine; deterioration of renal function, fractures; length of hospital stay; occurrence of kidney stones; reoperation; unnecessary neck exploration

1.7.1.7. Diagnostic accuracy of intra-operative tests in first operation stratum (diagnostic accuracy studies)

Twenty six studies showed that IOPTH had a pooled sensitivity of 97.1% (CI 95.5% to 98.5%) for >50% drop at ≤ 10 minutes and a corresponding specificity of 86.8% (CI 73.7% to 96.7%) (n=4726; Very Low quality).

Seven studies showed that IOPTH had a sensitivity range of 94%-100% and a corresponding specificity range of 50–100% (not estimable for two studies) for a >50% drop at > 10 minutes (n=762; Very Low quality).

Four studies showed that IOPTH had a sensitivity range of 97%-100% and a corresponding specificity range of 93–100% for >50% drop at 10 minutes, (n=417; Low quality).

Two studies showed that frozen section had a sensitivity range of 94%-100% and a corresponding specificity of 22% (n=108; Moderate quality)

1.7.1.8. Diagnostic accuracy of IOPTH in mixed first and re-operation stratum (diagnostic accuracy studies)

Two studies showed that IOPTH had a sensitivity range of 82%-92% and a corresponding specificity of 0–75% for >50% drop at ≤ 10 minutes (n=172; Very Low quality).

No evidence was available for IOPTH >50% drop at >10 mins and IOPTH >50% drop at 10 minutes, plus 20 minute sample in people without a drop at 10 minutes.

1.7.1.9. Diagnostic accuracy of IOPTH in re-operation stratum (diagnostic accuracy studies)

One study showed that IOPTH had a sensitivity of 100% (29% to 100%) for >50% drop at ≤ 10 minutes. Corresponding specificity not estimable (n=3; Very Low quality).

No evidence was available for IOPTH >50% drop at >10 mins and IOPTH >50% drop at 10 minutes, plus 20 minute sample in people without a drop at 10 minutes.

1.7.2. Health economic evidence statements

  • One cost-comparison analysis found non-invasive preoperative imaging using SPECT/CT to result in an overall saving of £91 when compared to using SPECT. This study was assessed to be partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.
  • One cost-comparison analysis found both rapid intraoperative PTH assay to be the most costly option (£637 more per patient than no intraoperative PTH, and £537 more than delayed PTH). This study was assessed to be partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.
  • One original exploratory threshold analysis found that for IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy to be cost neutral, IOPTH testing needs to improve the probability of successful surgery by 11.3%. It also found that for IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy to be cost effective at the £20,000 threshold, there needs to be a gain of 2.02 QALYs per additional patient cured. This study was assessed to be directly applicable with potentially serious limitations.

1.8. The committee’s discussion of the evidence

1.8.1. Interpreting the evidence

1.8.1.1. The diagnostic measures that matter most

The evidence was divided into two sections, firstly to address the clinical effectiveness of the localisation tests in predicting the location of abnormal tissue and secondly to address the clinical effectiveness of intra-operative tests (intraoperative parathyroid hormone [IOPTH] and intra-operative frozen sections) to predict correct excision of abnormal tissue and therefore termination of surgery. For each section, evidence was sought from both test-and-treat RCTs and diagnostic accuracy studies. Standard diagnostic accuracy methods could not be used due to the fact that each person has more than 1 parathyroid gland and therefore more than 1 possible outcome within the 2×2 table. Therefore, an adjusted 2×2 table method was used to assess the accuracy of the localisation tests; this is described in section 1.4.1.1. The 2×2 table method used to assess the accuracy of the intra-operative tests is also described in section 1.4.1.2.

For the randomised controlled trial (RCT) test-and-treat evidence the committee considered the outcomes of health-related quality of life, mortality and success (cure) / failure of surgery as critical outcomes for decision making. Other important outcomes included adverse events, bone mass density (BMD) of the distal radius or the lumbar spine, deterioration in renal function, fractures (vertebral or long bone), length of hospital stay, occurrence of kidney stones, persistent hypercalcaemia, reoperation and unnecessary neck exploration.

For the localisation tests, the method chosen allows the accuracy of the tests to be determined according to whether the imaging test would have predicted the correct surgical approach in each person (focused surgery or exploratory surgery). By this method, sensitivity and specificity would not have the same interpretation as in a standard diagnostic review. Sensitivity and specificity could be interpreted as follows:

  • Sensitivity = % of people who have a single adenoma, who are correctly picked up by imaging tests (also the % of people who would get correctly applied focused surgery).
  • Specificity = % of people who should get exploratory surgery (final diagnosis is >1 adenoma or hyperplasia), that do (imaging shows no adenoma, hyperplasia or double adenoma).

An index test with a low sensitivity may mean that more people end up getting exploratory surgery who could have had focused surgery (if imaging shows more adenomas then there actually are), or it may mean more people having failed surgery (if imaging shows the incorrect location of a single adenoma, although sometimes this may be picked up during the surgical procedure). An index test with a low specificity may mean that more people would fail focused surgery and have persistent primary hyperparathyroidism (as imaging would predict a single adenoma but they actually have >1).

Both the sensitivity and the specificity of the test were considered equally important by the committee. Although a low specificity would result in more failed surgeries and therefore would appear to be the more important measure, around 85% of people with primary hyperparathyroidism only have a single adenoma, therefore the sensitivity of the test was deemed equally important.

The intra-operative tests of IOPTH and intra-operative frozen sections are not used to aid localisation of the affected tissue, but rather are used to determine whether all the affected tissue has been excised and whether surgery can be terminated. Therefore the method of assessing accuracy of these tests is different to the localisation tests (see section 1.4.1.2). By this method, sensitivity and specificity could be interpreted as follows:

  • Sensitivity = the ability to identify people who have had all adenomas removed
  • Specificity = the ability to identify people who have remaining abnormal tissue

An index test with a low sensitivity may result from a high proportion of people not having a drop in the IOPTH even when all abnormal tissue has been removed and therefore may result in continuing to explore other glands unnecessarily if the decision to terminate surgery is based on the IOPTH alone. An index test with a low specificity may result from a high proportion of people having a drop in the IOPTH even though there is still abnormal tissue remaining, and therefore if the decision to terminate surgery is based on the IOPTH alone, the surgery would be terminated and the person would remain hypercalcaemic and require further surgery.

1.8.1.2. The quality of the evidence

Clinical evidence for the effectiveness of pre-operative sestamibi+US was available from one test-and-treat RCT, however evidence was only available for two outcomes: normocalcaemia and adverse events. Evidence was of moderate and very low quality for these outcomes, respectively. The outcome of normocalcaemia is synonymous with the critical protocol outcome of cure. No evidence was available for the other protocol outcomes, including the critical outcomes of HRQOL and mortality. Clinical evidence for the effectiveness of pre-operative US (ultrasound) was also available from 1 test-and-treat RCT. Again, evidence was only available for 2 outcomes: cure and length of hospital stay. For both outcomes, evidence was very low quality due to risk of bias and imprecision. No evidence was available for the other protocol outcomes, including the critical outcomes of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and mortality. The committee noted that the Kairaluoma study was published in 1994 and therefore the US equipment and techniques may have developed and changed since that study was conducted. Test-and-treat studies were not available for all the other pre-operative tests listed in the protocol.

The majority of the evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of the different pre-operative imaging tests was of low or very low quality, making the accuracy of the tests less clear. The measure of specificity was particularly imprecise due to the low numbers of people in the studies with a final outcome of multigland disease. Therefore, the committee focused largely on the sensitivity of the tests which they considered to be representative of what is seen in the whole population. The committee also made recommendations based on current clinical practice and their expert opinion. For first-time surgery, no evidence was available for the following tests: computerised tomography (CT), four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT), methylene blue or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Clinical evidence for the effectiveness of IOPTH was available from 1 test-and-treat RCT, however evidence was only available for 2 outcomes: normocalcaemia and post-operative complications. Evidence was of Moderate quality. The outcome of normocalcaemia is synonymous with the critical protocol outcome of cure. No evidence was available for the other protocol outcomes, including the critical outcomes of HRQOL and mortality.

The majority of the evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of intra-operative tests was of low or very low quality, with the exception of the evidence for intra-operative frozen sections which was Moderate quality.

1.8.1.3. Benefits and harms

Evidence from the test-and-treat RCTs suggested a clinical benefit of using pre-operative US on the outcome of cure (no missed glands and normocalcaemia) There was no clinical difference in the length of hospital stay with the use of pre-operative US, however the committee noted the long length of hospital stay in both the intervention and control groups which is not representative of durations that would be seen today. There was no clinical difference in outcomes following pre-operative localisation with sestamibi+US. However, the committee noted the high success rate (people achieving normocalcaemia) in the control group. In this study, the control group received a bilateral operation with visualisation of all glands. This is reflective of the high success rate of 4-gland exploration seen in practice. There was no clinical difference in the adverse events between groups and the committee noted that the adverse event of transient recurrent nerve paralysis reported in the study was a very rare event. No clinical evidence was identified for all the other protocol outcomes, including the critical outcomes of HRQOL and mortality. Additionally, no evidence was identified for the other pre-operative localisation tests listed in the protocol, therefore the committee was not able to make a comparison of the different tests from RCT evidence. The committee used evidence of the accuracy of the tests alongside the RCT evidence when discussing the recommendations. All evidence from test-and-treat studies was in people undergoing first-time surgery.

When assessing the accuracy of the tests for correctly identifying all abnormal tissue, the committee was interested in both the sensitivity and specificity of the test as detailed above. However, the measure of specificity was extremely variable between studies and often imprecise. This may reflect the fact that the proportion of people with a final outcome of multigland disease is lower and small numbers contributed to the calculation of specificity. The committee took this into account when discussing the evidence. All pre-operative imaging tests showed a reasonably high sensitivity for first-time surgery. No evidence was available for the following tests for first-time surgery: CT, 4DCT, methylene blue or MRI. Evidence in people undergoing re-operation was limited, with only a small subgroup from one study available for the re-operation alone stratum, and evidence only for the sestamibi test.

Evidence from the test-and-treat RCTs suggested no clinical difference in outcomes with the use of IOPTH. Again, the committee noted the high success rate (people achieving normocalcaemia) in the control group. This is reflective of the high success rate of 4-gland exploration seen in practice. In this study, the control group received a bilateral operation with visualisation of all glands. Perhaps a more useful comparison would have been for the control group to have surgery terminated on the basis of the pre-operative imaging, without IOPTH or visualisation of all glands. There was no clinical difference in the post-operative complications between groups. No clinical evidence was identified for all the other protocol outcomes, including the critical outcomes of HRQOL and mortality.

Evidence from accuracy studies showed a very high sensitivity of IOPTH and a moderately high specificity, for use in first-time operations. The majority of the evidence was for an IOPTH criteria of a drop of 50% or more from baseline at ≤10 minutes post-excision. However, longer timepoints of up to 20 minutes showed a similar sensitivity, although specificity may be decreased. Four studies assessed the drop at 10 minutes, but for people without a drop at 10 minutes they also looked at the delayed response at 20 minutes. This criteria again gave a similar sensitivity and a higher specificity. Evidence in people undergoing re-operation was limited, with only a small subgroup from one study available for the re-operation alone stratum. This showed a sensitivity of 100%, but specificity was not estimable.

The committee discussed that the purpose of preoperative imaging is to help guide the surgical approach, and not to decide whether to proceed with surgery. There was limited evidence on preoperative imaging so the committee also used their clinical knowledge and experience to make the recommendations.

The committee discussed whether pre-operative imaging was necessary in all people – for example, in people who prefer to have 4-gland exploration or if a decision has already been made to perform 4-gland exploration. Expert opinion was that 4-gland exploration can be marginally more effective than focused surgery. In addition, current techniques of 4-gland exploration only involve a very small incision and slightly longer operation time (around 15 minutes longer), and do not differ greatly from focused surgery. The committee discussed that pre-operative imaging is engrained in current practice. In addition, there are some people (for example people with a concurrent nodular goitre) in whom, without pre-operative localisation, surgery would be difficult and the abnormal parathyroid tissue may not be found. It may also be beneficial in people who have had previous neck surgery. In addition, localisation can often give the surgeon more confidence, as it is reassuring for a surgeon to have some indication of where the disease is likely to be. This is especially true for surgeons in non-specialist centres who may perform less than 10 parathyroid surgeries per year. Pre-operative imaging can marginally decrease an operation time. It can also be reassuring for the patient to have some information about the location of their adenoma prior to their surgery.

The committee discussed that current practice for first-time parathyroid surgery is usually ultrasound and sestamibi, with concordance being necessary to proceed to focused surgery. However, some surgeons are happy to proceed to focused surgery on the basis of a single localisation test; either US or sestamibi alone. The advantage of US is that it does not involve any exposure to radiation, and if performed correctly, it can provide very good results. However the committee considered that US is very operator dependent and ideally should be performed by a head and neck radiologist. They therefore allowed for sestamibi to be used where the expertise is not available to perform ultrasound.

The committee agreed that, in first-time surgery, first pre-operative imaging (usually US) should be performed followed by a second imaging modality, if it will further inform surgery, depending on the feasibility and availability of the imaging technique. The committee noted that most centres use sestamibi however some centres do use 4DCT. The committee from their experience felt that the performance and radiation dose exposure for 4DCT and sestamibi were similar. The committee discussed the value of 4DCT but due to lack of evidence did not make a specific recommendation for this technique. However they highlighted that both of the above radiation modalities should not be used together. The committee was of the view that various imaging techniques such as conventional 2D/3DCT were also used but the imaging quality was not as good as 4DCT. The committee noted that the advantage of dual scanning is that US and sestamibi/4DCT provide different types of information. US gives anatomical information about the presence of the adenoma, the absence of other adenomas and details of any other thyroid abnormalities. The committee noted that ultrasound is very dependent on the skill of the person performing the test and it was important that the person performing the ultrasound knows where to look for the abnormal glands. Hence in clinical practice, some endocrine surgeons perform their own ultrasound prior to parathyroid surgery for this reason. It was also discussed that although ultrasound is good for identifying glands in the neck, it cannot identify if the diseased glands are located either deep in the neck or in the chest. Sestamibi/4DCT gives functional information about dominant hyper-functioning regions in the neck. They also noted that sestamibi/4DCT has the ability to show ectopic adenomas in the neck. There is evidence that sestamibi has a high sensitivity for localisation of a single adenoma. The advantages of sestamibi scans/4DCT are their ability to evaluate for diseased glands outside of the neck at the same time. Hence when there is a fifth parathyroid gland in an ectopic position; functional imaging will pick it up but not anatomical imaging.

The committee agreed that although dual-scanning using two different imaging modalities has the advantage of providing both anatomical and functional information, a second imaging modality (usually a sestamibi scan) following a first imaging modality (usually a US) should be performed only if further information on surgical approach is required. The committee noted that the thyroid is particularly sensitive to radiation and unnecessary exposure should be avoided. Hence the committee agreed that if both first and second modality scans are performed, concordance from dual-scanning was the desired outcome.

If the first imaging modality is negative then there is no requirement to scan with a second imaging test, and proceeding straight to 4-gland exploration will avoid any unnecessary radiation for the person. The committee agreed that in a situation of positive first imaging modality but negative second modality scan, a third scan would unlikely add anything and the preferred approach would be to proceed to 4-gland exploration.

The committee agreed that in situations where dual-scanning fails to identify an adenoma or are discordant, further imaging should not be offered as it will not add useful information and will expose the person to unnecessary radiation. The committee agreed that when first imaging and second imaging modality scans are discordant, 4-gland exploration should be considered as the specific anatomical location of the adenoma cannot be assured.

The committee discussed that in current practice IOPTH is used in difficult cases and is not used routinely. They felt that people having 4-gland exploration would gain more from IOPTH as 4-gland exploration would have more complicated cases where the adenoma was not localised and went on to have 4-gland exploration. The committee from their knowledge and experience stated that there was a marginal benefit (0.9%-1.4%) with the use of IOPTH but debated if this was significant. They also noted that this marginal benefit could be partially attributed to surgical expertise. The committee considered that there was not sufficient evidence to recommend IOPTH for first-time surgery.

The committee discussed from their experience that the use of CT in first-time surgery may be as high as 15%. The committee noted that not all hospitals performing parathyroid surgery will have nuclear medicine facilities and in these cases, CT is an option. However, the committee stressed that there is no need to perform both sestamibi and CT, as this would expose the person to further unnecessary radiation.

The committee also discussed that focused surgery may include unilateral surgery, visualising both glands on the side indicated from imaging studies. Persistent primary hyperparathyroidism resulting after a unilateral surgery would be dealt with differently to persistent primary hyperparathyroidism resulting from an unsuccessful 4-gland exploration. Someone with persistent primary hyperparathyroidism following a unilateral surgery would likely have a re-operation without further pre-operative imaging, with visualisation of the glands on the contralateral side to the previous surgery. Someone with persistent primary hyperparathyroidism following a 4-gland exploration would require further pre-operative imaging prior to re-operation.

The committee discussed that pre-operative localisation strategies for re-surgery should only be determined following an MDT review of the previous imaging and operative findings at a specialist centre. The committee noted that re-imaging should be performed in the centre where re-surgery will be conducted so as to avoid duplication of imaging, reducing radiation exposure and resource use.

The committee considered that people who have had any prior surgery in the neck, for example thyroid surgery, would need more imaging than someone with no history of previous surgery in the neck.

The committee from their experience felt that parathyroid venous sampling should not be used in first-time surgery, but may have a place in re-operative surgery. Venous sampling is an invasive technique involving insertion of a catheter in the femoral vein and selective catheterisation and sampling of PTH in multiple neck and mediastinal veins. With parathyroid venous sampling it is not technically feasible to precisely locate the adenoma, only to lateralise or regionalise the suspected area. As there was no evidence, the committee did not make any specific recommendations for venous sampling.

The committee was concerned that some people were not receiving surgery on the basis of having non-localised disease. It was discussed that some surgeons may be reluctant to take on non-localised disease and it is often reassuring for a surgeon to have some indication of where the disease is likely to be. However, the committee agreed that non-localisation was not a reason not to operate and that people with non-localised disease should receive 4-gland exploratory surgery.

1.8.2. Cost effectiveness and resource use

For pre-operative imaging, the economic evidence review identified one study comparing costs of parathyroid surgery following localisation using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to that of surgery following localisation using SPECT/CT. This included costs of equipment, diagnostic tests, surgical team, hospitalisation and post-operative care. Intraoperative assays were used to determine the end of the operation in both cases. The study concluded that SPECT/CT provided better focus for surgery and thus a shorter required surgical time, resulting in an overall cost saving of £91 compared to SPECT. This study was assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations. The committee noted that the study was conducted in Italy, and hence resource use and unit cost data may not be reflective of current NHS context. Given the small sample size in this study (55), the committee considered that the results of this study were uncertain.

Unit costs for pre-operative imaging were presented to the committee for consideration. Ultrasound scan was the imaging modality with the lowest cost (£52) while parathyroid venous sampling incurred the highest cost (£1,320). The committee noted that the low cost of the ultrasound is part of the reason – along with consideration for exposure to radiation – that it is generally the first form of imaging they recommended. It was also noted that this initial imaging may help avoid a more costly imaging modality – such as sestamibi scan – where it is not necessary.

The cost-effectiveness of preoperative localisation is contingent on the outcome of surgery – that is, whether a patient is cured. This is also partially dependent on whether intra-operative imaging is undertaken. As such, the committee was unable to assess the cost-effectiveness of preoperative localisation as an independent intervention.

The committee noted that in current practice, patients who have been assessed to be eligible for surgery will undergo pre-operative localisation imaging regardless of whether they eventually receive focused surgery or 4-gland exploration. That is, preoperative imaging is generally used to inform surgical approach, and not only for localising an adenoma after surgery has been recommended. Consequently, the recommendation of using ultrasound as first-line imaging is in line with current practice, and hence is not expected to have a significant impact on healthcare resource use.

For intra-operative imaging, the economic evidence review identified one study comparing the overall costs of parathyroid surgery using an IOPTH assay to the costs of parathyroid surgery that does not use an IOPTH assay. The IOPTH arm was further divided into delayed and rapid testing. Patients in this study have previously undergone preoperative localisation using sestamibi, ultrasonography, or both. The study included costs relating to the assays, the operating room, as well as costs of reoperation for surgical failures. The study found that surgery using rapid IOPTH was the most expensive at £1,218, followed by surgery using delayed IOPTH at £681. Surgery without IOPTH was the least expensive option at £581. This study was assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations. The committee noted that the study was conducted in Italy; hence resource use and unit cost data may not be reflective of current NHS context, but overall considered that these results were as they expected.

The costs of IOPTH are not listed in the NHS Reference costs, and were estimated by the committee. A standard laboratory-based intraoperative PTH test does not require additional equipment. However, due to the long turnaround time – minimum 30 minutes – and the impracticality of having to wait for the result before the surgery can end, this form of testing is rarely used in real-time current clinical practice. An alternative intraoperative test is the rapid IOPTH, which has a much shorter turnaround time of around 7 minutes. However, this requires expensive machinery, and the committee noted that use of IOPTH is not part of current practice, and most hospitals do not have the necessary equipment to carry it out. From committee estimates, the upfront investment for an analyser machine will cost around £15,000, and each test requires the use of a reagent pack which may cost between £270 and £400.

Given the high cost of IOPTH testing, along with the fact this intervention is not currently used as part of standard practice for parathyroidectomies, the committee identified this area as high priority for original economic analysis. An exploratory threshold analysis was conducted to assess: what improvement in cure rate is required to make testing with IOPTH cost-neutral, and what improvement in quality of life is required to make testing with IOPTH cost-effective.

The results of this analysis showed that, in the base case, the probability of surgical success needed to be improved by 11.3% in order for IOPTH testing to be cost-neutral. Given that the probability of successful surgery without IOPTH tests was reported in the BAETS report to be around 95%, an improvement of this magnitude would not be possible. The results also showed that, in the base case, an additional 2.02 QALYs for each additional person cured is required for IOPTH testing to be considered cost-effective at the £20,000 threshold. As such an improvement is not possible, this result indicates that IOPTH testing is highly unlikely to be cost effective.

A number of scenarios with different assumptions for cost and effectiveness were considered as part of sensitivity analysis. This analysis showed that even with the lowest costs assumed for the IOPTH test and highest costs assumed for a failed operation – that is, highest potential savings from improving probability of surgical success – the probability of surgical success needs to be improved by 5.2% for IOPTH testing to be cost-neutral. While this is lower than the 11.3% required in the base case, it remains outside the possible range of improvement.

Additionally, under the scenario with the most ‘favourable’ conditions for cost effectiveness – lowest costs for IOPTH test, highest costs for a failed operation, and maximum improvement in probability of successful surgery as calculated using the 95% confidence intervals reported in BAETS – there needs to be an improvement of at least 0.23 QALYs per additional person cured by the end of the first year for IOPTH testing to be considered cost-effective at the £30,000 threshold. The committee was of the consensus that this improvement is still higher than is generally achievable through curing PHPT.

Given that results of the analysis show that IOPTH testing is highly unlikely to be either cost neutral or cost effective, the committee was of the consensus that this intervention should not be recommended in first-time parathyroid surgery. The committee noted that the current reported probability of success in first-time parathyroid surgery is already very high, and given that there is a lack of clinical evidence to show inclusion of the test necessarily leads to an improvement in surgical outcomes, IOPTH testing should not be recommended as part of standard practice.

It was noted that there a several limitations to the BAETS dataset. For example, the data included in the audit is self-reported by surgeons and it is possible outcomes reported may be biased. It is also unclear whether any improvement in the probability of surgical success can be completely attributed to the use of IOPTH testing, as outcomes are not controlled for other factors such as type of surgery or skill level of the surgeon. In reviewing the clinical evidence, only one test-and-treat study was identified to be relevant for this question. This study suggested that the use of IOPTH testing resulted in no clinical difference in surgical outcomes. However, committee consensus was that this study was not representative of the population in question due to methodological quality and small sample size. The committee acknowledged that there remains a level of uncertainty around the results of this analysis, and recommendations were made having taken these into consideration.

1.8.3. Other factors the committee took into account

The committee was aware of the data from the Fifth National audit report by The British Association of Endocrine & Thyroid Surgeons86

The audit reported the test rate for the following localisation techniques for first time surgery: nuclear medicine 92.7% (92.2–93.2%), ultrasound 82.8% (82.0–83.5%); CT/MRI 15.3% (14.6–16.0%); venous sampling 2.6% (2.3–3.0%); PET 2.0% (1.8–2.3%); gamma probe 0.4% (0.3–0.6%); methylene blue 14.1% (13.5–14.8%).

In 48% of cases undergoing CT/MRI, the US and sestamibi were negative or discordant. In 36% of cases, however, both US and sestamibi were positive, which raised the question as to the added utility of the cross-sectional imaging. The report suggested that incorporation of CT as part of the nuclear medicine scan (SPECT) could explain some of this effect. In almost all cases undergoing PET scan, ultrasound, sestamibi and CT/MRI were also performed. In 67% of cases undergoing PET scan, the associated sestamibi scan was positive. Use of intra-operative localisation techniques, such as the gamma probe or methylene blue, remained uncommon.

There was a reduction in the proportion of primary hyperparathyroidism cases having surgery without any pre-operative localisation, however there seemed to be an increase in the number of imaging studies undertaken per patient. The report suggested that the main reason to undertake additional imaging was to facilitate a focused approach, so it was interesting to reflect that the rate of focused surgery was almost identical (at around 50%) across the groups having 1, 2, 3 or 4+ modalities of imaging.

The audit reported that for the commonest combination of imaging (sestamibi + US) about 42% of cases had either one or both scans negative, and went on to open/non-focused surgery (presumably bilateral neck exploration); around a further 15% had both scans positive, but went on to open/non-focused surgery (presumably bilateral neck exploration) and this was attributed to discrepancy in exact location of the abnormality between sestamibi and US, or the detection of multigland disease. The remaining patients had focused surgery, with some patients requiring conversion to a standard approach (presumably due to failure to find an adenoma, other intraoperative difficulties such as bleeding, or the discovery of multigland disease). As with bilateral neck exploration, a small proportion of focused operations did not result in biochemical cure of hypercalcaemia.

The audit reported that during planned focused surgery, only 23.5% of cases were performed using IOPTH. The audit reported that reasons for this low uptake may include the added expense of this investigation, or the time taken to perform PTH analysis, which may extend the length of surgery and impact upon operating theatre scheduling.

When IOPTH was used, however, the conversion rate to conventional surgery (presumably bilateral neck exploration) was higher: 12.0% versus 6.4%. Following conversion there was a slightly higher rate of presumed multigland disease (2 or more glands excised) in the cases performed using IOPTH, although this was not statistically significant. The success rate of surgery (cure of hypercalcaemia) was also slightly improved by the use of IOPTH. The audit reported that IOPTH was also more commonly used (35%) in re-operative, compared to firsttime, primary hyperparathyroidism cases.86

References

1.
Aarum S, Nordenstrom J, Reihner E, Zedenius J, Jacobsson H, Danielsson R et al. Operation for primary hyperparathyroidism: the new versus the old order. A randomised controlled trial of preoperative localisation. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery. 2007; 96(1):26–30 [PubMed: 17461308]
2.
Abboud B, Sleilaty G, Ayoub S, Hachem K, Smayra T, Ghorra C et al. Intrathyroid parathyroid adenoma in primary hyperparathyroidism: Can it be predicted preoperatively? World Journal of Surgery. 2007; 31(4):817–23 [PubMed: 17354026]
3.
Adler JT, Chen H, Schaefer S, Sippel RS. What is the added benefit of cervical ultrasound to 99mTc-sestamibi scanning in primary hyperparathyroidism? Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2011; 18(10):2907–11 [PubMed: 21509629]
4.
Agarwal G, Sadacharan D, Ramakant P, Shukla M, Mishra SK. The impact of vitamin D status and tumor size on the intraoperative parathyroid hormone dynamics in patients with symptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery Today. 2012; 42(12):1183–8 [PubMed: 22218874]
5.
Agha A, Hornung M, Rennert J, Uller W, Lighvani H, Schlitt HJ et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for localization of pathologic glands in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2012; 151(4):580–6 [PubMed: 21982525]
6.
Agha A, Hornung M, Stroszczynski C, Schlitt HJ, Jung EM. Highly efficient localization of pathological glands in primary hyperparathyroidism using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in comparison with conventional ultrasonography. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2013; 98(5):2019–25 [PubMed: 23515449]
7.
Agha A, Scherer MN, Mantouvalou K, Woenckhaus M, Froehlich D, Barlage S et al. Effectiveness of parathyroid-hormone measurement in detecting patients with multiple gland disease causing primary hyperparathyroidism. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2007; 392(6):703–8 [PubMed: 17530279]
8.
Ahmed K, Alhefdhi A, Schneider DF, Ojomo KA, Sippel RS, Chen H et al. Minimal benefit to subsequent intraoperative parathyroid hormone testing after all four glands have been identified. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2013; 20(13):4200–4 [PubMed: 23943032]
9.
Akbaba G, Berker D, Isik S, Aydin Y, Ciliz D, Peksoy I et al. A comparative study of pre-operative imagingmethods in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: Ultrasonography, Tc-99m sestamibi, single photon emission computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation. 2012; 35(4):359–64 [PubMed: 21623148]
10.
Akin M, Atasever T, Kurukahvecioglu O, Dogan M, Gokaslan D, Poyraz A et al. Preoperative detection of parathyroid adenomas with Tc-99m MIBI and Tc-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy: histopathological and biochemical correlation with Tc-99m MIBI uptake. Bratislavske Lekarske Listy. 2009; 110(3):166–9 [PubMed: 19507637]
11.
Al-Askari M, Gough J, Stringer KM, Gough IR. Surgeon-performed ultrasound in primary hyperparathyroidism: A prospective study of 204 consecutive patients. World Journal of Endocrine Surgery. 2012; 4(1):8–12
12.
Alabdulkarim Y, Nassif E. Sestamibi (99mTc) scan as a single localization modality in primary hyperparathyroidism and factors impacting its accuracy. Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2010; 25(1):6–9 [PMC free article: PMC2934592] [PubMed: 20844661]
13.
Albuja-Cruz MB, Allan BJ, Parikh PPS, Lew JI. Efficacy of localization studies and intraoperative parathormone monitoring in the surgical management of hyperfunctioning ectopic parathyroid glands. Surgery. 2013; 154(3):453–60 [PubMed: 23972651]
14.
Alexandrides TK, Kouloubi K, Vagenakis AG, Yarmenitis S, Spyridonidis T, Vassilakos P et al. The value of scintigraphy and ultrasonography in the preoperative localization of parathyroid glands in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and concomitant thyroid disease. Hormones. 2006; 5(1):42–51 [PubMed: 16728384]
15.
Alhefdhi A, Ahmad K, Sippel R, Chen H, Schneider DF. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone levels at 5 min can identify multigland disease. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2017; 24(3):733–8 [PMC free article: PMC5292060] [PubMed: 27743228]
16.
Alhefdhi A, Pinchot SN, Davis R, Sippel RS, Chen H. The necessity and reliability of intraoperative parathyroid hormone (PTH) testing in patients with mild hyperparathyroidism and PTH levels in the normal range. World Journal of Surgery. 2011; 35(9):2006–9 [PubMed: 21713573]
17.
Aliyev S, Agcaoglu O, Aksoy E, Birsen O, Milas M, Mitchell J et al. An analysis of whether surgeon-performed neck ultrasound can be used as the main localizing study in primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2014; 156(5):1127–31 [PubMed: 25444313]
18.
Ammori BJ, Madan M, Gopichandran TD, Price JJ, Whittaker M, Ausobsky JR et al. Ultrasound-guided unilateral neck exploration for sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism: Is it worthwhile? Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 1998; 80(6):433–7 [PMC free article: PMC2503160] [PubMed: 10209415]
19.
Andersen TB, Aleksyniene R, Boldsen SK, Gade M, Bertelsen H, Petersen LJ. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography does not improve the diagnostic value of parathyroid dual-phase MIBI SPECT/CT. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2018; 39(5):435–440 [PubMed: 29517577]
20.
Anderson SR, Vaughn A, Karakla D, Wadsworth JT. Effectiveness of surgeon interpretation of technetium Tc 99m sestamibi scans in localizing parathyroid adenomas. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2008; 134(9):953–7 [PubMed: 18794440]
21.
Ansquer C, Mirallie E, Carlier T, Abbey-Huguenin H, Aubron F, Kraeber-Bodere F. Preoperative localization of parathyroid lesions. Value of 99mTc-MIBI tomography and factors influencing detection. Nuclear-Medizin. 2008; 47(4):158–62 [PubMed: 18690375]
22.
Apostolopoulos DJ, Houstoulaki E, Giannakenas C, Alexandrides T, Spiliotis J, Nikiforidis G et al. Technetium-99m-tetrofosmin for parathyroid scintigraphy: Comparison to thallium-technetium scanning. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1998; 39(8 Suppl.):1433–41 [PubMed: 9708523]
23.
Arciero CA, Peoples GE, Stojadinovic A, Shriver CD. The utility of a rapid parathyroid assay for uniglandular, multiglandular, and recurrent parathyroid disease. American Surgeon. 2004; 70(7):588–92 [PubMed: 15279180]
24.
Argiro R, Diacinti D, Sacconi B, Iannarelli A, Diacinti D, Cipriani C et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 3T magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative localisation of parathyroid adenomas: comparison with ultrasound and 99mTc-sestamibi scans. European Radiology. 2018; Epublication [PubMed: 29736849]
25.
Arici C, Cheah WK, Ituarte PHG, Morita E, Lynch TC, Siperstein AE et al. Can localization studies be used to direct focused parathyroid operations? Surgery. 2001; 129(6):720–9 [PubMed: 11391371]
26.
Aspinall SR, Nicholson S, Bliss RD, Lennard TWJ. The impact of surgeon-based ultrasonography for parathyroid disease on a British endocrine surgical practice. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2012; 94(1):17–22 [PMC free article: PMC3954181] [PubMed: 22524912]
27.
Attie JN, Khan A, Rumancik WM, Moskowitz GW, Hirsch MA, Herman PG. Preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas. American Journal of Surgery. 1988; 156(4):323–6 [PubMed: 3052123]
28.
Bachar G, Mizrachi A, Hadar T, Feinmesser R, Shpitzer T. Role of parathyroid hormone monitoring during parathyroidectomy. Head and Neck. 2011; 33(12):1754–7 [PubMed: 22076980]
29.
Badii B, Staderini F, Foppa C, Tofani L, Skalamera I, Fiorenza G et al. Cost-benefit analysis of the intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay in primary hyperparathyroidism. Head and Neck. 2017; 39(2):241–6 [PubMed: 27557453]
30.
Bambach CP, Reeve TS. Parathyroid identification by methylene blue infusion. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 1978; 48(3):314–7 [PubMed: 82440]
31.
Bandeira FA, Oliveira RI, Griz LH, Caldas G, Bandeira C. Differences in accuracy of 99mTc-sestamibi scanning between severe and mild forms of primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. 2008; 36(1):30–5 [PubMed: 18323541]
32.
Barber B, Moher C, Cote D, Fung E, O’Connell D, Dziegielewski P et al. Comparison of single photon emission CT (SPECT) with SPECT/CT imaging in preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Head and Neck. 2016; 38 (Suppl 1):E2062–5 [PubMed: 26849426]
33.
Barczynski M, Golkowski F, Konturek A, Buziak-Bereza M, Cichon S, Hubalewska-Dydejczyk A et al. Technetium-99m-sestamibi subtraction scintigraphy vs. ultrasonography combined with a rapid parathyroid hormone assay in parathyroid aspirates in preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas and in directing surgical approach. Clinical Endocrinology. 2006; 65(1):106–13 [PubMed: 16817828]
34.
Barczynski M, Konturek A, Cichon S, Hubalewska-Dydejczyk A, Golkowski F, Huszno B. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay improves outcomes of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy mainly in patients with a presumed solitary parathyroid adenoma and missing concordance of preoperative imaging. Clinical Endocrinology. 2007; 66(6):878–85 [PubMed: 17437518]
35.
Barczynski M, Konturek A, Hubalewska-Dydejczyk A, Cichon S, Nowak W. Evaluation of Halle, Miami, Rome, and Vienna intraoperative iPTH assay criteria in guiding minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2009; 394(5):843–9 [PubMed: 19529957]
36.
Barczynski M, Konturek A, Hubalewska-Dydejczyk A, Cichon S, Nowak W. Utility of intraoperative bilateral internal jugular venous sampling with rapid parathyroid hormone testing in guiding patients with a negative sestamibi scan for minimally invasive parathyroidectomy-a randomized controlled trial. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2009; 394(5):827–35 [PubMed: 19529955]
37.
Barraclough BH, Reeve TS, Duffy PJ, Picker RH. The localization of parathyroid tissue by ultrasound scanning prior to surgery in patients with hyperparathyroidism. World Journal of Surgery. 1981; 5(1):91–5 [PubMed: 7233959]
38.
Beheshti M, Hehenwarter L, Paymani Z, Rendl G, Imamovic L, Rettenbacher R et al. 18F-Fluorocholine PET/CT in the assessment of primary hyperparathyroidism compared with 99mTc-MIBI or 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT/CT: a prospective dual-centre study in 100 patients. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2018; 45:1762 [PMC free article: PMC6097754] [PubMed: 29516131]
39.
Berczi C, Mezosi E, Galuska L, Varga J, Bajnok L, Lukacs G et al. Technetium-99m-sestamibi/pertechnetate subtraction scintigraphy vs ultrasonography for preoperative localization in primary hyperparathyroidism. European Radiology. 2002; 12(3):605–9 [PubMed: 11870476]
40.
Bergenfelz A, Algotsson L, Roth B, Isaksson A, Tibblin S, Irvin IGL. Side localization of parathyroid adenomas by simplified intraoperative venous sampling for parathyroid hormone. World Journal of Surgery. 1996; 20(3):358–60 [PubMed: 8661845]
41.
Bergenfelz A, Isaksson A, Ahren B. Intraoperative monitoring of intact PTH during surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. Langenbecks Archiv für Chirurgie. 1994; 379(1):50–3 [PubMed: 8145618]
42.
Bergenfelz A, Isaksson A, Lindblom P, Westerdahl J, Tibblin S. Measurement of parathyroid hormone in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism undergoing first and reoperative surgery. British Journal of Surgery. 1998; 85(8):1129–32 [PubMed: 9718013]
43.
Bergenfelz A, Jansson S, Martensson H, Reihner E, Wallin G, Kristoffersson A et al. Scandinavian quality register for thyroid and parathyroid surgery: Audit of surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2007; 392(4):445–51 [PubMed: 17103223]
44.
Bergenfelz A, Tennvall J, Valdermarsson S, Lindblom P, Tibblin S. Sestamibi versus thallium subtraction scintigraphy in parathyroid localization: A prospective comparative study in patients with predominantly mild primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 1997; 121(6):601–5 [PubMed: 9186458]
45.
Bergenfelz AOJ, Jansson SKG, Wallin GK, Martensson HG, Rasmussen L, Eriksson HLO et al. Impact of modern techniques on short-term outcome after surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism: A multicenter study comprising 2,708 patients. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2009; 394(5):851–60 [PubMed: 19618204]
46.
Bergenfelz AOJ, Wallin G, Jansson S, Eriksson H, Martensson H, Christiansen P et al. Results of surgery for sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism in patients with preoperatively negative sestamibi scintigraphy and ultrasound. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2011; 396(1):83–90 [PubMed: 21061130]
47.
Bewick J, Pfleiderer A. The value and role of low dose methylene blue in the surgical management of hyperparathyroidism. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2014; 96(7):526–29 [PMC free article: PMC4473439] [PubMed: 25245732]
48.
Bhansali A, Masoodi SR, Bhadada S, Mittal BR, Behra A, Singh P. Ultrasonography in detection of single and multiple abnormal parathyroid glands in primary hyperparathyroidism: Comparison with radionuclide scintigraphy and surgery. Clinical Endocrinology. 2006; 65(3):340–5 [PubMed: 16918953]
49.
Bhatnagar A, Vezza PR, Bryan JA, Atkins FB, Ziessman HA. Technetium-99m-sestamibi parathyroid scintigraphy: Effect of P-glycoprotein, histology and tumor size on detectability. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1998; 39(9):1617–20 [PubMed: 9744355]
50.
Biertho L, Chu C, Inabnet WB. Image-directed parathyroidectomy under local anaesthesia in the elderly. British Journal of Surgery. 2003; 90(6):738–42 [PubMed: 12808625]
51.
Bilezikian JP, Doppman JL, Shimkin PM. Preoperative localization of abnormal parathyroid tissue. Cumulative experience with venous sampling and arteriography. American Journal of Medicine. 1973; 55(4):505–14 [PubMed: 4743348]
52.
Billotey C, Sarfati E, Aurengo A, Duet M, Mundler O, Toubert ME et al. Advantages of SPECT in technetium-99m-sestamibi parathyroid scintigraphy. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1996; 37(11):1773–8 [PubMed: 8917173]
53.
Bishop B, Wang B, Parikh PP, Lew JI. Intraoperative parathormone monitoring mitigates age-related variability in targeted parathyroidectomy for patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2015; 22:655–61 [PubMed: 26353763]
54.
Blower PJ, Kettle AG, O’Doherty MJ, Collins RE, Coakley AJ. 123I-methylene blue: an unsatisfactory parathyroid imaging agent. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 1992; 13(7):522–7 [PubMed: 1386657]
55.
Bobanga ID, McHenry CR. Is intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring necessary for primary hyperparathyroidism with concordant preoperative imaging? American Journal of Surgery. 2017; 213(3):484–8 [PubMed: 28017299]
56.
Boggs JE, Irvin GL, III, Molinari AS, Deriso GT, Shaha AR, Watson CG et al. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring as an adjunct to parathyroidectomy. Surgery. 1996; 120(6):954–8 [PubMed: 8957480]
57.
Bonjer HJ, Bruining HA, Valkema R, Lameris JS, de Herder WW, van der Harst E et al. Single radionuclide scintigraphy with 99mtechnetium-sestamibi and ultrasonography in hyperparathyroidism. European Journal of Surgery. 1997; 163(1):27–32 [PubMed: 9116107]
58.
Borel Rinkes IH, Smit PC, Thijssen JH, van Vroonhoven TJ. Peroperative measurement of PTH in the management of primary hyperparathyroidism. Acta Oto-Rhino-Laryngologica Belgica. 2001; 55(2):147–152 [PubMed: 11441473]
59.
Bradford Carter W, Sarfati MR, Fox KA, Patton DD. Preoperative detection of sporadic parathyroid adenomas using technetium-99m-sestamibi: What role in clinical practice? American Surgeon. 1997; 63(4):317–21 [PubMed: 9124749]
60.
Bradley SJ, Knodle KF. Ultrasound based focused neck exploration for primary hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Surgery. 2016; 213(3):452–5 [PubMed: 27939023]
61.
Brennan MF, Doppman JL, Kurdy AG. Assessment of techniques for preoperative parathyroid gland localization in patients undergoing reoperation for hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 1982; 91(1):6–11 [PubMed: 7054909]
62.
Brown SJ, Lee JC, Christie J, Maher R, Sidhu SB, Sywak MS et al. Four-dimensional computed tomography for parathyroid localization: a new imaging modality. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2015; 85(6):483–7 [PubMed: 24674300]
63.
Bugis SP, Berno E, Rusnak CH, Chu D. Technetium-99m-sestamibi scanning before initial neck exploration in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 1995; 252(3):149–52 [PubMed: 7662349]
64.
Bumpous JM, Goldstein RL, Flynn MB. Surgical and calcium outcomes in 427 patients treated prospectively in an image-guided and intraoperative PTH (IOPTH) supplemented protocol for primary hyperparathyroidism: Outcomes and opportunities. Laryngoscope. 2009; 119(2):300–6 [PubMed: 19160424]
65.
Burke JF, Naraharisetty K, Schneider DF, Sippel RS, Chen H. Early-phase technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy can improve preoperative localization in primary hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Surgery. 2013; 205(3):269–73 [PMC free article: PMC3640407] [PubMed: 23351511]
66.
Butt HZ, Husainy MA, Bolia A, London NJ. Ultrasonography alone can reliably locate parathyroid tumours and facilitates minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2015; 97(6):420–4 [PMC free article: PMC5126235] [PubMed: 26274755]
67.
Caixas A, Berna L, Hernandez A, Tebar FJ, Madariaga P, Vegazo O et al. Efficacy of preoperative diagnostic imaging localization of technetium 99m-sestamibi scintigraphy in hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 1997; 121(5):535–541 [PubMed: 9142152]
68.
Cakal E, Cakir E, Dilli A, Colak N, Unsal I, Aslan MS et al. Parathyroid adenoma screening efficacies of different imaging tools and factors affecting the success rates. Clinical Imaging. 2012; 36(6):688–694 [PubMed: 23153996]
69.
Calo PG, Pisano G, Loi G, Medas F, Barca L, Atzeni M et al. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay during focused parathyroidectomy: the importance of 20 minutes measurement. BMC Surgery. 2013; 13:36 [PMC free article: PMC3848580] [PubMed: 24044556]
70.
Calo PG, Pisano G, Loi G, Medas F, Tatti A, Piras S et al. Surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism in patients with preoperatively negative sestamibi scan and discordant imaging studies: The usefulness of intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring. Clinical Medicine Insights: Endocrinology and Diabetes. 2013; 6:63–7 [PMC free article: PMC3825566] [PubMed: 24250241]
71.
Calo PG, Pisano G, Tatti A, Medas F, Boi F, Mariotti S et al. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay during focused parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism: Is it really mandatory? Minerva Chirurgica. 2012; 67(4):337–42 [PubMed: 23022758]
72.
Campbell MJ, Sicuro P, Alseidi A, Blackmore CC, Ryan JA. Two-phase (low-dose) computed tomography is as effective as 4D-CT for identifying enlarged parathyroid glands. International Journal of Surgery. 2015; 14:80–4 [PubMed: 25597235]
73.
Carlier T, Oudoux A, Mirallie E, Seret A, Daumy I, Leux C et al. 99mTc-MIBI pinhole SPECT in primary hyperparathyroidism: Comparison with conventional SPECT, planar scintigraphy and ultrasonography European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2008; 35(3):637–643 [PMC free article: PMC2964350] [PubMed: 17960377]
74.
Carnaille B, Oudar C, Pattou F, Quievreux J, Proye C. Improvements in parathyroid surgery in the intact 1-84 PTH assay era. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 1998; 68(2):112–6 [PubMed: 9494001]
75.
Carneiro-Pla D. Effectiveness of “office”-based, ultrasound-guided differential jugular venous sampling (DJVS) of parathormone in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2009; 146(6):1014–20 [PubMed: 19958928]
76.
Carneiro-Pla DM, Solorzano CC, Irvin IGL. Consequences of targeted parathyroidectomy guided by localization studies without intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2006; 202(5):715–22 [PubMed: 16648010]
77.
Carneiro DM, Solorzano CC, Nader MC, Ramirez M, Irvin IGL, Udelsman R et al. Comparison of intraoperative iPTH assay (QPTH) criteria in guiding parathyroidectomy: Which criterion is the most accurate? Surgery. 2003; 134(6):973–81 [PubMed: 14668730]
78.
Casara D, Rubello D, Pelizzo M, Shapiro B. Clinical role of 99mTcO4/MIBI scan, ultrasound and intra-operative gamma probe in the performance of unilateral and minimally invasive surgery in primary hyperparathyroidism. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2001; 28(9):1351–9 [PubMed: 11585294]
79.
Casas AT, Burke GJ, Mansberger AR, Wei JP. Impact of technetium-99m-sestamibi localization on operative time and success of operations for primary hyperparathyroidism. American Surgeon. 1994; 60(1):12–6; discussion 16–7 [PubMed: 8273968]
80.
Casas AT, Burke GJ, Sathyanarayana, Mansberger AR, Jr, Wei JP. Prospective comparison of technetium-99m-sestamibi/iodine-123 radionuclide scan versus high-resolution ultrasonography for the preoperative localization of abnormal parathyroid glands in patients with previously unoperated primary hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Surgery. 1993; 166(4):369–73 [PubMed: 8214295]
81.
Catania A, Sorrenti S, Falvo L, Santulli M, Berni A, De Antoni E. Validity and limits of intraoperative rapid parathyroid hormone assay in primary hyperparathyroidism treated by traditional and mini-invasive surgery. International Surgery. 2002; 87(4):226–32 [PubMed: 12575805]
82.
Catargi B, Raymond JM, Lafarge-Gense V, Leccia F, Roger P, Tabarin A. Localization of parathyroid tumors using endoscopic ultrasonography in primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation. 1999; 22(9):688–92 [PubMed: 10595832]
83.
Caudle AS, Brier SE, Calvo BF, Hong JK, Meyers MO, Ollila DW. Experienced radio-guided surgery teams can successfully perform minimally invasive radio-guided parathyroidectomy without intraoperative parathyroid hormone assays. American Surgeon. 2006; 72(9):785–9 [PubMed: 16986387]
84.
Caveny SA, Klingensmith WC, 3rd, Martin WE, Sage-El A, McIntyre RC, Jr., Raeburn C et al. Parathyroid imaging: the importance of dual-radiopharmaceutical simultaneous acquisition with 99mTc-sestamibi and 123I. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. 2012; 40(2):104–10 [PubMed: 22566587]
85.
Cayo AK, Sippel RS, Schaefer S, Chen H. Utility of intraoperative PTH for primary hyperparathyroidism due to multigland disease. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2009; 16(12):3450–4 [PubMed: 19760044]
86.
Chadwick D, Kinsman R, Walton P. Fifth national audit report. The British Association of Endocrine & Thyroid Surgeons, 2017. Available from: http://www​.baets.org​.uk/wp-content/uploads​/BAETS-Audit-National-Report-2017.pdf
87.
Cham S, Sepahdari AR, Hall KE, Yeh MW, Harari A. Dynamic parathyroid computed tomography (4dct) facilitates reoperative parathyroidectomy and enables cure of missed hyperplasia. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2015; 22(11):3537–42 [PubMed: 25691276]
88.
Chan RK, Ibrahim SI, Pil P, Tanasijevic M, Moore FD, Jr. Validation of a method to replace frozen section during parathyroid exploration by using the rapid parathyroid hormone assay on parathyroid aspirates. Archives of Surgery. 2005; 140(4):371–3 [PubMed: 15841560]
89.
Chapuis Y, Fulla Y, Bonnichon P, Tarla E, Abboud B, Pitre J et al. Values of ultrasonography, sestamibi scintigraphy, and intraoperative measurement of 1-84 PTH for unilateral neck exploration of primary hyperparathyroidism. World Journal of Surgery. 1996; 20(7):835–40 [PubMed: 8678959]
90.
Chatterton BE, Wycherley AG, Muecke TS, Hoare LL, Malycha P. Thallium-201-technetium-99m subtraction scanning: its value in 50 cases of hyperparathyroidism submitted to surgery. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 1987; 57(5):289–94 [PubMed: 3304252]
91.
Chazen JL, Gupta A, Dunning A, Phillips CD. Diagnostic accuracy of 4D-CT for parathyroid adenomas and hyperplasia. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2012; 33(3):429–33 [PMC free article: PMC7966444] [PubMed: 22135127]
92.
Chen CC, Holder LE, Scovill WA, Tehan AM, Gann DS. Comparison of parathyroid imaging with technetium-99m-pertechnetate/sestamibi subtraction, double-phase technetium-99m-sestamibi and technetium-99m-sestamibi SPECT. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1997; 38(6):834–9 [PubMed: 9189125]
93.
Chen H, Mack E, Starling JR, Irvin GL, III, Clark OH, Prinz RA et al. A comprehensive evaluation of perioperative adjuncts during minimally invasive parathyroidectomy: Which is most reliable? Annals of Surgery. 2005; 242(3):375–83 [PMC free article: PMC1357745] [PubMed: 16135923]
94.
Chen H, Pruhs Z, Starling JR, Mack E. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone testing improves cure rates in patients undergoing minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. Surgery. 2005; 138(4):583–90 [PubMed: 16269285]
95.
Cheung K, Wang TS, Farrokhyar F, Roman SA, Sosa JA. A meta-analysis of preoperative localization techniques for patients with primary hyperparathyroidism Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2012; 19(2):577–83 [PubMed: 21710322]
96.
Chick WK, Tai DKC, Shek ACC, Tang PLF. Use of intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay in primary hyperparathyroidism: A selective approach. Surgical Practice. 2017; 21(1):42–9
97.
Chiu B, Sturgeon C, Angelos P, Talpos GB, Grant CS, Snyder S et al. Which intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay criterion best predicts operative success? A study of 352 consecutive patients. Archives of Surgery. 2006; 141(5):483–8 [PubMed: 16702520]
98.
Cho E, Chang JM, Yoon SY, Lee GT, Ku YH, Kim HI et al. Preoperative localization and intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay in korean patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2014; 29(4):464–9 [PMC free article: PMC4285039] [PubMed: 25325266]
99.
Chou FF, Wang PW, Sheen-Chen SM. Preoperative localisation of parathyroid glands in primary hyperparathyroidism. European Journal of Surgery. 1997; 163(12):889–95 [PubMed: 9449440]
100.
Chun IK, Cheon GJ, Paeng JC, Kang KW, Chung JK, Lee DS. Detection and characterization of parathyroid adenoma/hyperplasia for preoperative localization: Comparison between 11C-Methionine PET/CT and 99mTc-Sestamibi scintigraphy. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2013; 47(3):166–72 [PMC free article: PMC4035189] [PubMed: 24900103]
101.
Ciappuccini R, Morera J, Pascal P, Rame JP, Heutte N, Aide N et al. Dual-phase 99mTc sestamibi scintigraphy with neck and thorax SPECT/CT in primary hyperparathyroidism: A single-institution experience. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2012; 37(3):223–8 [PubMed: 22310246]
102.
Civelek AC, Ozalp E, Donovan P, Udelsman R. Prospective evaluation of delayed technetium-99m sestamibi SPECT scintigraphy for preoperative localization of primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2002; 131(2):149–57 [PubMed: 11854692]
103.
Clark OH, Stark DD, Gooding GAW. Localization procedures in patients requiring reoperation for hyperparathyroidism. World Journal of Surgery. 1984; 8(4):509–21 [PubMed: 6385492]
104.
Clark PB, Case D, Watson NE, Morton KA, Perrier ND. Experienced scintigraphers contribute to success of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy by skilled endocrine surgeons. American Surgeon. 2003; 69(6):478–83; discussion 483–84 [PubMed: 12852504]
105.
Cook GJR, Wong JCH, Smellie WJB, Young AE, Maisey MN, Fogelman I. [11C]Methionine positron emission tomography for patients with persistent or recurrent hyperparathyroidism after surgery. European Journal of Endocrinology. 1998; 139(2):195–7 [PubMed: 9724076]
106.
Cook MR, Pitt SC, Schaefer S, Sippel R, Chen H. A rising IoPTH level immediately after parathyroid resection: Are additional hyperfunctioning glands always present? an application of the wisconsin criteria. Annals of Surgery. 2010; 251(6):1127–30 [PMC free article: PMC4254909] [PubMed: 20485151]
107.
Cunha-Bezerra P, Vieira R, Amaral F, Cartaxo H, Lima T, Montarroyos U et al. Better performance of four-dimension computed tomography as a localization procedure in normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology. 2018; 62(4):493–498 [PubMed: 29656552]
108.
Curtis L, Burns A. Unit costs of health and social care 2017. Canterbury. Personal Social Services Research Unit University of Kent, 2017. Available from: https://www​.pssru.ac​.uk/project-pages/unit-costs​/unit-costs-2017/
109.
Czerniak A, Zwas ST, Shustik O, Avigad I, Ayalon A, Dolev E. The use of radioiodinated toluidine blue for preoperative localization of parathyroid pathology. Surgery. 1991; 110(5):832–8 [PubMed: 1948652]
110.
D’Agostino J, Diana M, Vix M, Nicolau S, Soler L, Bourhala K et al. Three-dimensional metabolic and radiologic gathered evaluation using VR-RENDER fusion: a novel tool to enhance accuracy in the localization of parathyroid adenomas. World Journal of Surgery. 2013; 37(7):1618–25 [PubMed: 23558758]
111.
D’Agostino J, Wall J, Soler L, Vix M, Duh QY, Marescaux J. Virtual neck exploration for parathyroid adenomas: A first step toward minimally invasive image-guided surgery. JAMA Surgery. 2013; 148(3):232–8 [PubMed: 23682370]
112.
Davis DD, Tee MC, Kowal J, Holmes DT, Wiseman SM. Streamlining of intra-operative parathyroid hormone measurements for cure during parathyroidectomy. American Journal of Surgery. 2013; 205(5):597–601 [PubMed: 23592169]
113.
Day KM, Elsayed M, Beland MD, Monchik JM. The utility of 4-dimensional computed tomography for preoperative localization of primary hyperparathyroidism in patients not localized by sestamibi or ultrasonography. Surgery. 2015; 157(3):534–9 [PubMed: 25660183]
114.
De Simone B, Del Rio P, Catena F, Fallani G, Bendinelli C, Napoli JA et al. Preoperative localization of parathyroid adenoma in video-assisted era: is cervical ultrasound or 99mTc Sesta MIBI scintigraphy better? Minerva Chirurgica. 2017; 72(5):375–82 [PubMed: 28465501]
115.
Del Rio P, Cataldo S, Sommaruga L, Arcuri MF, Massa M, Sianesi M. Localization of pathological gland’s site in primary hyperparathyroidism: ten years experience with MIBI scintigraphy. Il Giornale di Chirurgia. 2008; 29(4):186–9 [PubMed: 18419988]
116.
Demirkurek CH, Adalet I, Terzioglu T, Ozarmagan S, Bozbora A, Ozbey N et al. Efficiency of gamma probe and dual-phase Tc-99m sestamibi scintigraphy in surgery for patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2003; 28(3):186–91 [PubMed: 12592124]
117.
Denham DW, Norman J. Cost-effectiveness of preoperative sestamibi scan for primary hyperparathyroidism is dependent solely upon the surgeon’s choice of operative procedure. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 1998; 186(3):293–304 [PubMed: 9510260]
118.
Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2016/2017. Available from: https://improvement​.nhs​.uk/resources/reference-costs/ Last accessed: 17/01/2018.
119.
Derom A, Wallaert P, Janzing H, Van den Brande F, Derom F. Intraoperative identification of parathyroids by means of methylene blue. Acta Chirurgica Belgica. 1994; 94(2):97–100 [PubMed: 8017159]
120.
Derom AF, Wallaert PC, Janzing HM, Derom FE. Intraoperative identification of parathyroid glands with methylene blue infusion. American Journal of Surgery. 1993; 165(3):380–2 [PubMed: 7680546]
121.
Deutmeyer C, Weingarten M, Doyle M, Carneiro-Pla D. Case series of targeted parathyroidectomy with surgeon-performed ultrasonography as the only preoperative imaging study. Surgery. 2011; 150(6):1153–60 [PubMed: 22136835]
122.
Dillavou ED, Jenoff JS, Intenzo CM, Cohn HE. The utility of sestamibi scanning in the operative management of patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2000; 190(5):540–45 [PubMed: 10801020]
123.
Doppman JL, Skarulis MC, Chang R, Alexander HR, Bartlett D, Libutti SK et al. Hypocalcemic stimulation and nonselective venous sampling for localizing parathyroid adenomas: Work in progress. Radiology. 1998; 208(1):145–51 [PubMed: 9646806]
124.
Drews M, Paszkowski J, Stawny B, Banasiewicz T, Hermann J, Meczynski M et al. Comparison of parathyroid gland localization techniques in patients treated due to gland hyperfunction. Polski Przeglad Chirurgiczny. 2003; 75(9):821–8
125.
Dudek MK, Jenkins BJ, Goode AW, Newell MS, Boucher BJ. The accuracy of conventional and three-dimensional thallium-technetium scans in patients with hyperparathyroidism resulting from multiglandular hyperplasia. British Journal of Radiology. 1994; 67(796):325–7 [PubMed: 8173869]
126.
Dunlop DAB, Papapoulos SE, Lodge RW. Parathyroid venous sampling: anatomic considerations and results in 95 patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. British Journal of Radiology. 1980; 53(627):183–91 [PubMed: 7378673]
127.
Dwarakanathan AA, Saclarides TJ, Witt TR. The role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery Gynecology and Obstetrics. 1986; 163(6):504–8 [PubMed: 3538453]
128.
Dy BM, Richards ML, Vazquez BJ, Thompson GB, Farley DR, Grant CS. Primary hyperparathyroidism and negative Tc99 sestamibi imaging: To operate or not? Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2012; 19(7):2272–8 [PubMed: 22437201]
129.
Ebisuno S, Inagaki T, Yoshida T, Yamamoto M, Tabuse Y, Kohjimoto Y et al. Preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas using 99mTc-MIBI scintigraphy in patients with hyperparathyroidism. International Journal of Urology. 1997; 4(2):126–9 [PubMed: 9179683]
130.
Eichhorn-Wharry LI, Carlin AM, Talpos GB. Mild hypercalcemia: An indication to select 4-dimensional computed tomography scan for preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas. American Journal of Surgery. 2011; 201(3):334–8 [PubMed: 21367374]
131.
Eisenberg H, Pallotta J, Sherwood LM. Selective arteriography, venography and venous hormone assay in diagnosis and localization of parathyroid lesions. American Journal of Medicine. 1974; 56(6):810–20 [PubMed: 4831318]
132.
Elaraj DM, Sippel RS, Lindsay S, Sansano I, Duh QY, Clark OH et al. Are additional localization studies and referral indicated for patients with primary hyperparathyroidism who have negative sestamibi scan results? Archives of Surgery. 2010; 145(6):578–81 [PubMed: 20566979]
133.
Eloy JA, Mitty H, Genden EM. Preoperative selective venous sampling for nonlocalizing parathyroid adenomas. Thyroid. 2006; 16(8):787–90 [PubMed: 16910882]
134.
Emmolo I, Dal Corso H, Borretta G, Visconti G, Piovesan A, Cesario F et al. Unexpected results using rapid intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring during parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism. World Journal of Surgery. 2005; 29(6):785–8 [PubMed: 15883666]
135.
Erdman WA, Breslau NA, Weinreb JC, Weatherall P, Setiawan H, Harrell R et al. Noninvasive localization of parathyroid adenomas: A comparison of X-ray computerized tomography, ultrasound, scintigraphy and MRI. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1989; 7(2):187–94 [PubMed: 2541298]
136.
Ersoy R, Ersoy O, Evranos Ogmen B, Polat SB, Kilic M, Yildirim N et al. Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasonography for preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas. Endocrine. 2014; 47(1):221–6 [PubMed: 24415171]
137.
Estella E, Leong MSZ, Bennett I, Hartley L, Wetzig N, Archibald CA et al. Parathyroid hormone venous sampling prior to reoperation for primary hyperparathyroidism. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2003; 73(10):800–5 [PubMed: 14525570]
138.
Ezzat AHH, El. Baradie T, Attia A, Kotb M, Zaher A, Gouda I. Surgical management of primary hyperparathyroidism guided by double-phase Tc-99m-MIBI scintigraphy. Chinese-German Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2012; 11(1):24–32
139.
Ezzat WF, Fathey H, Fawaz S, El-Ashri A, Youssef T, Othman HB. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone as an indicator for parathyroid gland preservation in thyroid surgery. Swiss Medical Weekly. 2011; 141:w13299 [PubMed: 22065276]
140.
Fayet P, Hoeffel C, Fulla Y, Legmann P, Hazebroucq V, Luton JP et al. Technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy, magnetic resonance imaging and venous blood sampling in persistent and recurrent hyperparathyroidism. British Journal of Radiology. 1997; 70(833):459–64 [PubMed: 9227226]
141.
Feingold DL, Alexander HR, Chen CC, Libutti SK, Shawker TH, Simonds WF et al. Ultrasound and sestamibi scan as the only preoperative imaging tests in reoperation for parathyroid adenomas. Surgery. 2000; 128(6):1103–10 [PubMed: 11114649]
142.
Fogelman I, McKillop JH, Bessent RG. Successful localisation of parathyroid adenomata by thallium-201 and technetium-99m substraction scintigraphy: Description of an improved technique. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1984; 9(12):545–7 [PubMed: 6396096]
143.
Foster GS, Bekerman C, Blend MJ, Byrom E, Pinsky SM. Preoperative imaging in primary hyperparathyroidism. Role of thallium-technetium subtraction scintigraphy. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 1989; 115(10):1197–202 [PubMed: 2551344]
144.
Frank SJ, Goldman-Yassen AE, Koenigsberg T, Libutti SK, Koenigsberg M. Sensitivity of 3-dimensional sonography in preoperative evaluation of parathyroid glands in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2017; 36(9):1897–1904 [PubMed: 28543268]
145.
Freudenberg LS, Frilling A, Sheu SY, Gorges R. Optimizing preoperative imaging in primary hyperparathyroidism. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2006; 391(6):551–6 [PubMed: 16927111]
146.
Gallacher SJ, Kelly P, Shand J, Logue FC, Cooke T, Boyle IT et al. A comparison of 10 MHz ultrasound and 201-thallium/99m-technetium subtraction scanning in primary hyperparathyroidism. Postgraduate Medical Journal. 1993; 69(811):376–80 [PMC free article: PMC2399814] [PubMed: 8346133]
147.
Gallowitsch HJ, Mikosch P, Kresnik E, Gomez I, Lind P. Technetium 99m tetrofosmin parathyroid imaging: Results with double-phase study and SPECT in primary and secondary hyperparathyroidism. Investigative Radiology. 1997; 32(8):459–65 [PubMed: 9258734]
148.
Gallowitsch HJ, Mikosch P, Kresnik E, Unterweger O, Lind P. Comparison between 99mTc-tetrofosmin/pertechnetate subtraction scintigraphy and 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT for preoperative localization of parathyroid adenoma in an endemic goiter area. Investigative Radiology. 2000; 35(8):453–9 [PubMed: 10946972]
149.
Garcia-Santos EP, Martin-Fernandez J, Gil-Rendo A, Menchen-Trujillo B, Martinez de Paz F, Manzanares-Campillo MC et al. Rapid intraoperative determination of intact parathyroid hormone during surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. Experience at our center. Endocrinologia y Nutricion. 2014; 61(1):3–8 [PubMed: 23910639]
150.
Garcia-Talavera P, Diaz-Soto G, Montes AA, Villanueva JG, Cobo A, Gamazo C et al. Contribution of early SPECT/CT to 99mTc-MIBI double phase scintigraphy in primary hyperparathyroidism: Diagnostic value and correlation between uptake and biological parameters. Revista Espanola de Medicina Nuclear e Imagen Molecular. 2016; 35(6):351–7 [PubMed: 27132216]
151.
Garcia-Talavera P, Garcia-Talavera JR, Gonzalez C, Martin E, Martin M, Gomez A. Efficacy of in-vivo counting in parathyroid radioguided surgery and usefulness of its association with scintigraphy and intraoperative PTHi. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2011; 32(9):847–52 [PubMed: 21760559]
152.
Garcia-Talavera P, Gonzalez C, Garcia-Talavera JR, Martin E, Martin M, Gomez A. Radioguided surgery of primary hyperparathyroidism in a population with a high prevalence of thyroid pathology. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2010; 37(11):2060–7 [PubMed: 20428867]
153.
Garner SC, Leight GS, Jr. Initial experience with intraoperative PTH determinations in the surgical management of 130 consecutive cases of primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 1999; 126(6):1132–8 [PubMed: 10598198]
154.
Gauger PG, Agarwal G, England BG, Delbridge LW, Matz KA, Wilkinson M et al. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring fails to detect double parathyroid adenomas: A 2-institution experience. Surgery. 2001; 130(6):1005–10 [PubMed: 11742330]
155.
Gawande AA, Monchik JM, Abbruzzese TA, Iannuccilli JD, Ibrahim SI, Moore FD, Jr et al. Reassessment of parathyroid hormone monitoring during parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism after 2 preoperative localization studies. Archives of Surgery. 2006; 141(4):381–4 [PubMed: 16618896]
156.
Gedik GK, Sari O. Influence of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) reconstruction algorithm on diagnostic accuracy of parathyroid scintigraphy: Comparison of iterative reconstruction with filtered backprojection. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 2017; 145(4):479–87 [PMC free article: PMC5663161] [PubMed: 28862179]
157.
Gergel M, Brychta I, Vician M, Olejnik J. Primary hyperparathyreosis: is concordant sonography and scintigraphy really so important? Bratislavske Lekarske Listy. 2014; 115(10):649–52 [PubMed: 25573733]
158.
Ghemigian A, Buruiana A, Olaru M, Dumitru N, Goldstein A, Hortopan D et al. Parathyroid adenoma imaging-preoperative localization. ARS Medica Tomitana. 2015; 21(3):116–23
159.
Gil-Cardenas A, Gamino R, Reza A, Pantoja JP, Herrera MF. Is intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay mandatory for the success of targeted parathyroidectomy? Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2007; 204(2):286–90 [PubMed: 17254933]
160.
Gilat H, Cohen M, Feinmesser R, Benzion J, Shvero J, Segal K et al. Minimally invasive procedure for resection of a parathyroid adenoma: The role of preoperative high-resolution ultrasonography. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound. 2005; 33(6):283–7 [PubMed: 16134156]
161.
Gill MT, Dean M, Karr J, Aultman DF, Nathan CO. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay: a necessary tool for multiglandular disease. Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery. 2011; 144(5):691–7 [PubMed: 21493339]
162.
Gimm O, Arnesson LG, Olofsson P, Morales O, Juhlin C. Super-selective venous sampling in conjunction with quickPTH for patients with persistent primary hyperparathyroidism: Report of five cases. Surgery Today. 2012; 42(6):570–6 [PubMed: 22278617]
163.
Giraldez-Rodriguez LA, Giraldez-Casasnovas LJ. Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy as treatment for primary hyperparathyroidism. Boletin de la Asociacion Medica de Puerto Rico. 2008; 100(1):27–32 [PubMed: 18763394]
164.
Glynn N, Lynn N, Donagh C, Crowley RK, Smith D, Thompson CJ et al. The utility of 99mTc-sestamibi scintigraphy in the localisation of parathyroid adenomas in primary hyperparathyroidism. Irish Journal of Medical Science. 2011; 180(1):191–4 [PubMed: 21076888]
165.
Gofrit ON, Lebensart PD, Pikarsky A, Lackstein D, Gross DJ, Shiloni E. High-resolution ultrasonography: Highly sensitive, specific technique for preoperative localization of parathyroid adenoma in the absence of multinodular thyroid disease. World Journal of Surgery. 1997; 21(3):287–91 [PubMed: 9015172]
166.
Gogas J, Kouskos E, Mantas D, Markopoulos C, Kyriaki D, Tseleni-Balafouta S et al. Pre-operative Tc-99m-sestamibi scanning and intra-operative nuclear mapping : Are they accurate in localizing parathyroid adenomas? Acta Chirurgica Belgica. 2003; 103(6):626–30 [PubMed: 14743573]
167.
Goldstein RE, Carter IWM, Fleming M, Bumpous J, Lentsch E, Rice M et al. Unilateral cervical surgical exploration aided by intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and equivocal sestamibi scan results. Archives of Surgery. 2006; 141(6):552–7 [PubMed: 16785355]
168.
Gooding GA, Okerlund MD, Stark DD, Clark OH. Parathyroid imaging: comparison of double-tracer (T1-201, Tc-99m) scintigraphy and high-resolution US. Radiology. 1986; 161(1):57–64 [PubMed: 3020610]
169.
Grant CS, Thompson G, Farley D, Van Heerden J, Prinz R, Ryan J et al. Primary hyperparathyroidism surgical management since the introduction of minimally invasive parathyroidectorny: Mayo clinic experience. Archives of Surgery. 2005; 140(5):472–9 [PubMed: 15897443]
170.
Grayev AM, Gentry LR, Hartman MJ, Chen H, Perlman SB, Reeder SB. Presurgical localization of parathyroid adenomas with magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T: An adjunct method to supplement traditional imaging. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2012; 19(3):981–9 [PubMed: 21879264]
171.
Griffith B, Chaudhary H, Mahmood G, Carlin AM, Peterson E, Singer M et al. Accuracy of 2-phase parathyroid CT for the preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas in primary hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2015; 36(12):2373–9 [PMC free article: PMC7964260] [PubMed: 26359149]
172.
Gross ND, Weissman JL, Veenker E, Cohen JI. The diagnostic utility of computed tomography for preoperative localization in surgery for hyperparathyroidism. Laryngoscope. 2004; 114(2):227–31 [PubMed: 14755195]
173.
Grosso I, Sargiotto A, D’Amelio P, Tamone C, Gasparri G, De Filippi PG et al. Preoperative localization of parathyroid adenoma with sonography and 99mTc-sestamibi scintigraphy in primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound. 2007; 35(4):186–90 [PubMed: 17354248]
174.
Guerin C, Lowery A, Gabriel S, Castinetti F, Philippon M, Vaillant-Lombard J et al. Preoperative imaging for focused parathyroidectomy: Making a good strategy even better. European Journal of Endocrinology. 2015; 172(5):519–26 [PubMed: 25637075]
175.
Haber RS, Kim CK, Inabnet WB. Ultrasonography for preoperative localization of enlarged parathyroid glands in primary hyperparathyroidism: comparison with 99mtechnetium sestamibi scintigraphy Clinical Endocrinology. 2002; 57(2):241–9 [PubMed: 12153604]
176.
Habibollahi P, Shin B, Shamchi SP, Wachtel H, Fraker DL, Trerotola SO. Eleven-year retrospective report of super-selective venous sampling for the evaluation of recurrent or persistent hyperparathyroidism in 32 patients. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. 2018; 41(1):63–72 [PubMed: 28770313]
177.
Haciyanli M, Lal G, Morita E, Duh QY, Kebebew E, Clark OH. Accuracy of preoperative localization studies and intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and double adenoma. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2003; 197(5):739–46 [PubMed: 14585407]
178.
Halvorson DJ, Burke GJ, Mansberger AR, Jr, Wei JP. Use of technetium Tc 99m sestamibi and iodine 123 radionuclide scan for preoperative localization of abnormal parathyroid glands in primary hyperparathyroidism. Southern Medical Journal. 1994; 87(3):336–9 [PubMed: 8134854]
179.
Hamamci EO, Piyade R, Bostanoglu S, Sakcak I, Avsar MF, Cosgu E. Preoperative localization in primary hyperparathyroidism surgery. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences. 2011; 31(3):686–90
180.
Hamidi M, Sullivan M, Hunter G, Hamberg L, Cho NL, Gawande AA et al. 4D-CT is superior to ultrasound and sestamibi for localizing recurrent parathyroid disease. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2018; 25(5):1403–1409 [PubMed: 29484563]
181.
Hamilton R, Greenberg BM, Gefter W, Kressel H, Spritzer C. Successful localization of parathyroid adenomas by magnetic resonance imaging. American Journal of Surgery. 1988; 155(3):370–3 [PubMed: 3344895]
182.
Hammonds JC, Williams JL, Harvey L. Primary hyperparathyroidism - a review of cases in the Sheffield area. British Journal of Urology. 1976; 48(7):539–48 [PubMed: 1016827]
183.
Hanif F, Coffey JC, Romics L, Jr, O’Sullivan K, Aftab F, Redmond HP. Rapid intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay - More than just a comfort measure. World Journal of Surgery. 2006; 30(2):156–61 [PubMed: 16425080]
184.
Hanninen EL, Vogl TJ, Steinmuller T, Ricke J, Neuhaus P, Felix R. Preoperative contrast-enhanced MRI of the parathyroid glands in hyperparathyroidism. Investigative Radiology. 2000; 35(7):426–30 [PubMed: 10901104]
185.
Hara N, Takayama T, Onoguchi M, Obane N, Miyati T, Yoshioka T et al. Subtraction SPECT for parathyroid scintigraphy based on maximization of mutual information. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. 2007; 35(2):84–90 [PubMed: 17496009]
186.
Harris L, Yoo J, Driedger A, Fung K, Franklin J, Gray D et al. Accuracy of technetium-99M SPECT-CT hybrid images in predicting the precise intraoperative anatomical location of parathyroid adenomas. Head and Neck. 2008; 30(4):509–17 [PubMed: 18059012]
187.
Hasselgren PO, Fidler JP. Further evidence against the routine use of parathyroid ultrasonography prior to initial neck exploration for hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Surgery. 1992; 164(4):337–40 [PubMed: 1415940]
188.
Hassler S, Ben-Sellem D, Hubele F, Constantinesco A, Goetz C. Dual-isotope 99mTc-MIBI/123I parathyroid scintigraphy in primary hyperparathyroidism: comparison of subtraction SPECT/CT and pinhole planar scan. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2014; 39(1):32–6 [PubMed: 24152647]
189.
Hathaway TD, Jones G, Stechman M, Scott-Coombes D. The value of intraoperative PTH measurements in patients with mild primary hyperparathyroidism. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2013; 398(5):723–7 [PubMed: 23620125]
190.
Hayakawa N, Nakamoto Y, Kurihara K, Yasoda A, Kanamoto N, Miura M et al. A comparison between 11C-methionine PET/CT and MIBI SPECT/CT for localization of parathyroid adenomas/hyperplasia. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2015; 36(1):53–59 [PubMed: 25244350]
191.
Heiba SI, Jiang M, Rivera J, Genden E, Inabnet W, Machac J et al. Direct comparison of neck pinhole dual-tracer and dual-phase MIBI accuracies with and without SPECT/CT for parathyroid adenoma detection and localization. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2015; 40(6):476–82 [PubMed: 25783516]
192.
Heineman TE, Kutler DI, Cohen MA, Kuhel WI. Is Intraoperative Parathyroid Hormone Monitoring Warranted in Cases of 4D-CT/Ultrasound Localized Single Adenomas? Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery. 2015; 153(2):183–8 [PubMed: 26124265]
193.
Heizmann O, Viehl CT, Schmid R, Muller-Brand J, Muller B, Oertli D. Impact of concomitant thyroid pathology on preoperative workup for primary hyperparathyroidism. European Journal of Medical Research. 2009; 14(1):37–41 [PMC free article: PMC3352203] [PubMed: 19258209]
194.
Heller KS, Attie JN, Dubner S. Parathyroid localization: Inability to predict multiple gland involvement. American Journal of Surgery. 1993; 166(4):357–9 [PubMed: 8214292]
195.
Hewin DF, Brammar TJ, Kabala J, Farndon JR. Role of preoperative localization in the management of primary hyperparathyroidism. British Journal of Surgery. 1997; 84(10):1377–80 [PubMed: 9361592]
196.
Hiebert J, Hague C, Hou S, Wiseman SM. Dual energy computed tomography should be a first line preoperative localization imaging test for primary hyperparathyroidism patients. American Journal of Surgery. 2018; 215(5):788–792 [PubMed: 29352568]
197.
Hindie E, Melliere D, Jeanguillaume C, Perlemuter L, Chehade F, Galle P. Parathyroid imaging using simultaneous double-window recording of technetium-99m-sestamibi and iodine-123. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1998; 39(6):1100–5 [PubMed: 9627353]
198.
Hindie E, Melliere D, Perlemuter L, Jeanguillaume C, Galle P. Primary hyperparathyroidism: Higher success rate of first surgery after preoperative Tc-99m sestamibi-I-123 subtraction scanning. Radiology. 1997; 204(1):221–8 [PubMed: 9205251]
199.
Hindie E, Melliere D, Simon D, Perlemuter L, Galle P. Primary hyperparathyroidism: Is technetium 99m-Sestamibi/iodine-123 subtraction scanning the best procedure to locate enlarged glands before surgery? Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 1995; 80(1):302–7 [PubMed: 7829631]
200.
Hinson AM, Lee DR, Hobbs BA, Fitzgerald RT, Bodenner DL, Stack BC, Jr. Preoperative 4D CT localization of nonlocalizing parathyroid adenomas by ultrasound and SPECT-CT. Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery. 2015; 153(5):775–8 [PubMed: 26248963]
201.
Hjern B, Almqvist S, Granberg PO, Lindvall N, Wasthed B. Pre operative localization of parathyroid tissue by selective neck vein catheterization and radioimmunoassay of parathyroid hormone. Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica. 1975; 141(1):31–9 [PubMed: 1168393]
202.
Ho Shon IA, Roach PJ, Bernard EJ, Delbridge LW. Optimal pinhole techniques for preoperative localization with tc-99m MIBI for primary hyperparathyroidism. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2001; 26(12):1002–9 [PubMed: 11711701]
203.
Ho Shon IA, Yan W, Roach PJ, Bernard EJ, Shields M, Sywak M et al. Comparison of pinhole and SPECT 99mTc-MIBI imaging in primary hyperparathyroidism. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2008; 29(11):949–55 [PubMed: 18836372]
204.
Hoda NE, Phillips P, Ahmed N. Recommendations after non-localizing sestamibi and ultrasound scans in primary hyperparathyroid disease: order more scans or explore surgically? Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association. 2013; 54(2):36–41 [PubMed: 23865291]
205.
Horanyi J, Duffek L, Szlavik R, Takacs I, Toth M, Romics L, Jr. Intraoperative determination of pth concentrations in fine needle tissue aspirates to identify parathyroid tissue during parathyroidectomy. World Journal of Surgery. 2010; 34(3):538–43 [PubMed: 20052470]
206.
Hornung M, Jung EM, Stroszczynski C, Schlitt HJ, Agha A. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) using early dynamic in microcirculation for localization of pathological parathyroid glands: First-line or complimentary diagnostic modality? Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation. 2011; 49(1–4):83–90 [PubMed: 22214680]
207.
Hughes DT, Miller BS, Doherty GM, Gauger PG. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring in patients with recognized multiglandular primary hyperparathyroidism. World Journal of Surgery. 2011; 35(2):336–41 [PubMed: 21153816]
208.
Hunter GJ, Schellingerhout D, Vu TH, Perrier ND, Hamberg LM. Accuracy of four-dimensional CT for the localization of abnormal parathyroid glands in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Radiology. 2012; 264(3):789–95 [PubMed: 22798226]
209.
Hwang RS, Morris LF, Ro K, Park S, Ituarte PHG, Hong JC et al. A selective, bayesian approach to intraoperative PTH monitoring. Annals of Surgery. 2010; 251(6):1122–6 [PubMed: 20485138]
210.
Iacobone M, Scarpa M, Lumachi F, Favia G, Grant C, Rosen IB et al. Are frozen sections useful and cost-effective in the era of intraoperative qPTH assays?. Surgery. 2005; 138(6):1159–65 [PubMed: 16360404]
211.
Ibraheem K, Toraih EA, Haddad AB, Farag M, Randolph GW, Kandil E. Selective parathyroid venous sampling in primary hyperparathyroidism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope. 2018; Epublication [PubMed: 29756350]
212.
Ibrahim EAG, Elsadawy ME. Combined Tc-99m sesta MIBI scin tigraphy and Ultrasonography in preoperative detection and localization of parathyroid adenoma. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2015; 46(4):937–41
213.
Ikuno M, Yamada T, Shinjo Y, Morimoto T, Kumano R, Yagihashi K et al. Selective venous sampling supports localization of adenoma in primary hyperparathyroidism. Acta Radiologica Open. 2018; 7(2):1–9 [PMC free article: PMC5833180] [PubMed: 29511573]
214.
Inabnet WB, Fulla Y, Richard B, Bonnichon P, Icard P, Chapuis Y. Unilateral neck exploration under local anesthesia: The approach of choice of asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 1999; 126(6):1004–10 [PubMed: 10598180]
215.
Irvin GL, III, Dembrow VD, Prudhomme DL, Proye C, Thomas CG, Jr, Gaz RD et al. Clinical usefulness of an intraoperative ‘quick parathyroid hormone’ assay. Surgery. 1993; 114(6):1019–23 [PubMed: 8256205]
216.
Irvin GL, III, Prudhomme DL, Deriso GT, Sfakianakis G, Chandarlapaty SKC. A new approach to parathyroidectomy. Annals of Surgery. 1994; 219(5):574–81 [PMC free article: PMC1243192] [PubMed: 8185406]
217.
Isidori AM, Cantisani V, Giannetta E, Diacinti D, David E, Forte V et al. Multiparametric ultrasonography and ultrasound elastographyin the differentiation of parathyroid lesions from ectopicthyroid lesions or lymphadenopathies. Endocrine. 2017; 57(2):335–43 [PubMed: 27709473]
218.
Ito F, Sippel R, Lederman J, Chen H. The utility of intraoperative bilateral internal jugular venous sampling with rapid parathyroid hormone testing. Annals of Surgery. 2007; 245(6):959–63 [PMC free article: PMC1876969] [PubMed: 17522522]
219.
Itoh K, Ishizuka R. Tc-99m-MIBI scintigraphy for recurrent hyperparathyroidism after total parathyroidectomy with autograft. Annals of Nuclear Medicine. 2003; 17(4):315–20 [PubMed: 12932116]
220.
Jabiev AA, Lew JI, Solorzano CC. Surgeon-performed ultrasound: A single institution experience in parathyroid localization. Surgery. 2009; 146(4):569–77 [PubMed: 19789014]
221.
James BC, Nagar S, Tracy M, Kaplan EL, Angelos P, Scherberg NH et al. A novel, ultrarapid parathyroid hormone assay to distinguish parathyroid from nonparathyroid tissue. Surgery. 2014; 156(6):1638–43 [PubMed: 25456968]
222.
Jarhult J, Kristoffersson A, Lundstrom B, Oberg L. Comparison of ultrasonography and computed tomography in preoperative location of parathyroid adenomas. Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica. 1985; 151(7):583–7 [PubMed: 3911701]
223.
Jaskowiak N, Norton JA, Richard Alexander H, Doppman JL, Shawker T, Skarulis M et al. A prospective trial evaluating a standard approach to reoperation for missed parathyroid adenoma. Annals of Surgery. 1996; 224(3):308–22 [PMC free article: PMC1235372] [PubMed: 8813259]
224.
Jaskowiak NT, Sugg SL, Helke J, Koka MR, Kaplan EL. Pitfalls of intraoperative quick parathyroid hormone monitoring and gamma probe localization in surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. Archives of Surgery. 2002; 137(6):659–69 [PubMed: 12049536]
225.
Javaid A, Arfaj AA. Technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy and bone densitometry in primary hyperparathyroidism. Endocrine Practice. 1999; 5(4):169–73 [PubMed: 15251670]
226.
Johnson LR, Doherty G, Lairmore T, Moley JF, Brunt LM, Koenig J et al. Evaluation of the performance and clinical impact of a rapid intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay in conjunction with preoperative imaging and concise parathyroidectomy. Clinical Chemistry. 2001; 47(5):919–25 [PubMed: 11325897]
227.
Johnson NA, Yip L, Tublin ME. Cystic parathyroid adenoma: sonographic features and correlation with 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT findings. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2010; 195(6):1385–90 [PubMed: 21098199]
228.
Johnston LB, Carroll MJ, Britton KE, Lowe DG, Shand W, Besser GM et al. The accuracy of parathyroid gland localization in primary hyperparathyroidism using sestamibi radionuclide imaging. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 1996; 81(1):346–52 [PubMed: 8550776]
229.
Joliat GR, Demartines N, Portmann L, Boubaker A, Matter M. Successful minimally invasive surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism: influence of preoperative imaging and intraoperative parathyroid hormone levels. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2015; 400(8):937–44 [PubMed: 26590819]
230.
Jones JJ, Brunaud L, Dowd CF, Duh QY, Morita E, Clark OH. Accuracy of selective venous sampling for intact parathyroid hormone in difficult patients with recurrent or persistent hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2002; 132(6):944–51 [PubMed: 12490840]
231.
Jones JM, Russell CFJ, Ferguson WR, Laird JD. Pre-operative sestamibi-technetium subtraction scintigraphy in primary hyperparathyroidism: Experience with 156 consecutive patients. Clinical Radiology. 2001; 56(7):556–9 [PubMed: 11446753]
232.
Jorna FH, Jager PL, Que TH, Lemstra C, Plukker JT. Value of 123I-subtraction and single-photon emission computed tomography in addition to planar 99mTc-MIBI scintigraphy before parathyroid surgery. Surgery Today. 2007; 37(12):1033–41 [PubMed: 18030562]
233.
Kairaluoma MV, Kellosalo J, Makarainen H, Haukipuro K, Kairaluoma MI. Parathyroid re-exploration in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Annales Chirurgiae et Gynaecologiae. 1994; 83(3):202–6 [PubMed: 7857064]
234.
Kairaluoma MV, Kellosalo J, Mäkäräinen H, Haukipuro K, Kairaluoma MI. Cost effectiveness of preoperative ultrasound in primary parathyroid surgery. Annales Chirurgiae et Gynaecologiae. 1994; 83(4):279–83 [PubMed: 7733610]
235.
Kairaluoma MV, Makarainen H, Kellosalo J, Haukipuro K, Pirttiaho H, Kairaluoma MI. Preoperative ultrasound in patients undergoing initial neck exploration for primary hyperparathyroidism. Annales Chirurgiae et Gynaecologiae. 1993; 82(3):171–6 [PubMed: 8285571]
236.
Kairys JC, Daskalakis C, Weigel RJ. Surgeon-performed ultrasound for preoperative localization of abnormal parathyroid glands in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. World Journal of Surgery. 2006; 30(9):1658–63 [PubMed: 16855801]
237.
Kandil E, Malazai AJ, Alrasheedi S, Tufano RP. Minimally invasive/focused parathyroidectomy in patients with negative sestamibi scan results. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2012; 138(3):223–5 [PubMed: 22351855]
238.
Kang YS, Rosen K, Clark OH, Higgins CB. Localization of abnormal parathyroid glands of the mediastinum with MR imaging. Radiology. 1993; 189(1):137–41 [PubMed: 8372183]
239.
Karakas E, Kann S, Hoffken H, Bartsch DK, Celik I, Gorg C et al. Does contrast-enhanced cervical ultrasonography improve preoperative localization results in patients with sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism? Journal of Clinical Imaging Science. 2012; 2:64 [PMC free article: PMC3515932] [PubMed: 23230546]
240.
Katayama Y, Katagiri A, Saito K, Obara K, Komeyama T, Sato S et al. Localizing methods of primary hyperparathyroidism and those results. Japanese Journal of Urology. 1990; 81(5):707–12 [PubMed: 2198372]
241.
Kaur P, Gattani R, Singhal AA, Sarin D, Arora SK, Mithal A. Impact of preoperative imaging on surgical approach for primary hyperparathyroidism: Data from single institution in India. Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2016; 20(5):625–30 [PMC free article: PMC5040041] [PubMed: 27730071]
242.
Keane DF, Roberts G, Smith R, Martin J, Peacey S, Bem C et al. Planar parathyroid localization scintigraphy: A comparison of subtraction and 1-, 2- and 3-h washout protocols. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2013; 34(6):582–9 [PubMed: 23531879]
243.
Kebapci M, Entok E, Kebapci N, Adapinar B. Preoperative evaluation of parathyroid lesions in patients with concomitant thyroid disease: Role of high resolution ultrasonography and dual phase technetium 99m sestamibi scintigraphy. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation. 2004; 27(1):24–30 [PubMed: 15053239]
244.
Keidar Z, Solomonov E, Karry R, Frenkel A, Israel O, Mekel M. Preoperative [99mTc]MIBI SPECT/CT interpretation criteria for localization of parathyroid adenomas-correlation with surgical findings. Molecular Imaging and Biology. 2017; 19(2):265–70 [PubMed: 27704321]
245.
Kelly HR, Hamberg LM, Hunter GJ. 4D-CT for preoperative localization of abnormal parathyroid glands in patients with hyperparathyroidism: Accuracy and ability to stratify patients by unilateral versus bilateral disease in surgery-naive and re-exploration patients. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2014; 35(1):176–81 [PMC free article: PMC7966477] [PubMed: 23868155]
246.
Khaliq T, Khawar A, Shah SA, Mehboob A, Farooqui A. Unilateral exploration for primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. 2003; 13(10):588–91 [PubMed: 14588175]
247.
Khan A, Samtani S, Varma VM, Frost A, Cohen J. Preoperative parathyroid localization: Prospective evaluation of technetium 99m sestamibi. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 1994; 111(4):467–72 [PubMed: 7936680]
248.
Khan AA, Khatun Y, Walker A, Jimeno J, Hubbard JG. Role of intraoperative PTH monitoring and surgical approach in primary hyperparathyroidism. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2015; 4(3):301–5 [PMC free article: PMC4556812] [PubMed: 26468374]
249.
Khorasani N, Mohammadi A. Effective factors on the sensitivity of preoperative sestamibi scanning for primary hyperparathyroidism. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2014; 7(9):2639–44 [PMC free article: PMC4211770] [PubMed: 25356120]
250.
Kim HG, Kim WY, Woo SU, Lee JB, Lee YM. Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy with or without intraoperative parathyroid hormone for primary hyperparathyroidism. Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research. 2015; 89(3):111–6 [PMC free article: PMC4559612] [PubMed: 26366379]
251.
Kim WW, Rhee Y, Ban EJ, Lee CR, Kang SW, Jeong JJ et al. Is focused parathyroidectomy appropriate for patients with primary hyperparathyroidism? Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research. 2016; 91(3):97–103 [PMC free article: PMC5016607] [PubMed: 27617249]
252.
Kim YI, Jung YH, Hwang KT, Lee HY. Efficacy of 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT for minimally invasive parathyroidectomy: comparative study with 99mTc-sestamibi scintigraphy, SPECT, US and CT. Annals of Nuclear Medicine. 2012; 26(10):804–10 [PubMed: 22875576]
253.
Klieger P, O’Mara R. The diagnostic utility of dual phase Tc-99m sestamibi parathyroid imaging. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 1998; 23(4):208–11 [PubMed: 9554190]
254.
Kluijfhout WP, Pasternak JD, Beninato T, Drake FT, Gosnell JE, Shen WT et al. Diagnostic performance of computed tomography for parathyroid adenoma localization; a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Radiology. 2017; 88:117–128 [PubMed: 28189196]
255.
Kluijfhout WP, Venkatesh S, Beninato T, Vriens MR, Duh QY, Wilson DM et al. Performance of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of first-time and reoperative primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2016; 160(3):747–54 [PubMed: 27318765]
256.
Kobayashi T, Asakawa H, Komoike Y, Nakano Y, Tamaki Y, Monden M. Identification of pathologic parathyroid glands in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery Today. 1998; 28(6):604–7 [PubMed: 9681609]
257.
Koberstein W, Fung C, Romaniuk K, Abele JT. Accuracy of dual phase single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography in primary hyperparathyroidism: Correlation with serum parathyroid hormone levels. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. 2016; 67(2):115–21 [PubMed: 26687323]
258.
Koksal H, Kurukahvecioglu O, Yazicioglu MO, Taneri F. Primary hyperparathyroidism due to parathyroid adenoma. Saudi Medical Journal. 2006; 27(7):1034–7 [PubMed: 16830026]
259.
Koong HN, Choong LH, Soo KC. The role for preoperative localisation techniques in surgery for hyperparathyroidism. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. 1998; 27(2):192–5 [PubMed: 9663308]
260.
Koren I, Shpitzer T, Morgenshtern S, Shvero J. Lateral minimal parathyroidectomy: Safety and cosmetic benefits. American Journal of Otolaryngology. 2005; 26(2):83–6 [PubMed: 15742258]
261.
Kovatcheva R, Vlahov J, Stoinov J, Lacoste F, Ortuno C, Zaletel K. US-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound as a promising non-invasive method for treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism. European Radiology. 2014; 24(9):2052–8 [PubMed: 24895038]
262.
Koyuncu A, Dokmetas HS, Aydin C, Turan M, Erselcan T, Sozeri S et al. Surgical management strategies in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: Which technique in which patients? Medical Principles and Practice. 2005; 14(3):194–8 [PubMed: 15863995]
263.
Krakauer M, Wieslander B, Myschetzky PS, Lundstrom A, Bacher T, Sorensen CH et al. A prospective comparative study of parathyroid dual-phase scintigraphy, dual-isotope inftraction scintigraphy, 4d-ct, and ultrasonography in primary hyperparathyroidism. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2016; 41(2):93–100 [PubMed: 26447369]
264.
Krausz Y, Bettman L, Guralnik L, Yosilevsky G, Keidar Z, Bar-Shalom R et al. Technetium-99m-MIBI SPECT/CT in primary hyperparathyroidism. World Journal of Surgery. 2006; 30(1):76–83 [PubMed: 16369710]
265.
Krubsack AJ, Wilson SD, Lawson TL, Kneeland JB, Thorsen MK, Collier BD et al. Prospective comparison of radionuclide, computed tomographic, sonographic, and magnetic resonance localization of parathyroid tumors. Surgery. 1989; 106(4):639–46 [PubMed: 2678555]
266.
Kucuk NO, Arican P, Kocak S, Aras G. Radioguided surgery in primary hyperparathyroidism. Annals of Nuclear Medicine. 2002; 16(5):359–62 [PubMed: 12230097]
267.
Kukar M, Platz TA, Schaffner TJ, Elmarzouky R, Groman A, Kumar S et al. The use of modified four-dimensional computed tomography in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: An argument for the abandonment of routine sestamibi single-positron emission computed tomography (SPECT). Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2014; 22(1):139–45 [PubMed: 25074663]
268.
Kumar A, Cozens NJA, Nash JR. Sestamibi scan-directed unilateral neck exploration for primary hyperparathyroidism due to a solitary adenoma. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2000; 26(8):785–8 [PubMed: 11087646]
269.
Kuriloff DB, Sanborn KV. Rapid intraoperative localization of parathyroid glands utilizing methylene blue infusion. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2004; 131(5):616–22 [PubMed: 15523436]
270.
Kutler DI, Moquete R, Kazam E, Kuhel WI. Parathyroid localization with modified 4D-computed tomography and ultrasonography for patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Laryngoscope. 2011; 121(6):1219–24 [PubMed: 21557243]
271.
Kuzu F, Arpaci D, Cakmak GK, Emre AU, Elri T, Ilikhan SU et al. Focused parathyroidectomy without intra-operative parathormone monitoring: The value of PTH assay in preoperative ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration washout. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2016; 6:64–7 [PMC free article: PMC4761621] [PubMed: 26955476]
272.
Kwon JH, Kim EK, Lee HS, Moon HJ, Kwak JY. Neck ultrasonography as preoperative localization of primary hyperparathyroidism with an additional role of detecting thyroid malignancy. European Journal of Radiology. 2013; 82(1):e17–e21 [PubMed: 22921682]
273.
Lavely WC, Goetze S, Friedman KP, Leal JP, Zhang Z, Garret-Mayer E et al. Comparison of SPECT/CT, SPECT, and planar imaging with single- and dual-phase (99m)Tc-sestamibi parathyroid scintigraphy. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2007; 48(7):1084–9 [PubMed: 17574983]
274.
Lebastchi AH, Aruny JE, Donovan PI, Quinn CE, Callender GG, Carling T et al. Real-time super selective venous sampling in remedial parathyroid surgery. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2015; 220(6):994–1000 [PubMed: 25868412]
275.
Lee GS, McKenzie TJ, Mullan BP, Farley DR, Thompson GB, Richards ML. A multimodal imaging protocol, (123)I/(99)Tc-Sestamibi, SPECT, and SPECT/CT, in primary hyperparathyroidism adds limited benefit for preoperative localization. World Journal of Surgery. 2016; 40(3):589–94 [PubMed: 26732668]
276.
Lee S, Ryu H, Morris LF, Grubbs EG, Lee JE, Harun N et al. Operative failure in minimally invasive parathyroidectomy utilizing an intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2014; 21(6):1878–83 [PubMed: 24452409]
277.
Lee VS, Spritzer CE, Coleman RE, Wilkinson RH, Jr., Coogan AC, Leight GS, Jr. The complementary roles of fast spin-echo MR imaging and double-phase 99m Tc-sestamibi scintigraphy for localization of hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1996; 167(6):1555–62 [PubMed: 8956597]
278.
Lenschow C, Gassmann P, Wenning C, Senninger N, Colombo-Benkmann M. Preoperative 11C-methionine PET/CT enables focused parathyroidectomy in MIBI-SPECT negative parathyroid adenoma. World Journal of Surgery. 2015; 39(7):1750–7 [PubMed: 25665676]
279.
Leupe PK, Delaere PR, Vander Poorten VL, Debruyne F. Pre-operative imaging in primary hyperparathyroidism with ultrasonography and sestamibi scintigraphy. B-ENT. 2011; 7(3):173–80 [PubMed: 22026137]
280.
Levin KE, Gooding GAW, Okerlund M, Higgins CB, Norman D, Newton TH et al. Localizing studies in patients with persistent or recurrent hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 1987; 102(6):917–25 [PubMed: 3317961]
281.
Lew JI, Irvin GL, III. Focused parathyroidectomy guided by intra-operative parathormone monitoring does not miss multiglandular disease in patients with sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism: A 10-year outcome. Surgery. 2009; 146(6):1021–7 [PubMed: 19879612]
282.
Lew JI, Rivera M, Irvin GL, III, Solorzano CC. Operative failure in the era of focused parathyroidectomy: A contemporary series of 845 patients. Archives of Surgery. 2010; 145(7):628–33 [PubMed: 20644124]
283.
Lezaic L, Rep S, Sever MJ, Kocjan T, Hocevar M, Fettich J. 18F-Fluorocholine PET/CT for localization of hyperfunctioning parathyroid tissue in primary hyperparathyroidism: a pilot study. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2014; 41(11):2083–9 [PubMed: 25063039]
284.
Lim MS, Jinih M, Ngai CH, Foley NM, Redmond HP. The utility of the radionuclide probe in parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2017; 99(5):369–72 [PMC free article: PMC5449696] [PubMed: 28462641]
285.
Lin JD, Huang BY, Huang HS, Wang PW, Jeng LB. Pre-operative localization of parathyroid tumor by ultrasonography. Chang Gung Medical Journal / Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. 1991; 14(1):1–7 [PubMed: 2039964]
286.
Linda DD, Ng B, Rebello R, Harish S, Ioannidis G, Young JEM. The utility of multidetector computed tomography for detection of parathyroid disease in the setting of primary hyperparathyroidism Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. 2012; 63(2):100–8 [PubMed: 21955750]
287.
Lindqvist V, Jacobsson H, Chandanos E, Backdahl M, Kjellman M, Wallin G. Preoperative 99Tc(m)-sestamibi scintigraphy with SPECT localizes most pathologic parathyroid glands. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2009; 394(5):811–5 [PubMed: 19578871]
288.
Livingston CD. Radioguided parathyroidectomy is successful in 98.7% of selected patients. Endocrine Practice. 2014; 20(4):305–9 [PubMed: 24246353]
289.
Lloyd MNH, Lees WR, Milroy EJG. Pre-operative localisation in primary hyperparathyroidism. Clinical Radiology. 1990; 41(4):239–43 [PubMed: 2187649]
290.
Lo CY, Chan WF, Luk JM. Minimally invasive endoscopic-assisted parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2003; 17(12):1932–6 [PubMed: 14574548]
291.
Lo CY, Lang BH, Chan WF, Kung AWC, Lam KSL. A prospective evaluation of preoperative localization by technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy and ultrasonography in primary hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Surgery. 2007; 193(2):155–9 [PubMed: 17236840]
292.
Lombardi CP, Raffaelli M, Traini E, Di Stasio E, Carrozza C, De Crea C et al. Intraoperative PTH monitoring during parathyroidectomy: The need for stricter criteria to detect multiglandular disease. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2008; 393(5):639–45 [PubMed: 18651167]
293.
Lubitz CC, Hunter GJ, Hamberg LM, Parangi S, Ruan D, Gawande A et al. Accuracy of 4-dimensional computed tomography in poorly localized patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2010; 148(6):1129–37 [PubMed: 21134543]
294.
Lumachi F, Tregnaghi A, Zucchetta P, Marzola MC, Cecchin D, Marchesi P et al. Technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy and helical CT together in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: A prospective clinical study. British Journal of Radiology. 2004; 77(914):100–3 [PubMed: 15010380]
295.
Lundstroem AK, Trolle W, Soerensen CH, Myschetzky PS. Preoperative localization of hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands with 4D-CT. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2016; 273(5):1253–9 [PMC free article: PMC4824797] [PubMed: 25773486]
296.
Majors JD, Burke GJ, Mansberger AR, Jr, Wei JP. Technetium Tc 99m sestamibi scan for localizing abnormal parathyroid glands after previous neck operations: Preliminary experience in reoperative cases. Southern Medical Journal. 1995; 88(3):327–30 [PubMed: 7886531]
297.
Malhotra A, Silver CE, Deshpande V, Freeman LM. Preoperative parathyroid localization with sestamibi. American Journal of Surgery. 1996; 172(6):637–40 [PubMed: 8988666]
298.
Mandal R, Muthukrishnan A, Ferris RL, de Almeida JR, Duvvuri U. Accuracy of early-phase versus dual-phase single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography in the localization of parathyroid disease. Laryngoscope. 2015; 125(6):1496–501 [PubMed: 25645695]
299.
Mandell DL, Genden EM, Mechanick JI, Bergman DA, Diamond EJ, Urken ML. The influence of intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring on the surgical management of hyperparathyroidism. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2001; 127(7):821–7 [PubMed: 11448357]
300.
Manhire AR, Anderson PN, Milroy E. Parathyroid venous sampling and ultrasonography in primary hyperparathyroidism due to multigland disease. British Journal of Radiology. 1984; 57(677):375–80 [PubMed: 6722431]
301.
Martin D, Rosen IB, Ichise M. Evaluation of single isotope technetium 99M-Sestamibi in localization efficiency for hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Surgery. 1996; 172(6):633–6 [PubMed: 8988665]
302.
Martin RC, 2nd, Greenwell D, Flynn MB. Initial neck exploration for untreated hyperparathyroidism. American Surgeon. 2000; 66(3):269–72 [PubMed: 10759197]
303.
Martinez-Rodriguez I, Banzo I, Quirce R, Jimenez-Bonilla J, Portilla-Quattrociocchi H, Medina-Quiroz P et al. Early planar and early SPECT Tc-99m Sestamibi imaging: Can it replace the dual-phase technique for the localization of parathyroid adenomas by omitting the delayed phase? Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2011; 36(9):749–53 [PubMed: 21825841]
304.
Martinez-Rodriguez I, Martinez-Amador N, de Arcocha-Torres M, Quirce R, Ortega-Nava F, Ibanez-Bravo S et al. Comparison of 99mTc-sestamibi and 11C-methionine PET/CT in the localization of parathyroid adenomas in primary hyperparathyroidism. Revista Espanola de Medicina Nuclear e Imagen Molecular. 2014; 33(2):93–8 [PubMed: 24125595]
305.
Maweja S, Sebag F, Hubbard J, Giorgi R, Henry JF. Immediate and medium-term results of intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring during video-assisted parathyroidectomy. Archives of Surgery. 2004; 139(12):1301–3 [PubMed: 15611454]
306.
Mazzeo S, Caramella D, Marcocci C, Lonzi S, Cambi L, Miccoli P et al. Contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasonography in suspected parathyroid lesions. Acta Radiologica. 2000; 41(5):412–6 [PubMed: 11016756]
307.
McDermott VG, Mendez Fernandez RJ, Meakem ITJ, Stolpen AH, Spritzer CE, Gefter WB. Preoperative MR imaging in hyperparathyroidism: Results and factors affecting parathyroid detection. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1996; 166(3):705–10 [PubMed: 8623655]
308.
McDow AD, Sippel RS. Should symptoms be considered an indication for parathyroidectomy in primary hyperparathyroidism? Clinical Medicine Insights. 2018; 11:1179551418785135 [PMC free article: PMC6043916] [PubMed: 30013413]
309.
McIntyre RC, Jr, Kumpe DA, Liechty RD, Thompson NW, Prinz RA, Clark OH et al. Reexploration and angiographic ablation for hyperparathyroidism. Archives of Surgery. 1994; 129(5):499–505 [PubMed: 8185472]
310.
McMillan NC, Smith L, McKellar NJ, Beastall GH, Fogelman I, Duncan JG et al. The localisation of parathyroid tumours: A comparison of computed tomography with cervical vein hormone assay. Scottish Medical Journal. 1983; 28(2):153–6 [PubMed: 6867695]
311.
Medas F, Erdas E, Longheu A, Gordini L, Pisano G, Nicolosi A et al. Retrospective evaluation of the pre- and postoperative factors influencing the sensitivity of localization studies in primary hyperparathyroidism. International Journal of Surgery. 2016; 25:82–7 [PubMed: 26646659]
312.
Meyer SK, Zorn M, Frank-Raue K, Buchler MW, Nawroth P, Weber T. Clinical impact of two different intraoperative parathyroid hormone assays in primary and renal hyperparathyroidism. European Journal of Endocrinology. 2009; 160(2):275–81 [PubMed: 19004983]
313.
Miccoli P, Berti P, Materazzi G, Ambrosini CE, Fregoli L, Donatini G. Endoscopic bilateral neck exploration versus quick intraoperative parathormone assay (qPTHa) during endoscopic parathyroidectomy: A prospective randomized trial. Surgical Endoscopy. 2008; 22(2):398–400 [PubMed: 17522920]
314.
Michel L, Dupont M, Rosiere A, Merlan V, Lacrosse M, Donckier JE. The rationale for performing MR imaging before surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. Acta Chirurgica Belgica. 2013; 113(2):112–22 [PubMed: 23741930]
315.
Mihai R, Palazzo FF, Gleeson FV, Sadler GP. Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy without intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. British Journal of Surgery. 2007; 94(1):42–7 [PubMed: 17083106]
316.
Miller P, Kindred A, Kosoy D, Davidson D, Lang H, Waxman K et al. Preoperative sestamibi localization combined with intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay predicts successful focused unilateral neck exploration during surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. American Surgeon. 2003; 69(1):82–5 [PubMed: 12575788]
317.
Miura D, Wada N, Arici C, Morita E, Duh QY, Clark OH. Does intraoperative quick parathyroid hormone assay improve the results of parathyroidectomy? World Journal of Surgery. 2002; 26(8):926–30 [PubMed: 11965444]
318.
Mohammadi A, Moloudi F, Ghasemi-rad M. The role of colour Doppler ultrasonography in the preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas. Endocrine Journal. 2012; 59(5):375–82 [PubMed: 22322895]
319.
Moka D, Eschner W, Voth E, Dietlein M, Larena-Avellaneda A, Schicha H. Iterative reconstruction: An improvement of technetium-99m MIBI SPET for the detection of parathyroid adenomas? European Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2000; 27(5):485–9 [PubMed: 10853801]
320.
Moka D, Voth E, Dietlein M, Larena-Avellaneda A, Schicha H. Technetium 99m-MIBI-SPECT: A highly sensitive diagnostic tool for localization of parathyroid adenomas. Surgery. 2000; 128(1):29–35 [PubMed: 10876182]
321.
Morks AN, Van Ginhoven TM, Pekelharing JM, Duschek EJJ, Smit PC, De Graaf PW. Intra-operative parathyroid hormone measurements - Experience of a non-academic hospital. South African Journal of Surgery. 2011; 49(3):123–6 [PubMed: 21933496]
322.
Morris LF, Loh C, Ro K, Wiseman JE, Gomes AS, Asandra A et al. Nonsuperselective venous sampling for persistent hyperparathyroidism using a systemic hypocalcemic challenge. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2012; 23(9):1191–9 [PubMed: 22832137]
323.
Mortenson MM, Evans DB, Lee JE, Hunter GJ, Shellingerhout D, Vu T et al. Parathyroid exploration in the reoperative neck: Improved preoperative localization with 4D-computed tomography. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2008; 206(5):888–95 [PubMed: 18471717]
324.
Moure D, Larranaga E, Dominguez-Gadea L, Luque-Ramirez M, Nattero L, Gomez-Pan A et al. 99mTc-sestamibi as sole technique in selection of primary hyperparathyroidism patients for unilateral neck exploration. Surgery. 2008; 144(3):454–9 [PubMed: 18707045]
325.
Mozzon M, Mortier PE, Jacob PM, Soudan B, Boersma AA, Proye CAG et al. Surgical management of primary hyperparathyroidism: The case for giving up quick intraoperative PTH assay in favor of routine PTH measurement the morning after. Annals of Surgery. 2004; 240(6):949–54 [PMC free article: PMC1356510] [PubMed: 15570200]
326.
Mshelia DS, Hatutale AN, Mokgoro NP, Nchabaleng ME, Buscombe JR, Sathekge MM. Correlation between serum calcium levels and dual-phase 99mTc-sestamibi parathyroid scintigraphy in primary hyperparathyroidism. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging. 2012; 32(1):19–24 [PubMed: 22136277]
327.
Munk RS, Payne RJ, Luria BJ, Hier MP, Black MJ. Preoperative localization in primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2008; 37(3):347–54 [PubMed: 19128638]
328.
Murchison J, McIntosh C, Aitken AGF, Logie J, Munro A. Ultrasonic detection of parathyroid adenomas. British Journal of Radiology. 1991; 64(764):679–82 [PubMed: 1884118]
329.
Nael K, Hur J, Bauer A, Khan R, Sepahdari A, Inampudi R et al. Dynamic 4D MRI for characterization of parathyroid adenomas: Multiparametric analysis. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2015; 36(11):2147–52 [PMC free article: PMC7964860] [PubMed: 26359150]
330.
Naik AH, Wani MA, Wani KA, Laway BA, Malik AA, Shah ZA. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring in guiding adequate parathyroidectomy. Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2018; 22(3):410–416 [PMC free article: PMC6063190] [PubMed: 30090736]
331.
Nair CG, Babu MJ, Jacob P, Menon R, Mathew J. Is intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring necessary in symptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism with concordant imaging? Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2016; 20(4):512–6 [PMC free article: PMC4911841] [PubMed: 27366718]
332.
Najafian A, Kahan S, Olson MT, Tufano RP, Zeiger MA. Intraoperative PTH may not be necessary in the management of primary hyperparathyroidism even with only one positive or only indeterminate preoperative localization studies. World Journal of Surgery. 2017; 41(6):1500–5 [PubMed: 28224198]
333.
Nasiri S, Soroush A, Hashemi AP, Hedayat A, Donboli K, Mehrkhani F. Parathyroid adenoma localization. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2012; 26(3):103–9 [PMC free article: PMC3587906] [PubMed: 23482497]
334.
National Clinical Guideline Centre. Major trauma: assessment and initial management. NICE guideline 39. London. National Clinical Guideline Centre, 2016. Available from: https://www​.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng39
335.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. London. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2014. Available from: http://www​.nice.org.uk​/article/PMG20/chapter​/1%20Introduction%20and%20overview [PubMed: 26677490]
336.
Nehs MA, Ruan DT, Gawande AA, Moore FD, Jr, Cho NL. Bilateral neck exploration decreases operative time compared to minimally invasive parathyroidectomy in patients with discordant imaging. World Journal of Surgery. 2013; 37(7):1614–7 [PubMed: 23519294]
337.
Nelson CM, Victor NS. Rapid intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay in the surgical management of hyperparathyroidism. Permanente Journal. 2007; 11(1):3–6 [PMC free article: PMC3061375] [PubMed: 21472047]
338.
Neumann DR, Esselstyn CB, Jr, Go RT, Wong CO, Rice TW, Obuchowski NA. Comparison of double-phase 99mTc-sestamibi with 123I-99mTc-sestamibi subtraction SPECT in hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1997; 169(6):1671–4 [PubMed: 9393188]
339.
Neumann DR, Esselstyn CB, Jr, Kim EY, Go RT, Obuchowski NA, Rice TW. Preliminary experience with double-phase SPECT using Tc-99m sestamibi in patients with hyperparathyroidism. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 1997; 22(4):217–21 [PubMed: 9099475]
340.
Neumann DR, Esselstyn CB, MacIntyre WJ, Go RT, Obuchowski NA, Chen EQ et al. Comparison of FDG-PET and sestamibi-SPECT in primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1996; 37(11):1809–15 [PubMed: 8917180]
341.
Neumann DR, Obuchowski NA, Difilippo FP. Preoperative 123I/99mTc-sestamibi subtraction SPECT and SPECT/CT in primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2008; 49(12):2012–7 [PubMed: 18997051]
342.
Neves MC, Ohe MN, Rosano M, Abrahao M, Cervantes O, Lazaretti-Castro M et al. A 10-year experience in intraoperative parathyroid hormone measurements for primary hyperparathyroidism: A prospective study of 91 previous unexplored patients. Journal of Osteoporosis. 2012; 2012:914214 [PMC free article: PMC3317101] [PubMed: 22523718]
343.
Nilsen FS, Haug E, Heidemann M, Karlsen SJ. Does rapid intraoperative parathyroid hormone analysis predict cure in patients undergoing surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism? A prospective study. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery. 2006; 95(1):28–32 [PubMed: 16579252]
344.
Niramitmahapanya S, Chawla R, Vasikasin B. Cutoff point of intraoperative parathyroid hormone in predicting successful parathyroidectomy in renal hyperparathyroidism. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. 2018; 101(2 Supplement 2):S109–S114
345.
Noguchi Y. Hyperparathyroidism; Comparison of MR imaging with CT. Japanese Journal of Clinical Radiology. 1994; 39(3):367–72
346.
Noltes ME, Coester AM, van der Horst-Schrivers ANA, Dorgelo B, Jansen L, Noordzij W et al. Localization of parathyroid adenomas using 11C-methionine pet after prior inconclusive imaging. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2017; 402(7):1109–17 [PMC free article: PMC5660832] [PubMed: 28091771]
347.
Nordin AJ, Larcos G, Ung O. Dual phase 99m-technetium Sestamibi imaging with single photon emission computed tomography in primary hyperparathyroidism: Influence on surgery. Australasian Radiology. 2001; 45(1):31–4 [PubMed: 11259969]
348.
Numerow LM, Morita ET, Clark OH, Higgins CB. Persistent/recurrent hyperparathyroidism: a comparison of sestamibi scintigraphy, MRI, and ultrasonography. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 1995; 5(6):702–8 [PubMed: 8748489]
349.
O’Connell RL, Afors K, Thomas MH. Re-explorative parathyroid surgery for persistent and recurrent primary hyperparathyroidism. World Journal of Endocrine Surgery. 2011; 3(3):107–11
350.
O’Doherty MJ, Kettle AG, Wells P, Collins REC, Coakley AJ. Parathyroid imaging with technetium-99m-sestamibi: Preoperative localization and tissue uptake studies. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1992; 33(3):313–8 [PubMed: 1531500]
351.
Ohe MN, Santos RO, Kunii IS, Carvalho AB, Abrahao M, Cervantes O et al. Usefulness of a rapid immunometric assay for intraoperative parathyroid hormone measurements. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 2003; 36(6):715–21 [PubMed: 12792700]
352.
Opoku-Boateng A, Bolton JS, Corsetti R, Brown RE, Oxner C, Fuhrman GM. Use of a sestamibi-only approach to routine minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. American Surgeon. 2013; 79(8):797–801 [PubMed: 23896247]
353.
Orevi M, Freedman N, Mishani E, Bocher M, Jacobson O, Krausz Y. Localization of parathyroid adenoma by 11C-Choline PET/CT: preliminary results. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2014; 39(12):1033–8 [PubMed: 25290292]
354.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Purchasing power parities (PPP). Available from: http://www​.oecd.org/std/prices-ppp/ Last accessed: 13/12/2017.
355.
Orloff LA. Methylene blue and sestamibi: Complementary tools for localizing parathyroids. Laryngoscope. 2001; 111(11 I):1901–4 [PubMed: 11801966]
356.
Ozimek A, Gallwas J, Stocker U, Mussack T, Hallfeldt KKJ, Ladurner R. Validity and limits of intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring during minimally invasive parathyroidectomy: A 10-year experience. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2010; 24(12):3156–60 [PubMed: 20490562]
357.
Ozkaya M, Elboga U, Sahin E, Kalender E, Korkmaz H, Demir HD et al. Evaluation of conventional imaging techniques on preoperative localization in primary hyperparathyroidism. Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences. 2015; 15(1):61–6 [PMC free article: PMC4365679] [PubMed: 25725146]
358.
Ozkul MH, Uyar M, Bayram O, Dikmen B. Parathyroid scintigraphy and minimal invasive surgery in parathyroid adenomas. Journal of Ear, Nose, and Throat. 2015; 25(4):205–13 [PubMed: 26211860]
359.
Panzironi G, Falvo L, De Vargas Macciucca M, Catania A, Sorrenti S, Biancafarina A et al. Preoperative evaluation of primary hyperparathyroidism: role of diagnostic imaging. Chirurgia Italiana. 2002; 54(5):629–34 [PubMed: 12469459]
360.
Parikh AM, Suliburk JW, Moron FE. Imaging localization and surgical approach in the management of ectopic parathyroid adenomas. Endocrine Practice. 2018; 24(6):589–598 [PubMed: 29949431]
361.
Parikh PP, Farra JC, Allan BJ, Lew JI. Long-term effectiveness of localization studies and intraoperative parathormone monitoring in patients undergoing reoperative parathyroidectomy for persistent or recurrent hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Surgery. 2015; 210(1):117–22 [PubMed: 26072281]
362.
Pata G, Casella C, Besuzio S, Mittempergher F, Salerni B. Clinical appraisal of 99m technetium-sestamibi SPECT/CT compared to conventional SPECT in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and concomitant nodular goiter. Thyroid. 2010; 20(10):1121–7 [PubMed: 20615139]
363.
Pata G, Casella C, Magri GC, Lucchini S, Panarotto MB, Crea N et al. Financial and clinical implications of low-energy CT combined with 99m Technetium-sestamibi SPECT for primary hyperparathyroidism. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2011; 18(9):2555–63 [PubMed: 21409487]
364.
Patacsil ML, Dwarakanathan AA, Prinz RA. Sestamibi scanning and outcomes in minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. Endocrine Practice. 2006; 12(6):615–21 [PubMed: 25928370]
365.
Patel PC, Pellitteri PK, Patel NM, Fleetwood MK. Use of a rapid intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay in the surgical management of parathyroid disease. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 1998; 124(5):559–62 [PubMed: 9604983]
366.
Pattou F, Oudar C, Huglo D, Racadot A, Carnaille B, Proye C. Localization of abnormal parathyroid glands with jugular sampling for parathyroid hormone, and subtraction scanning with sestamibi or tetrofosmine. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 1998; 68(2):108–11 [PubMed: 9494000]
367.
Pattou F, Torres G, Mondragon-Sanchez A, Huglo D, N’Guyen H, Carnaille B et al. Correlation of parathyroid scanning and anatomy in 261 unselected patients with sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 1999; 126(6):1123–31 [PubMed: 10598197]
368.
Pearl AJ, Chapnik JS, Freeman JL, Bain J, Salem S, Kirsh J et al. Pre-operative localization of 25 consecutive parathyroid adenomas: A prospective imaging/surgical correlative study. Journal of Otolaryngology. 1993; 22(4):301–6 [PubMed: 8230382]
369.
Peck WW, Higgins CB, Fisher MR. Hyperparathyroidism: Comparison of MR imaging with radionuclide scanning. Radiology. 1987; 163(2):415–20 [PubMed: 3562820]
370.
Pellitteri PK. Directed parathyroid exploration: evolution and evaluation of this approach in a single-institution review of 346 patients. Laryngoscope. 2003; 113(11):1857–69 [PubMed: 14603039]
371.
Perez-Monte JE, Brown ML, Shah AN, Ranger NT, Watson CG, Carty SE et al. Parathyroid adenomas: Accurate detection and localization with Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT. Radiology. 1996; 201(1):85–91 [PubMed: 8816526]
372.
Perrier ND, Ituarte P, Kikuchi S, Siperstein AE, Duh QY, Clark OH et al. Intraoperative parathyroid aspiration and parathyroid hormone assay as an alternative to frozen section for tissue identification. World Journal of Surgery. 2000; 24(11):1319–22 [PubMed: 11038200]
373.
Philippon M, Guerin C, Taieb D, Vaillant J, Morange I, Brue T et al. Bilateral neck exploration in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and discordant imaging results: A single-centre study. European Journal of Endocrinology. 2014; 170(5):719–25 [PubMed: 24569082]
374.
Politz D, Livingston CD, Victor B, Askew R, Jones L. Minimally invasive radio-guided parathyroidectomy in 152 consecutive patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Endocrine Practice. 2006; 12(6):630–4 [PubMed: 17229658]
375.
Powell DK, Nwoke F, Goldfarb RC, Ongseng F. Tc-99m sestamibi parathyroid gland scintigraphy: Added value of Tc-99m pertechnetate thyroid imaging for increasing interpretation confidence and avoiding additional testing. Clinical Imaging. 2013; 37(3):475–9 [PubMed: 23102932]
376.
Prager G, Riss P, Bieglmayer C, Niederle B. The role of intraoperative quick PTH measurements in primary hyperparathyroidism. Annali Italiani di Chirurgia. 2003; 74(4):395–9 [PubMed: 14971281]
377.
Prasannan S, Davies G, Bochner M, Kollias J, Malycha P. Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy using surgeon-performed ultrasound and sestamibi. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2007; 77(9):774–7 [PubMed: 17685957]
378.
Preventza OA, Yang S, Karo JJ, Lobocki A, Mittal V, Sims DW et al. Pre-operative ultrasonography guiding minimal, selective surgical approach in primary hyperparathyroidism. International Surgery. 2000; 85(2):99–104 [PubMed: 11071323]
379.
Profanter C, Gabriel M, Wetscher GJ, Gadenstatter M, Mittermair R, Moncayo R et al. Accuracy of preoperative pinhole subtraction single photon emission computed tomography for patients with primary and recurrent hyperparathyroidism in an endemic goiter area. Surgery Today. 2004; 34(6):493–7 [PubMed: 15170543]
380.
Profanter C, Prommegger R, Gabriel M, Moncayo R, Wetscher GJ, Lang T et al. Computed axial tomography-MIBI image fusion for preoperative localization in primary hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Surgery. 2004; 187(3):383–7 [PubMed: 15006567]
381.
Profanter C, Wetscher GJ, Gabriel M, Sauper T, Rieger M, Kovacs P et al. CT-MIBI image fusion: A new preoperative localization technique for primary, recurrent, and persistent hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2004; 135(2):157–62 [PubMed: 14739850]
382.
Purcell GP, Dirbas FM, Brookejeffrey R, Lane M, Desser T, Ross McDougall I et al. Parathyroid localization with high-resolution ultrasound and technetium Tc 99m sestamibi. Archives of Surgery. 1999; 134(8):824–30 [PubMed: 10443804]
383.
Quiros RM, Alioto J, Wilhelm SM, Ali A, Prinz RA, Talpos GB et al. An algorithm to maximize use of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. Archives of Surgery. 2004; 139(5):501–7 [PubMed: 15136350]
384.
Rameau A, Eng S, Vu J, Saket R, Jun P, Friduss M. Four-dimensional computed tomography scan utility in parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism with low baseline intact parathyroid hormone. Laryngoscope. 2016; 127(6):1476–82 [PubMed: 27515539]
385.
Ramirez AG, Shada AL, Martin AN, Raghavan P, Durst CR, Mukherjee S et al. Clinical efficacy of 2-phase versus 4-phase computed tomography for localization in primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2016; 160(3):731–7 [PMC free article: PMC4975639] [PubMed: 27302106]
386.
Raruenrom Y, Theerakulpisut D, Wongsurawat N, Somboonporn C. Diagnostic accuracy of planar, SPECT, and SPECT/CT parathyroid scintigraphy protocols in patients with hyperparathyroidism. Nuclear Medicine Review. 2018; 21(1):20–5 [PubMed: 29319134]
387.
Rauth JD, Sessions RB, Shupe SC, Ziessman HA. Comparison of Tc-99m MIBI and TI-201/Tc-99m pertechnetate for diagnosis of primary hyperparathyroidism. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 1996; 21(8):602–8 [PubMed: 8853910]
388.
Reading CC, Charboneau JW, James EM. High-resolution parathyroid sonography. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1982; 139(3):539–46 [PubMed: 6981321]
389.
Reading CC, Charboneau JW, James EM. Postoperative parathyroid high-frequency sonography: Evaluation of persistent or recurrent hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1985; 144(2):399–402 [PubMed: 3880986]
390.
Richards ML, Thompson GB, Farley DR, Grant CS. Reoperative parathyroidectomy in 228 patients during the era of minimal-access surgery and intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring. American Journal of Surgery. 2008; 196(6):937–43 [PubMed: 19095113]
391.
Richards ML, Thompson GB, Farley DR, Grant CS. An optimal algorithm for intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring. Archives of Surgery. 2011; 146(3):280–5 [PubMed: 21422358]
392.
Rickes S, Sitzy J, Neye H, Ocran KW, Wermke W. High-resolution ultrasound in combination with colour-Doppler sonography for preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Ultraschall in der Medizin. 2003; 24(2):85–9 [PubMed: 12698372]
393.
Riss P, Scheuba C, Asari R, Bieglmayer C, Niederle B. Is minimally invasive parathyroidectomy without QPTH monitoring justified? Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2009; 394(5):875–80 [PubMed: 19440730]
394.
Rodgers SE, Hunter GJ, Hamberg LM, Schellingerhout D, Doherty DB, Ayers GD et al. Improved preoperative planning for directed parathyroidectomy with 4-dimensional computed tomography. Surgery. 2006; 140(6):932–41 [PubMed: 17188140]
395.
Rolighed L, Heickendorff L, Hessov I, Garne JP, Rodt SA, Christiansen P. Primary hyperparathyroidism: Intraoperative PTH-measurements. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery. 2004; 93(1):43–7 [PubMed: 15116819]
396.
Roskies M, Liu X, Hier MP, Payne RJ, Mlynarek A, Forest V et al. 3-phase dualenergy CT scan as a feasible salvage imaging modality for the identification of non-localizing parathyroid adenomas: A prospective study. Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2015; 44:44 [PMC free article: PMC4628333] [PubMed: 26521153]
397.
Rossi HL, Ali A, Prinz RA. Intraoperative sestamibi scanning in reoperative parathyroidectomy. Surgery. 2000; 128(4):744–50 [PubMed: 11015110]
398.
Rotstein L, Irish J, Gullane P, Keller MA, Sniderman K. Reoperative parathyroidectomy in the era of localization technology. Head and Neck. 1998; 20(6):535–9 [PubMed: 9702541]
399.
Roza AM, Wexler MJ, Stein L, Goltzman D. Value of high-resolution computerized tomography in localizing diseased parathyroid glands. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 1984; 27(4):334–6 [PubMed: 6744137]
400.
Rubello D, Mariani G, Al-Nahhas A, Pelizzo MR, Italian Study Group on Radioguided S, Immunoscintigraphy. Minimally invasive radio-guided parathyroidectomy: long-term results with the ‘low 99mTc-sestamibi protocol’. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2006; 27(9):709–13 [PubMed: 16894325]
401.
Rubello D, Massaro A, Cittadin S, Rampin L, Al-Nahhas A, Boni G et al. Role of 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT in accurate selection of primary hyperparathyroid patients for minimally invasive radio-guided surgery. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2006; 33(9):1091–4 [PubMed: 16804688]
402.
Rubello D, Pelizzo MR, Boni G, Schiavo R, Vaggelli L, Villa G et al. Radioguided surgery of primary hyperparathyroidism using the low-dose 99mTc-sestamibi protocol: multiinstitutional experience from the Italian Study Group on Radioguided Surgery and Immunoscintigraphy (GISCRIS). Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2005; 46(2):220–6 [PubMed: 15695779]
403.
Rubello D, Piotto A, Casara D, Muzzio PC, Shapiro B, Pelizzo MR. Role of gamma probes in performing minimally invasive parathyroidectomy in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: Optimization of pre-operative and intraoperative procedures. European Journal of Endocrinology. 2003; 149(1):7–15 [PubMed: 12824860]
404.
Ruckert Y, Gerl H, Ruckert RI, Wermke W. Value of colour Doppler in the preoperative localization of parathyroid tumours. European Journal of Ultrasound. 1996; 4(2):107–14
405.
Ruf J, Lopez Hanninen E, Steinmuller T, Rohlfing T, Bertram H, Gutberlet M et al. Preoperative localization of parathyroid glands: Use of MRI, scintigraphy, and image fusion. Nuklearmedizin. 2004; 43(3):85–90 [PubMed: 15201949]
406.
Ruf J, Seehofer D, Denecke T, Stelter L, Rayes N, Felix R et al. Impact of image fusion and attenuation correction by SPECT-CT on the scintigraphic detection of parathyroid adenomas. Nuklearmedizin. 2007; 46(1):15–21 [PubMed: 17299650]
407.
Ryan JA, Jr, Eisenberg B, Pado KM, Lee F. Efficacy of selective unilateral exploration in hyperparathyroidism based on localization tests. Archives of Surgery. 1997; 132(8):886–91 [PubMed: 9267274]
408.
Ryhanen EM, Schildt J, Heiskanen I, Vaisanen M, Ahonen A, Loyttyniemi E et al. 99mTechnetium sestamibi-123iodine scintigraphy is more accurate than 99mtechnetium sestamibi alone before surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. International Journal of Molecular Imaging. 2015; 2015:391625 [PMC free article: PMC4333274] [PubMed: 25722888]
409.
Saaristo RA, Salmi JJO, Koobi T, Turjanmaa V, Sand JA, Nordback IH. Intraoperative localization of parathyroid glands with gamma counter probe in primary hyperparathyroidism: A prospective study. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2002; 195(1):19–22 [PubMed: 12113540]
410.
Sadeghi N, Akin E, Lee JY, Roland J, Knoll S. Targeted parathyroidectomy: Effectiveness and intraoperative rapid-parathormone dynamics. Laryngoscope. 2008; 118(11):1997–2002 [PubMed: 18849859]
411.
Sadeghi N, Li NW, Shokri T, Akin E, Joshi AS, Knoll S. Minimally elevated preoperative parathyroid hormone level influences the management of primary hyperparathyroidism Laryngoscope. 2018; 128(4):1016–21 [PubMed: 28850730]
412.
Sagan D, Gozdziuk K. Surgical treatment of mediastinal parathyroid adenoma: Rationale for intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2010; 89(6):1750–5 [PubMed: 20494022]
413.
Sager S, Shafipour H, Asa S, Yilmaz S, Teksoz S, Onsel C. Comparison of Tc-99m pertechnetate images with dual-phase Tc 99m MIBI and SPECT images in primary hyperparathyroidism. Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2014; 18(4):531–6 [PMC free article: PMC4138911] [PubMed: 25143912]
414.
Saguan N, Recabaren J. A unique use of intraoperative digital specimen radiography in the treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism. American Surgeon. 2013; 79(10):1098–101 [PubMed: 24160807]
415.
Saint Marc O, Cogliandolo A, Pidoto RR, Pozzo A. Prospective evaluation of ultrasonography plus MIBI scintigraphy in selecting patients with primary hyperparathyroidism for unilateral neck exploration under local anaesthesia. American Journal of Surgery. 2004; 187(3):388–93 [PubMed: 15006568]
416.
Sakimura C, Minami S, Hayashida N, Uga T, Inokuchi N, Eguchi S. Can the use of intraoperative intact parathyroid hormone monitoring be abandoned in patients with hyperparathyroidism? American Journal of Surgery. 2013; 206(4):574–7 [PubMed: 23827512]
417.
Sand J, Salmi J, Saaristo J. Primary hyperparathyroidism: Surgical results of 147 consecutive patients. Annales Chirurgiae et Gynaecologiae. 1994; 83(1):35–9 [PubMed: 8053636]
418.
Sandqvist P, Nilsson IL, Gryback P, Sanchez-Crespo A, Sundin A. SPECT/CT’s advantage for preoperative localization of small parathyroid adenomas in primary hyperparathyroidism. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2017; 42(2):e109–e114 [PubMed: 27819859]
419.
Sandrock D, Merino MJ, Norton JA, Neumann RD. Parathyroid imaging by Tc/Tl scintigraphy. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1990; 16(8–10):607–13 [PubMed: 2166664]
420.
Schalin-Jantti C, Ryhanen E, Heiskanen I, Seppanen M, Arola J, Schildt J et al. Planar scintigraphy with 123I/99mTc-sestamibi, 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT, 11C-methionine PET/CT, or selective venous sampling before reoperation of primary hyperparathyroidism? Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2013; 54(5):739–47 [PubMed: 23554505]
421.
Scheible W, Deutsch AL, Leopold GR. Parathyroid adenoma: accuracy of preoperative localization by high-resolution real-time sonography. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound. 1981; 9(6):325–30 [PubMed: 6788814]
422.
Scheiner JD, Dupuy DE, Monchik JM, Noto RB, Cronan JJ. Pre-operative localization of parathyroid adenomas: A comparison of power and colour Doppler ultrasonography with nuclear medicine scintigraphy. Clinical Radiology. 2001; 56(12):984–8 [PubMed: 11795928]
423.
Schenk WG, Hanks JB, Smith PW. Surgeon-performed ultrasound for primary hyperparathyroidism. American Surgeon. 2013; 79(7):681–5 [PubMed: 23816000]
424.
Scott-Coombes DM, Rees J, Jones G, Stechman MJ. Is unilateral neck surgery feasible in patients with sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism and double negative localisation? World Journal of Surgery. 2017; 41(6):1494–9 [PubMed: 28116482]
425.
Sebag F, Shen W, Brunaud L, Kebebew E, Duh QY, Clark OH et al. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay and parathyroid reoperations. Surgery. 2003; 134(6):1049–56 [PubMed: 14668740]
426.
Seeliger B, Alesina PF, Koch JA, Hinrichs J, Meier B, Walz MK. Diagnostic value and clinical impact of complementary CT scan prior to surgery for non-localized primary hyperparathyroidism. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery. 2015; 400(3):307–12 [PubMed: 25702138]
427.
Seniaray N, Sharma H, Arbind A, Jaimini A, D’Souza M, Saw S et al. (11)C-Methionine positron emission tomography-computed tomography in localization of methoxyisobutyl isonitrile negative ectopic parathyroid adenoma. Indian Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2016; 31(1):49–51 [PMC free article: PMC4746843] [PubMed: 26917896]
428.
Sepahdari AR, Bahl M, Harari A, Kim HJ, Yeh MW, Hoang JK. Predictors of multigland disease in primary hyperparathyroidism: A scoring system with 4D-CT imaging and biochemical markers. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2015; 36(5):987–92 [PMC free article: PMC7990586] [PubMed: 25556203]
429.
Serra A, Bolasco P, Satta L, Nicolosi A, Uccheddu A, Piga M. Role of SPECT/CT in the preoperative assessment of hyperparathyroid patients. Radiologia Medica. 2006; 111(7):999–1008 [PubMed: 17021682]
430.
Seyednejad N, Healy C, Tiwari P, Vos P, Sexsmith G, Melck A et al. Dual-energy computed tomography: A promising novel preoperative localization study for treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Surgery. 2016; 211(5):839–45 [PubMed: 26997304]
431.
Shabtai M, Ben-Haim M, Muntz Y, Vered I, Rosin D, Kuriansky J et al. 140 Consecutive cases of minimally invasive, radio-guided parathyroidectomy: Lessons learned and long-term results. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2003; 17(5):688–91 [PubMed: 12618931]
432.
Shafiei B, Hoseinzadeh S, Fotouhi F, Malek H, Azizi F, Jahed A et al. Preoperative 99m Tc-sestamibi scintigraphy in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and concomitant nodular goiter: Comparison of SPECT-CT, SPECT, and planar imaging. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2012; 33(10):1070–6 [PubMed: 22825041]
433.
Shaha AR, Sarkar S, Strashun A, Yeh S. Sestamibi scan for preoperative localization in primary hyperparathyroidism. Head and Neck. 1997; 19(2):87–91 [PubMed: 9059864]
434.
Shaheen F, Chowdry N, Gojwari T, Wani A, Khan S. Role of cervical ultrasonography in primary hyperparathyroidism. Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging. 2008; 18(4):302–5 [PMC free article: PMC2747464] [PubMed: 19774186]
435.
Sharma J, Mazzaglia P, Milas M, Berber E, Schuster DM, Halkar R et al. Radionuclide imaging for hyperparathyroidism (HPT): Which is the best technetium-99m sestamibi modality? Surgery. 2006; 140(6):856–65 [PubMed: 17188131]
436.
Sharma J, Milas M, Berber E, Mazzaglia P, Siperstein A, Weber CJ. Value of intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2008; 15(2):493–8 [PubMed: 18026797]
437.
Sheng SW, Zhu RS, Fan YB, Gao YC, Lu HK. Value of 99m Tc-MIBI SPECT/CT in diagnosis of primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University. 2011; 31(10):1423–7
438.
Shin JJ, Milas M, Mitchell J, Berber E, Ross L, Siperstein A. Impact of localization studies and clinical scenario in patients with hyperparathyroidism being evaluated for reoperative neck surgery. Archives of Surgery. 2011; 146(12):1397–403 [PubMed: 22184303]
439.
Sho S, Yilma M, Yeh MW, Livhits M, Wu JX, Hoang JK et al. Prospective validation of two 4D-CT-based scoring systems for prediction of multigland disease in primary hyperparathyroidism. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2016; 37(12):2323–7 [PMC free article: PMC7963886] [PubMed: 27659191]
440.
Silov G, Ozdal A, Erdogan Z, Turhal O, Karaman H. The relationship between technetium-99m-methoxyisobutyl isonitrile parathyroid scintigraphy and hormonal and biochemical markers in suspicion of primary hyperparathyroidism. Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy. 2013; 22(1):8–13 [PMC free article: PMC3629790] [PubMed: 23610725]
441.
Singh N, Krishna BA. Role of radionuclide scintigraphy in the detection of parathyroid adenoma. Indian Journal of Cancer. 2007; 44(1):12–6 [PubMed: 17401219]
442.
Siperstein A, Berber E, Barbosa GF, Tsinberg M, Greene AB, Mitchell J et al. Predicting the success of limited exploration for primary hyperparathyroidism using ultrasound, sestamibi, and intraoperative parathyroid hormone: Analysis of 1158 cases. Annals of Surgery. 2008; 248(3):420–6 [PubMed: 18791362]
443.
Siperstein A, Berber E, Mackey R, Alghoul M, Wagner K, Milas M. Prospective evaluation of sestamibi scan, ultrasonography, and rapid PTH to predict the success of limited exploration for sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2004; 136(4):872–80 [PubMed: 15467674]
444.
Slater A, Gleeson FV. Increased sensitivity and confidence of SPECT over planar imaging in dual-phase sestamibi for parathyroid adenoma detection. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2005; 30(1):1–3 [PubMed: 15604957]
445.
Smith N, Magnuson JS, Vidrine DM, Kulbersh B, Peters GE. Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy: Use of intraoperative parathyroid hormone assays after 2 preoperative localization studies. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2009; 135(11):1108–11 [PubMed: 19917923]
446.
Sofferman RA, Nathan MH, Fairbank JT, Foster RS, Jr, Krag DN. Preoperative technetium Tc 99m sestamibi imaging: Paving the way to minimal-access parathyroid surgery. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 1996; 122(4):369–74 [PubMed: 8600920]
447.
Sofferman RA, Standage J, Tang ME. Minimal-access parathyroid surgery using intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay. Laryngoscope. 1998; 108(10):1497–503 [PubMed: 9778289]
448.
Sofianides T, Chang YS, Leary JS, Nichols FX. Localization of parathyroid adenomas by cervical esophagram. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 1978; 46(4):587–92 [PubMed: 755042]
449.
Sohn JA, Oltmann SC, Schneider DF, Sippel RS, Chen H, Elfenbein DM. Is intraoperative parathyroid hormone testing in patients with renal insufficiency undergoing parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism accurate? American Journal of Surgery. 2015; 209(3):483–7 [PMC free article: PMC4361237] [PubMed: 25556028]
450.
Sokoll LJ, Drew H, Udelsman R. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone analysis: A study of 200 consecutive cases. Clinical Chemistry. 2000; 46(10):1662–8 [PubMed: 11017947]
451.
Solorzano CC, Carneiro-Pla DM, Irvin IGL. Surgeon-performed ultrasonography as the initial and only localizing study in sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2006; 202(1):18–24 [PubMed: 16377493]
452.
Solorzano CC, Lee TM, Ramirez MC, Carneiro DM, Irvin GL. Surgeon-performed ultrasound improves localization of abnormal parathyroid glands. American Surgeon. 2005; 71(7):557–62; discussion 562–3 [PubMed: 16089118]
453.
Sommer B, Welter HF, Spelsberg F. Computed tomography for localizing enlarged parathyroid glands in primary hyperparathyroidism. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 1982; 6(3):521–6 [PubMed: 7096700]
454.
Song AU, Phillips TE, Edmond CV, Moore DW, Clark SK. Success of preoperative imaging and unilateral neck exploration for primary hyperparathyroidism. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 1999; 121(4):393–7 [PubMed: 10504594]
455.
Soon PS, Delbridge LW, Sywak MS, Barraclough BM, Edhouse P, Sidhu SB. Surgeon performed ultrasound facilitates minimally invasive parathyroidectomy by the focused lateral mini-incision approach. World Journal of Surgery. 2008; 32(5):766–71 [PubMed: 18224474]
456.
Soyder A, Unubol M, Omurlu IK, Guney E, Ozbas S. Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy without using intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring or gamma probe. Turkish Journal of Surgery. 2015; 31(1):9–14 [PMC free article: PMC4415541] [PubMed: 25931949]
457.
Sprouse LR, Roe SM, Kaufman HJ, Williams N. Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy without intraoperative localization. American Surgeon. 2001; 67(11):1022–9 [PubMed: 11730217]
458.
Sreevathsa MR, Melanta K. Unilateral exploration for parathyroid adenoma. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2017; 8(2):142–5 [PMC free article: PMC5427037] [PubMed: 28546708]
459.
Stalberg P, Sidhu S, Sywak M, Robinson B, Wilkinson M, Delbridge L. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone measurement during minimally invasive parathyroidectomy: Does it “value-add” to decision-making? Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2006; 203(1):1–6 [PubMed: 16798481]
460.
Starker LF, Mahajan A, Bjorklund P, Sze G, Udelsman R, Carling T. 4D parathyroid CT as the initial localization study for patients with de novo primary hyperparathyroidism. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2011; 18(6):1723–8 [PubMed: 21184187]
461.
Starr FL, DeCresce R, Prinz RA. Use of intraoperative parathyroid hormone measurement does not improve success of bilateral neck exploration for hyperparathyroidism. Archives of Surgery. 2001; 136(5):536–42 [PubMed: 11343544]
462.
Staudenherz A, Abela C, Niederle B, Steiner E, Helbich T, Puig S et al. Comparison and histopathological correlation of three parathyroid imaging methods in a population with a high prevalence of concomitant thyroid diseases. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1997; 24(2):143–9 [PubMed: 9021111]
463.
Stein BL, Wexler MJ. Preoperative parathyroid localization: A prospective evaluation of ultrasonography and thallium-technetium scintigraphy in hyperparathyroidism. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 1990; 33(3):175–80 [PubMed: 2161704]
464.
Stenner E, Dobrinja C, Micheli W, Trevisan G, Liguori G, Biasioli B. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring in minimally invasive video-assisted parathyroidectomy. Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio. 2009; 5(1):24–8 [PubMed: 20646382]
465.
Stevens SK, Chang JM, Clark OH, Chang PJ, Higgins CB. Detection of abnormal parathyroid glands in postoperative patients with recurrent hyperparathyroidism: Sensitivity of MR imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1993; 160(3):607–12 [PubMed: 8430565]
466.
Steward DL, Danielson GP, Afman CE, Welge JA. Parathyroid adenoma localization: Surgeon-performed ultrasound versus sestamibi. Laryngoscope. 2006; 116(8):1380–4 [PubMed: 16885740]
467.
Stratmann SL, Kuhn JA, Bell MS, Preskitt JT, O’Brien JC, Gable DR et al. Comparison of quick parathyroid assay for uniglandular and multiglandular parathyroid disease. American Journal of Surgery. 2002; 184(6):578–81 [PubMed: 12488174]
468.
Suarez JP, Dominguez ML, de Santos FJ, Gonzalez JM, Fernandez N, Enciso FJ. Radioguided surgery in primary hyperparathyroidism: Results and correlation with intraoperative histopathologic diagnosis. Acta Otorrinolaringologica Espanola. 2017; 69(2):86–94 [PubMed: 28807325]
469.
Sugg SL, Fraker DL, Alexander HR, Doppman JL, Miller DL, Chang R et al. Prospective evaluation of selective venous sampling for parathyroid hormone concentration in patients undergoing reoperations for primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 1993; 114(6):1004–10 [PubMed: 8256203]
470.
Sugg SL, Krzywda EA, Demeure MJ, Wilson SD. Detection of multiple gland primary hyperparathyroidism in the era of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy. Surgery. 2004; 136(6):1303–9 [PubMed: 15657591]
471.
Suh YJ, Choi JY, Kim S, Chun IK, Yun TJ, Lee KE et al. Comparison of 4D CT, ultrasonography, and 99mTc sestamibi SPECT/CT in localizing single-gland primary hyperparathyroidism. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2015; 152(3):438–43 [PubMed: 25518904]
472.
Sullivan DP, Scharf SC, Komisar A. Intraoperative gamma probe localization of parathyroid adenomas. Laryngoscope. 2001; 111(5):912–7 [PubMed: 11359177]
473.
Sun PY, Thompson SM, Andrews JC, Wermers RA, McKenzie TJ, Richards ML et al. Selective parathyroid hormone venous sampling in patients with persistent or recurrent primary hyperparathyroidism and negative, equivocal or discordant noninvasive imaging. World Journal of Surgery. 2016; 40(12):2956–63 [PubMed: 27384174]
474.
Taira N, Doihara H, Hara F, Shien T, Takabatake D, Takahashi H et al. Less invasive surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism based on preoperative 99mTc-hexakis-2-methoxyisobutylisonitrile imaging findings. Surgery Today. 2004; 34(3):197–203 [PubMed: 14999529]
475.
Takei H, Iino Y, Endo K, Horiguchi J, Maemura M, Koibuchi Y et al. The efficacy of technetium-99m-MIBI scan and intraoperative methylene blue staining for the localization of abnormal parathyroid glands. Surgery Today. 1999; 29(4):307–12 [PubMed: 10211559]
476.
Tampi C, Chavan N, Parikh D. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay-cutting the Gordian knot. Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2014; 18(2):210–2 [PMC free article: PMC3987272] [PubMed: 24741518]
477.
Taylor J, Fraser W, Banaszkiewicz P, Drury P, Atkins P. Lateralization of parathyroid adenomas by intra-operative parathormone estimation. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. 1996; 41(3):174–7 [PubMed: 8763181]
478.
Taywade SK, Damle NA, Behera A, Devasenathipathy K, Bal C, Tripathi M et al. Comparison of 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography/computed tomography and four-dimensional computed tomography in the preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas-initial results. Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2017; 21(3):399–403 [PMC free article: PMC5434722] [PubMed: 28553594]
479.
Tee MC, Chan SK, Nguyen V, Strugnell SS, Yang J, Jones S et al. Incremental value and clinical impact of neck sonography for primary hyperparathyroidism: A risk-adjusted analysis. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 2013; 56(5):325–31 [PMC free article: PMC3788011] [PubMed: 24067517]
480.
Thakur A, Sebag F, Slotema E, Ippolito G, Taieb D, Henry JF. Significance of biochemical parameters in differentiating uniglandular from multiglandular disease and limiting use of intraoperative parathormone assay. World Journal of Surgery. 2009; 33(6):1219–1223 [PubMed: 19363691]
481.
Thanseer N, Bhadada SK, Sood A, Mittal BR, Behera A, Gorla AKR et al. Comparative effectiveness of ultrasonography, 99mTc-Sestamibi, and 18F-Fluorocholine PET/CT in detecting parathyroid adenomas in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2017; 42(12):e491–e497 [PubMed: 28902729]
482.
Thielmann A, Kerr P. Validation of selective use of intraoperative PTH monitoring in parathyroidectomy. Journal of Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery. 2017; 46(1):10 [PMC free article: PMC5294871] [PubMed: 28166819]
483.
Thomas DL, Bartel T, Menda Y, Howe J, Graham MM, Juweid ME. Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) should be routinely performed for the detection of parathyroid abnormalities utilizing technetium-99m sestamibi parathyroid scintigraphy. Clinical Nuclear Medicine. 2009; 34(10):651–5 [PubMed: 19893394]
484.
Thompson GB, Grant CS, Perrier ND, Harman R, Hodgson SF, Ilstrup D et al. Reoperative parathyroid surgery in the era of sestamibi scanning and intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring. Archives of Surgery. 1999; 134(7):699–705 [PubMed: 10401818]
485.
Thule P, Thakore K, Vansant J, McGarity W, Weber C, Phillips LS. Preoperative localization of parathyroid tissue with technetium-99m sestamibi 123I subtraction scanning. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 1994; 78(1):77–82 [PubMed: 8288719]
486.
Timm S, Hamelmann W, Luster M, Blind E, Reiners C, Allolio B et al. Surgical approach to primary hyperparathyroidism - Impact of preoperative findings on surgical strategy: Minimally invasive vs. conventional parathyroidectomy. European Surgery - Acta Chirurgica Austriaca. 2004; 36(4):246–52
487.
Tokmak H, Demirkol MO, Alagol F, Tezelman S, Terzioglu T. Clinical impact of SPECT-CT in the diagnosis and surgical management of hyper-parathyroidism. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2014; 7(4):1028–34 [PMC free article: PMC4057856] [PubMed: 24955177]
488.
Toriie S, Sugimoto T, Hokimoto N, Funakoshi T, Ogawa M, Oki T et al. Evaluation of the minimally invasive parathyroidectomy in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: A retrospective cohort study. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2016; 7:42–7 [PMC free article: PMC4802411] [PubMed: 27054033]
489.
Treglia G, Sadeghi R, Schalin-Jantti C, Caldarella C, Ceriani L, Giovanella L. Detection rate of 99mTc-MIBI single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT in preoperative planning for patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: A meta-analysis. Head and Neck. 2016; 38:(Suppl 1):E2159–E2172 [PubMed: 25757222]
490.
Treglia G, Trimboli P, Huellner M, Giovanella L. Imaging in primary hyperparathyroidism: focus on the evidence-based diagnostic performance of different methods. Minerva Endocrinologica. 2018; 43(2):133–43 [PubMed: 28650133]
491.
Trinh G, Noureldine SI, Russell JO, Agrawal N, Lopez M, Prescott JD et al. Characterizing the operative findings and utility of intraoperative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) monitoring in patients with normal baseline IOPTH and normohormonal primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2017; 161(1):78–86 [PubMed: 27863787]
492.
Tublin ME, Pryma DA, Yim JH, Ogilvie JB, Mountz JM, Bencherif B et al. Localization of parathyroid adenomas by sonography and technetium Tc 99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography before minimally invasive parathyroidectomy are both studies really needed? Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2009; 28(2):183–90 [PubMed: 19168768]
493.
Tummers QRJG, Schepers A, Hamming JF, Kievit J, Frangioni JV, Van De Velde CJH et al. Intraoperative guidance in parathyroid surgery using near-infrared fluorescence imaging and low-dose Methylene Blue. Surgery. 2015; 158(5):1323–30 [PMC free article: PMC4603995] [PubMed: 25958068]
494.
Tunca F, Akici M, Iscan Y, Sormaz IC, Giles Senyurek Y, Terzioglu T. The impact of combined interpretation of localization studies on image-guided surgical approaches for primary hyperparathyroidism Minerva Endocrinologica. 2017; 42(3):213–22 [PubMed: 26861685]
495.
Tziakouri C, Eracleous E, Skannavis S, Pierides A, Symeonides P, Gourtsoyiannis N. Value of ultrasonography, CT and MR imaging in the diagnosis of primary hyperparathyroidism. Acta Radiologica. 1996; 37(5):720–6 [PubMed: 8915283]
496.
Udelsman R, Aruny JE, Donovan PI, Sokoll LJ, Santos F, Donabedian R et al. Rapid parathyroid hormone analysis during venous localization. Annals of Surgery. 2003; 237(5):714–21 [PMC free article: PMC1514511] [PubMed: 12724638]
497.
Ulanovski D, Feinmesser R, Cohen M, Sulkes J, Dudkiewicz M, Shpitzer T. Preoperative evaluation of patients with parathyroid adenoma: Role of high-resolution ultrasonography. Head and Neck. 2002; 24(1):1–5 [PubMed: 11774396]
498.
Untch BR, Adam MA, Scheri RP, Bennett KM, Dixit D, Webb C et al. Surgeon-performed ultrasound is superior to 99Tc-sestamibi scanning to localize parathyroid adenomas in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: Results in 516 patients over 10 years. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2011; 212(4):522–9 [PMC free article: PMC5706459] [PubMed: 21463783]
499.
Valdemarsson S, Bergenfelz A, Tennvall J, Ahren B. Thallium-technetium parathyroid scintigraphy during Na2 EDTA-stimulated parathyroid hormone secretion for localization of enlarged parathyroid glands. Surgical Research Communications. 1998; 19(2–4):299–310
500.
Van Dalen A, Smit CP, Van Vroonhoven TJMV, Burger H, De Lange EE. Minimally invasive surgery for solitary parathyroid adenomas in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: Role of US with supplemental CT. Radiology. 2001; 220(3):631–9 [PubMed: 11526260]
501.
Van Der Vorst JR, Schaafsma BE, Verbeek FPR, Swijnenburg RJ, Tummers QRJG, Hutteman M et al. Intraoperative near-infrared fluorescence imaging of parathyroid adenomas with use of low-dose methylene blue. Head and Neck. 2014; 36(6):853–8 [PMC free article: PMC3779489] [PubMed: 23720199]
502.
Van Ginhoven TM, Morks AN, Schepers T, De Graaf PW, Smit PC. Surgeon-performed ultrasound as preoperative localization study in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. European Surgical Research. 2011; 47(2):70–4 [PubMed: 21701177]
503.
Vaz A, Griffiths M. Parathyroid imaging and localization using SPECT/CT: Initial results. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. 2011; 39(3):195–200 [PubMed: 21795371]
504.
Vignali E, Picone A, Materazzi G, Steffe S, Berti P, Cianferotti L et al. A quick intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay in the surgical management of patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: A study of 206 consecutive cases. European Journal of Endocrinology. 2002; 146(6):783–8 [PubMed: 12039698]
505.
Vitetta GM, Neri P, Chiecchio A, Carriero A, Cirillo S, Mussetto AB et al. Role of ultrasonography in the management of patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: Retrospective comparison with technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy. Journal of Ultrasound. 2014; 17(1):1–12 [PMC free article: PMC3945200] [PubMed: 24616746]
506.
Von Schulthess GK, Weder W, Goebel N, Buchmann P, Gadze A, Augustiny N et al. 1.5 T MRI, CT, ultrasonography and scintigraphy in hyperparathyroidism. European Journal of Radiology. 1988; 8(3):157–64 [PubMed: 2844536]
507.
Wachtel H, Cerullo I, Bartlett EK, Kelz RR, Karakousis GC, Fraker DL. What can we learn from intraoperative parathyroid hormone levels that do not drop appropriately? Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2015; 22(6):1781–8 [PubMed: 25354574]
508.
Wade TJ, Yen TW, Amin AL, Wang TS. Surgical management of normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism. World Journal of Surgery. 2012; 36(4):761–6 [PubMed: 22286968]
509.
Weber CJ, Ritchie JC. Retrospective analysis of sequential changes in serum intact parathyroid hormone levels during conventional parathyroid exploration. Surgery. 1999; 126(6):1139–44 [PubMed: 10598199]
510.
Weber CJ, Vansant J, Alazraki N, Christy J, Watts N, Phillips LS et al. Value of technetium 99m sestamibi iodine 123 imaging in reoperative parathyroid surgery. Surgery. 1993; 114(6):1011–8 [PubMed: 8256204]
511.
Weber KJ, Misra S, Lee JK, Wilhelm SW, DeCresce R, Prinz RA. Intraoperative PTH monitoring in parathyroid hyperplasia requires stricter criteria for success. Surgery. 2004; 136(6):1154–9 [PubMed: 15657570]
512.
Weber T, Cammerer G, Schick C, Solbach C, Hillenbrand A, Barth TF et al. C-11 methionine positron emission tomography/computed tomography localizes parathyroid adenomas in primary hyperparathyroidism. Hormone and Metabolic Research. 2010; 42(3):209–14 [PubMed: 20013649]
513.
Weber T, Gottstein M, Schwenzer S, Beer A, Luster M. Is C-11 Methionine PET/CT able to localise sestamibi-negative parathyroid adenomas? World Journal of Surgery. 2017; 41(4):980–5 [PubMed: 27834016]
514.
Weber T, Maier-Funk C, Ohlhauser D, Hillenbrand A, Cammerer G, Barth TF et al. Accurate preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas with C-11 methionine PET/CT. Annals of Surgery. 2013; 257(6):1124–8 [PubMed: 23478517]
515.
Wei JP, Burke GJ. Cost utility of routine imaging with Tc-99m-sestamibi in primary hyperparathyroidism before initial surgery. American Surgeon. 1997; 63(12):1097–101 [PubMed: 9393259]
516.
Wei JP, Burke GJ, Mansberger AR, Jr. Prospective evaluation of the efficacy of technetium 99m sestamibi and iodine 123 radionuclide imaging of abnormal parathyroid glands. Surgery. 1992; 112(6):1111–7 [PubMed: 1455313]
517.
Wei JP, Burke GJ, Mansberger AR, Jr, McGarity WC. Preoperative imaging of abnormal parathyroid glands in patients with hyperparathyroid disease using combination Tc-99m-pertechnetate and Tc-99m-sestamibi radionuclide scans. Annals of Surgery. 1994; 219(5):568–73 [PMC free article: PMC1243190] [PubMed: 8185405]
518.
Wei WJ, Shen CT, Song HJ, Qiu ZL, Luo QY. Comparison of SPET/CT, SPET and planar imaging using 99mTc-MIBI as independent techniques to support minimally invasive parathyroidectomy in primary hyperparathyroidism: A meta-analysis. Hellenic Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2015; 18(2):127–35 [PubMed: 26187212]
519.
Westerdahl J, Bergenfelz A. Sestamibi scan-directed parathyroid surgery: Potentially high failure rate without measurement of intraoperative parathyroid hormone. World Journal of Surgery. 2004; 28(11):1132–8 [PubMed: 15490068]
520.
Westra WH, Pritchett DD, Udelsman R. Intraoperative confirmation of parathyroid tissue during parathyroid exploration: A retrospective evaluation of the frozen section. American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 1998; 22(5):538–44 [PubMed: 9591722]
521.
Wheeler MH, Wade JSH. Intraoperative identification of parathyroid glands: Appraisal of methylene blue staining. American Journal of Surgery. 1982; 143(6):713–6 [PubMed: 6178304]
522.
Whelan PJ, Rotstein LE, Rosen IB, Kucharczyk W. Do we really need another localizing technique for parathyroid glands? American Journal of Surgery. 1989; 158(4):382–4 [PubMed: 2679175]
523.
Whitley NO, Bohlman M, Connor TB. Computed tomography for localization of parathyroid adenomas. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 1981; 5(6):812–7 [PubMed: 7320286]
524.
Witteveen JE, Kievit J, Stokkel MP, Morreau H, Romijn JA, Hamdy NA. Limitations of Tc99m-MIBI-SPECT imaging scans in persistent primary hyperparathyroidism. World Journal of Surgery. 2011; 35(1):128–39 [PMC free article: PMC3006642] [PubMed: 20957360]
525.
Witteveen JE, Kievit J, Van Erkel AR, Morreau H, Romijn JA, Hamdy NAT. The role of selective venous sampling in the management of persistent hyperparathyroidism revisited. European Journal of Endocrinology. 2010; 163(6):945–52 [PubMed: 20870706]
526.
Wong KK, Fig LM, Gross MD, Dwamena BA. Parathyroid adenoma localization with 99mTc-sestamibi SPECT/CT: a meta-analysis. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2015; 36(4):363–75 [PubMed: 25642803]
527.
Wong SW, Chan KW, Paulose NM, Leong HT. Scan-directed unilateral neck exploration for primary hyperparathyroidism: Eight-year results from a regional hospital. Hong Kong Medical Journal. 2009; 15(2):118–21 [PubMed: 19342737]
528.
Wong W, Foo FJ, Lau MI, Sarin A, Kiruparan P. Simplified minimally invasive parathyroidectomy: A series of 100 cases and review of the literature. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2011; 93(4):290–3 [PMC free article: PMC3363078] [PubMed: 21944794]
529.
Woods AM, Bolster AA, Han S, Poon FW, Colville D, Shand J et al. Dual-isotope subtraction SPECT-CT in parathyroid localization. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2017; 38(12):1047–54 [PubMed: 28984813]
530.
Wu DD, Shaw JH. The use of pre-operative scan prior to neck exploration for primary hyperparathyroidism. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 1988; 58(1):35–8 [PubMed: 3046592]
531.
Yan S, Zhao W, Wang B, Zhang L. A novel technology for localization of parathyroid adenoma: Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration combined with rapid parathyroid hormone detection and nano-carbon technology. Surgical Innovation. 2018; 25(4):357–363 [PubMed: 29890904]
532.
Yao M, Jamieson C, Blend R. Magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative localization of diseased parathyroid glands: a comparison with isotope scanning and ultrasonography. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 1993; 36(3):241–4 [PubMed: 8324670]
533.
Yen TWF, Wang TS, Doffek KM, Krzywda EA, Wilson SD. Reoperative parathyroidectomy: An algorithm for imaging and monitoring of intraoperative parathyroid hormone levels that results in a successful focused approach. Surgery. 2008; 144(4):611–21 [PubMed: 18847646]
534.
Yen TWF, Wilson SD, Krzywda EA, Sugg SL. The role of parathyroid hormone measurements after surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism. Surgery. 2006; 140(4):665–74 [PubMed: 17011915]
535.
Yip L, Pryma DA, Yim JH, Virji MA, Carty SE, Ogilvie JB. Can a lightbulb sestamibi SPECT accurately predict single-gland disease in sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism? World Journal of Surgery. 2008; 32(5):784–92 [PubMed: 18324345]
536.
Younes NA, Hadidi AM, Mahafzah WS, Tarawneh ES, Al-Khatib YF, Sroujieh AS. Accuracy of single versus combined use of ultrasonography or computed tomography in the localization of parathyroid adenoma. Saudi Medical Journal. 2008; 29(2):213–7 [PubMed: 18246229]
537.
Ypsilantis E, Charfare H, Wassif WS. Intraoperative PTH assay during minimally invasive parathyroidectomy may be helpful in the detection of double adenomas and may minimise the risk of recurrent surgery International Journal of Endocrinology. 2010; 2010:178671 [PMC free article: PMC3010640] [PubMed: 21197437]
538.
Zawawi F, Mlynarek AM, Cantor A, Varshney R, Black MJ, Hier MP et al. Intraoperative parathyroid hormone level in parathyroidectomy: Which patients benefit from it? Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. 2013; 42:56 [PMC free article: PMC3878236] [PubMed: 24350891]
539.
Zeina AR, Nakar H, Reindorp DN, Nachtigal A, Krausz MM, Itamar I et al. Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) for preoperative localization of parathyroid adenomas. Israel Medical Association Journal. 2017; 19(4):216–20 [PubMed: 28480673]
540.
Zerizer I, Parsai A, Win Z, Al-Nahhas A. Anatomical and functional localization of ectopic parathyroid adenomas: 6-year institutional experience. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2011; 32(6):496–502 [PubMed: 21412177]
541.
Zhang L, Liu X, Li H. Long-term skeletal outcomes of primary hyperparathyroidism patients after treatment with parathyroidectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hormone and Metabolic Research. 2018; 50(3):242–9 [PubMed: 29381879]
542.
Zmora O, Schachter PP, Heyman Z, Shabtay M, Avigad I, Ayalon A et al. Correct preoperative localization: Does it permit a change in operative strategy for primary hyperparathyroidism? Surgery. 1995; 118(6):932–5 [PubMed: 7491536]
543.
Zotti D, Borsato N, Varotto S, Miotto D, Feltrin GP, Tasca A et al. Parathyroid localization in primary hyperparathyroidism: Double-tracer scintigraphy and venous sampling techniques combined. A first evaluation. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation. 1984; 7(4):363–6 [PubMed: 6501807]

Appendices

Appendix B. Literature search strategies

The literature searches for this review are detailed below and complied with the methodology outlined in Developing NICE guidelines: the manual 2014, updated 2017

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/pmg20/resources/developing-nice-guidelines-the-manual-pdf-72286708700869

For more detailed information, please see the Methodology Review.

B.1. Clinical search literature search strategy

Searches were constructed using a PICO framework where population (P) terms were combined with Intervention (I) and in some cases Comparison (C) terms. Outcomes (O) are rarely used in search strategies for interventions as these concepts may not be well described in title, abstract or indexes and therefore difficult to retrieve. Search filters were applied to the search where appropriate.

Table 21. Database date parameters and filters used

Medline (Ovid) search terms

Embase (Ovid) search terms

Cochrane Library (Wiley) search terms

CINAHL (EBSCO) search terms

PsycINFO (ProQuest) search terms

B.2. Health Economics literature search strategy

Health economic evidence was identified by conducting a broad search relating to primary hyperparathyroidism population in NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED – this ceased to be updated after March 2015) and the Health Technology Assessment database (HTA) with no date restrictions. NHS EED and HTA databases are hosted by the Centre for Research and Dissemination (CRD). Additional searches were run on Medline and Embase for health economics papers published since 2002.

Table 22. Database date parameters and filters used

Medline (Ovid) search terms

Embase (Ovid) search terms

NHS EED and HTA (CRD) search terms

Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables

Download PDF (1.5M)

Appendix H. Health economic evidence tables

Non-invasive preoperative imaging (PDF, 209K)

Intra-operative techniques (PDF, 201K)

Appendix I. Health economic analysis

I.1. Exploratory analysis for intraoperative parathyroid hormone testing during parathyroidectomy

I.1.1. Introduction

Intraoperative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) testing is a relatively new technique that can be used during a parathyroidectomy. The test allows surgeons to determine whether or not the surgery has resulted in a cure while the patient is still in the operating theatre.

Following the clinical evidence review, the criterion for cure has been defined as a drop in parathyroid hormone levels 10 minutes post-excision of at least 50% from the baseline value. Where IOPTH levels do not drop by 50%, it indicates that the patient may have not been cured and surgeons have the option of continuing the surgery to search for further adenomas. If further tissue is identified and removed during the initial surgery, it can avoid the patient needing to be readmitted to hospital for a second operation. The advantage of IOPTH testing over laboratory-based PTH testing is that it can be conducted in the operating theatre, without the need for a sample to be sent to a central laboratory, thus reducing the waiting time for results.

The economic evidence review found one cost-comparison analysis relevant to this question. This study concluded that rapid IOPTH assay was the most costly option per patient, relative to both delayed (laboratory-based) PTH testing and no PTH testing during surgery. As the study was focused on cost comparisons only, no health-related quality of life outcomes were considered. The study also had a short follow-up period of 1 month, which may not sufficiently capture follow-up costs, and no sensitivity analysis was included. As well as this, the study was conducted in Italy, thus reported resource use and unit costs may not reflect the current NHS context. Hence, this evidence was assessed to not be sufficient to inform recommendations.

The guideline committee identified this area as a priority for original economic analysis as IOPTH is a high-cost intervention and is not routinely used in current practice. Hence, if IOPTH testing is to be recommended as part of parathyroid surgery, there is potential for a large impact on healthcare resources.

I.1.2. Methods
I.1.2.1. Overview

Having reviewed the clinical evidence for IOPTH testing, it was agreed by the committee that there was insufficient clinical data to populate a full economic model to assess the cost effectiveness of IOPTH during parathyroidectomy.

One test-and-treat study was identified in the clinical review. This paper suggested that using intraoperative testing during parathyroidectomy resulted in no clinical difference in surgical outcomes. However, committee consensus was that this study was not representative of the population in question due to methodological quality and small sample size.

Twenty-six diagnostic accuracy (first operation) studies were identified in the clinical review and were considered for the purpose of populating an economic model. However, little data was available to sufficiently populate patient pathways.

Due to the level of uncertainty surrounding model inputs, particularly due to lack of data for quality of life estimates, it was agreed that conducting a full cost-effectiveness analysis for IOPTH testing would require too many tenuous assumptions and results would be unreliable.

Consequently, it was decided that using an exploratory threshold approach would be more appropriate. Analysis was undertaken to answer two questions:

  1. What is the improvement in the probability of successful surgery required to make testing with IOPTH cost-neutral?
  2. What is the improvement in quality of life required to make testing with IOPTH cost-effective?

The first question was considered relevant as the cost of re-operation following a failed initial operation is high. Therefore, if IOPTH leads to a significant improvement in the success of first-time surgery, it is possible that the cost of the test would be offset by savings from avoided reoperation. The result from this analysis could then be considered by the committee and compared against real world data from the audit by the British Association of Endocrine and Thyroid Surgeons (BAETS), as well to that experienced by the committee members in practice, to gauge whether this degree of improvement is realistic. If so, it would be reasonable to conclude that IOPTH is cost effective as it would not incur any additional cost overall and improve health outcomes.

If the results from question one of the analysis suggest that IOPTH testing is unlikely to be cost neutral, its use may still be cost effective at the NICE £20,000 to £30,000 threshold. However, due to a lack of data for change in quality of life following successful parathyroid surgery, question two sought to determine what magnitude of improvement in QALYs would be necessary for IOPTH testing to be considered cost effective at the NICE threshold.

I.1.2.1.1. Comparators

The comparators included in the model are:

  1. Parathyroidectomy with no IOPTH testing.
  2. Parathyroidectomy with IOPTH testing.

I.1.2.1.2. Population

The population considered in this analysis are adults (18 years and over) with confirmed primary hyperparathyroidism caused by single adenoma, 4-gland hyperplasia, double adenoma or ectopic adenoma who are eligible for a parathyroidectomy. Patients who undergo parathyroidectomy for conditions other than PHPT are excluded as they are beyond the scope of this guideline.

I.1.2.1.3. Time horizon

The time horizon used for this analysis is one year. From committee discussions, this was considered a reasonable estimate for the length of time patients whose parathyroidectomy did not result in a cure would wait before a second surgery would take place. It is assumed that following a second surgery, all patients will be cured of PHPT, and therefore there is no difference in quality of life or on-going costs between these two treatment arms from that point onwards. (Please see section 1.8.2 for the rationale behind this assumption). Hence, the analysis has been limited to the period of time between first and second surgery, as this will be the only time where costs and quality of life – as measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – will be different between the two groups.

I.1.2.1.4. Perspective

This analysis was undertaken from an NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective.

I.1.2.2. Approach to analysis

A decision-tree was used for this set of analyses (Figure 28) and includes the following data inputs:

-

Costs:

  • Surgical staff (surgeon, surgical assistant, anaesthetist, two nurses)
  • Operating theatre
  • IOPTH test equipment (machine)
  • IOPTH test reagents
  • Lab technician (to run IOPTH test)
  • Re-operation (including additional imaging and consultations)

-

Resource use:

  • Surgery time

    Additional surgery time for IOPTH test

    Additional surgery time for conversion or extension

-

Outcomes:

  • Probability of successful surgery with and without IOPTH
  • Probability of surgery being extended with and without IOPTH

I.1.2.2.1. Key assumptions

Due to the wide variation in current practice in the treatment of PHPT where surgery does not result in a cure, it was necessary for this analysis to make a number of assumptions with regard to the underlying patient characteristics:

-

All patients entering the decision tree are undergoing parathyroid surgery for the first time.

-

At the completion of the first operation, the patient is either cured or not cured.

-

Patients who are cured will remained cured thereafter (i.e. do not have recurrent disease).

-

Patients who are not cured after the first operation will undergo reoperation.

  • While it is possible that patients whose PHPT is not cured by initial surgery will not go on to have a second operation, there is very little clinical evidence or established clinical practice on the treatment for patients following unsuccessful surgery, therefore it would be difficult to estimate costs and quality of life for this group of patients. The committee agreed that the proportion of patients in this group is small, and therefore was considered negligible for the purpose of this analysis.

-

For patients who undergo a second operation, there is a waiting period of one year between the first and second operations, as patients need to be reassessed before surgery is attempted again.

-

Following reoperation, all patients are cured.

  • In practice, some patients will not be cured after reoperation. However, the committee discussed that the cure rates from second surgery are favourable with around 87% of patients being cured, according to the BAETs database. As the number of patients who remain not cured following second operation is very low, the committee agreed that it can be assumed to be negligible for the purpose of this analysis.
  • The key implication of this assumption is that, in both treatment pathways, the final outcome in both arms will be the same. That is, IOPTH testing will not change the ultimate number of patients who are cured once reoperation has been taken into consideration.

Figure 28. Decision Tree

I.1.2.2.2. Uncertainty

Given the lack of available data, a number of key inputs have been estimated by the committee. However, there remains a considerable degree of uncertainty due to variations in practice. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was not deemed useful for this exploratory analysis. However, uncertainty was considered through multiple scenario sensitivity analyses.

For the base case, the input values chosen are those that have been deemed most likely to reflect real world practice, as advised by committee discussion. For sensitivity analysis, a number of scenarios will be considered that reflect the extremes of the range of estimates provided by the committee.

I.1.2.3. Model inputs

Only one test-and-treat study was identified during the clinical review that reported effectiveness – measured as the proportion of participants that achieved normocalcaemia at the 6-month follow-up after surgery – for IOPTH in surgical outcomes for PHPT. The study had a small sample size (n=40) and committee consensus was that the results are unlikely to be representative of the population in question, and that real-world data will provide a more accurate representation of clinical effectiveness. The committee advised that the 2017 National Audit86 conducted by the British Association of Endocrine and Thyroid Surgeons (BAETS) would be the most suitable dataset for this analysis as it is more likely to reflect real-world outcomes of parathyroidectomy both with and without IOPTH testing86. This audit reports the surgical management of endocrine disorders in the UK over a 5-year period (between July 2010 and June 2015). Data is reported by members of BAETS and includes details of surgery and surgical outcomes such as short-term complications. In addition to this, the audit reports information on the use of pre-operative and intra-operative investigations and details of the pathology of the disease being treated.

It is important to note that while BAETS is a large data set – a total of 13,012 parathyroidectomies were recorded within a five year period – it has a number of limitations. Firstly, as the data is self-reported by health professionals, there is potential for bias as it is possible surgeons and practices with a higher success rate are more likely to report outcomes, thereby skewing cure rates higher. Secondly, the results are not adjusted for confounders, therefore it is not possible to establish whether the population included in the audit is representative of all people who have been assessed to be eligible for surgery. The committee discussed that in practice it is likely that IOPTH will be used in more complex cases, and therefore the results could also be skewed towards reporting higher cure rates as this is where IOPTH is most beneficial. In addition, the reported failure rates for IOPTH testing versus no IOPTH testing do not specify the type of surgery being performed nor the type(s) of pre-operative imagining used, hence it is important to note that the reported effectiveness cannot necessarily be attributed to IOPTH testing alone.

I.1.2.3.1. Effect of IOPTH testing on surgical outcomes

Probability of not being cured: the rate of failed parathyroid surgery – that is, where surgery does not result in a cure after first surgery – for both those who underwent parathyroidectomy with and without IOPTH were taken from the BAETS audit (2017).

Table 26. Probability of not being cured (persisting hypercalcaemia) following parathyroidectomy

Probability of surgery being extended: for patients undergoing planned targeted parathyroidectomy, there is a possibility they will be converted to 4-gland exploration if the surgeon considers it necessary and the surgery will be extended. Likewise, for patients undergoing planned 4-gland exploration, it is possible the surgery will extend beyond a typical length of time if the surgeon considers it necessary. The surgeon may make this decision with or without the use of IOPTH testing. To capture the increased cost of a negative test result, the BAETS audit was used. This reports that for patients undergoing planned targeted parathyroidectomy, 6.4% of surgeries without IOPTH testing converted to 4-gland exploration, while for surgeries with IOPTH testing, 12.0% were converted. For patients undergoing planned 4-gland exploration, no figures are available for the proportion whose surgery is extended. For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that the proportion of 4-gland explorations that are extended with and without IOPTH testing are the same as those for conversion in focused parathyroidectomies with and without IOPTH testing, respectively.

Table 26. Proportion of planned targeted parathyroidectomies that are converted

The discrepancy between the increase in probability of extension and probability of surgical success suggest that a proportion of IOPTH tests will incorrectly show that the patient has not been cured even though in reality cure has been achieved (false negative test result). This represents an unnecessary extension of surgery and hence an inefficient allocation of healthcare resources. It was noted in committee discussion that the probability of unnecessary extension in 4-gland surgery is likely to be lower than that of unnecessary conversion in targeted surgery; hence the above assumption may be an overestimate. This uncertainty will be addressed as part of the sensitivity analysis.

I.1.2.3.2. Resource use

Due to the lack of published data on the use of healthcare resources for parathyroid surgery, inputs to this model have largely been informed by committee discussion. This includes information regarding medical staff required for parathyroidectomy and the average length of time for surgery when IOPTH is used and when it is not.

First operation: the committee agreed for a typical operation, the medical staff required for a parathyroidectomy consist of a surgeon, a surgical assistant, an anaesthetist, and two surgical nurses. For surgery with IOPTH, there is also the added need for an IOPTH technician to be present to operate the machine.

The time required for an initial parathyroidectomy was estimated to be around 35 minutes on average, although the committee discussed that this is variable. Depending on individual circumstances, this may range between 25 to 60 minutes.

Additional time associated with IOPTH testing consists of the time required for the technician to run the test and any further operating time which may be required if the IOPTH test shows the patient has not been cured. The time for the test is considered to be standard at around 10 minutes. However, additional time for surgery that needs to be extended may range between 25 to 60 minutes. For the base case, an extension time of 35 minute was used as this was considered by the committee to reflect most ‘typical’ time for extension.

IOPTH testing: the IOPTH test requires the use of use of an analyser machine. The number of times the machine is used will determine the unit cost of the machine per person. The committee advised that the machine typically lasts around 6 years before it needs to be replaced. The number of times a machine is used will depend on how frequently the hospital performs parathyroidectomies. Hospitals that do not perform many parathyroidectomies a year may use it as few as 10 times per year. Hospitals that specialise in this area may use it up to around 132 times per year. As this varies widely between hospitals, it was not possible to place an exact value on the number of times a machine will be used. For the base-case, the committee estimated the machine will be used 20 times per year, as it was noted that most hospitals do not use IOPTH testing very frequently. The variation will be addressed as part of the sensitivity analysis.

I.1.2.3.3. Costs

Cost of first surgery: while NHS reference costs report standard costs for parathyroidectomy, these costs do not differentiate between surgeries that use IOPTH testing and those that do not. As this analysis is focused on the cost differences that result from IOPTH testing, the NHS reference cost was not used to cost initial surgery.

Instead, hourly costs of medical staff have been drawn from the PSSRU108 and confirmed with the committee to ensure the correct cost category and job description has been selected for each staff member. The cost of an anaesthetist was not listed on the PSSRU, however the committee advised this is likely to be similar to that for a consultant surgeon, and therefore the same cost was assumed. An additional cost was included to account for the use of the operating theatre. The estimate has been taken from the analysis used in a previous NICE guideline (NG39)334. This consists of total costs associated with the use of an operating theatre less the costs paid to the staff.

These are then applied to the length of time required for surgery to determine the total cost difference between surgery with IOPTH testing and surgery without IOPTH testing.

Table 28. Cost of medical staff (per hour)

Cost of IOPTH test: the cost of an IOPTH test consists of the cost of the machine (incorporated as an estimated cost-per-use), the reagent, and the additional staff cost of an IOPTH technician during surgery. As the cost of the machine and reagents are not publicly available, these were estimated by committee members with experience of using IOPTH. The value for the base case analysis has been taken as the mid-point of the range of costs provided. Variation in costs will be addressed as part of the sensitivity analysis.

Table 29. Cost of IOPTH test

Costs of failed surgery: the costs associated with failed surgery consist of that for reoperation, pre-operative imaging and consultations with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) responsible for treatment of the patient.

The unit costs for pre-operative imaging techniques were drawn from NHS Reference costs where available, and supplemented by committee estimates for items not included on the NHS Reference costs (Table 30).

The NHS Reference cost for an outpatient consultation with an endocrinologist has been used as the unit cost for pre-operative consultations (£158).

Due to the lack of a standardised set of costs that specifically apply to reoperation, for the purpose of this model we have used the NHS Reference cost for parathyroidectomy with a CC score of 2+ (£3417).

Variations in the pre-operative costs for a second surgery will be addressed as part of the sensitivity analysis.

Table 30. Pre-operative costs for re-operation for primary hyperparathyroidism

I.1.2.4. Sensitivity analyses

Due to the uncertainty of inputs, the robustness of results was examined using a series of scenario analyses to take into consideration variation in inputs. In the absence of published data to inform the range of values used for these analyses, estimates have been based on advice from the guideline committee.

I.1.2.4.1. One-way sensitivity analyses

The parameters subject to one-way sensitivity analyses and the ranges used are listed in Table 31 below.

Table 31. Parameters subject to one-way sensitivity analyses

Analyser (machine) upfront cost: as IOPTH testing is not currently used in most hospitals, the committee noted that the upfront cost of the machine itself may be prohibitive, especially for smaller healthcare providers which do not conduct many parathyroidectomies and expect to use the machine less frequently. At the same time, some larger hospitals which are more likely to use the technology may receive significant discounts from the manufacturers as they will benefit from on-going purchases of reagents used in each test. In some cases, it was suggested that the machine may be provided to the hospital at no cost. Hence, a minimum cost of £0 and a maximum of £20,000 were explored. The upper range here is the highest estimated cost given by the committee.

Cost of reagents: committee members who use – or have considered using – IOPTH testing advised that the price of reagents can vary depending on the number purchased, with lower unit prices for larger orders. This further reinforces the fact that where IOPTH testing is used more frequently they are more likely to be cost effective. Furthermore, while each packet of reagents may be used for multiple tests, once the packet is opened all tests must be used or discarded, hence if multiple operations can be undertaken at the same time, the cost of each test will again be lower. The committee advised that the price of reagents typically range between £270 and £400 per pack.

Additional time for extended surgery: in cases where surgery need to be extended, a longer time required for this extension potentially incurs greater costs as more healthcare resources are required to carry out the procedure. The committee advised that typical extension time is comparable to that of the initial surgery, therefore it has been assumed that this will range between a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 60 minutes.

Costs following failed surgery (including cost of pre-operative imaging and pre-operative consultations for re-operation and cost of re-operation): it was assumed that all patients whose initial surgery failed will undergo re-operation. It is also assumed that the cost of reoperation will be substantially higher than that of initial surgery, due to additional complications, the need for more advanced pre-operative imaging and additional consultations with the MDT prior to reoperation. It is expected that IOPTH is more likely to be cost-effective where costs associated with failed surgery is higher. For the purpose of this analysis, the minimum cost following failed surgery consist of the same pre-operative imaging as typical of an initial operation (ultrasound and sestamibi), and four consultations with an MDT; the maximum cost following failed surgery consists of two more advanced pre-operative imaging techniques (SPECT/CT and selective venous sampling) in addition to ultrasound and sestamibi, and six consultations with the MDT.

The relevant costs and level of resource use have been drawn from committee discussions.

I.1.2.4.2. Scenario analyses

In addition to the one-way analysis, a number of parameters are incorporated in the scenario analyses and are outlined in Table 32 below. These scenarios have been designed using the upper and lower limits of the range of estimates for inputs – including those described for the one-way analysis above - outlined in the previous section.

Table 32. Parameters examined in scenario analysis

Number of times machine is used: the committee discussed that where the rapid IOPTH analysers are used more frequently, the average cost associated with each test per person will be lower and thus more likely to be cost effective. Therefore, the committee considered it important to assess this in a sensitivity analysis. The committee advised that centres which do not frequently perform parathyroidectomies will use it as few as 10 times in one year, while larger centres with a speciality in parathyroidectomies may use it up to over 100 times a year. The upper limit used for analyses was taken from committee estimate that the machine will be used on 44 different days in one year, with an average of 3 times per day on the days it is being used. This is used along with the cost of the analyser machine (as described in the previous section) to calculate the cost per use for the machine.

Improvement in surgical success rate as a result of using IOPTH testing: the key objective of using IOPTH is to increase the probability of parathyroid surgery resulting in a cure. The BAETS audit reported the 95% confidence interval for these probabilities, and these have been included as part of the sensitivity analysis. The upper and lower confidence intervals reported in the BAETs audit were used to calculate the maximum and minimum level of improvement attributable to IOPTH testing. It should be noted that there is an overlap in the two confidence intervals; this indicates there is a level of uncertainty in the BAETS estimates regarding effectiveness of IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy.

Table 33. Non-cure rate (persisting hypercalcaemia) following parathyroidectomy

Given that the lower boundary of non-cure rate for surgery without IOPTH testing is higher than the upper boundary of that for surgery with IOPTH testing, there is a possibility that parathyroidectomy without IOPTH testing could be more effective a achieving cure than parathyroidectomy with IOPTH testing.

As in the case of the one-way sensitivity analysis, relevant costs and level of resource use have been drawn from committee discussions.

I.1.2.4.2.1. Cost-neutrality analysis
1.

Minimum costs associated with IOPTH, maximum costs associated with failed surgery

This scenario presents the setting that maximises the likelihood for IOPTH testing to be cost-neutral. This scenario was used to determine the minimum improvement in probability of surgical success required to make IOPTH testing cost neutral. The cost of IOPTH here have been chosen to reflect the lower end of what costs are likely to be in practice, and costs associated with failed surgery chosen to reflect the upper end of what they are likely to be in practice.

2.

Maximum costs associated with IOPTH, minimum costs associated with failed surgery

By contrast, scenario B presents the setting to determine the maximum level of improvement in surgical success required to make IOPTH testing cost neutral.

I.1.2.4.2.2. Cost-effectiveness analysis

The required improvement in quality of life – given a certain cost setting – required to make IOPTH testing cost-effective will depend on the improvement in probability of curing PHPT through surgery as a result of using IOPTH testing. A larger improvement in this probability – and thus the larger number of additional number of people cured – means a smaller improvement in quality of life following successful surgery is required for IOPTH testing to be considered cost-effective.

The scenarios considered for cost-effectiveness are as follows:

3.

Minimum costs for IOPTH, maximum costs associated with failed surgery (as in scenario 1 above) with maximum improvement in surgical success rate

Scenario 3 assumes the best-case scenario with respect to effectiveness of IOPTH testing in improving surgical success rate. In this scenario, the difference between the number of people cured after surgery with IOPTH testing and number of people cured after surgery without IOPTH testing is larger, hence the difference in total QALYs will be likewise be larger. Under this scenario, a smaller increase in quality of life per person would be required for IOPTH testing to be considered cost-effective.

4.

Minimum costs for IOPTH, maximum costs associated with failed surgery (as in scenario 1 above) with minimum improvement in surgical success rate

Scenario 4 assumes the lowest possible rate of improvement in effectiveness of IOPTH testing. Consequently, a larger improvement in quality of life per person will be required for IOPTH testing to be considered cost-effective under this scenario.

As noted above, scenario 1 gives the most favourable outcome in terms of net costs from using IOPTH testing. Following this, scenarios 3 and 4 will consider the required improvement in quality of life for IOPTH testing to be cost-effective, given this cost setting.

5.

Maximum costs for IOPTH, minimum costs associated with failed surgery (as in scenario 2 above) with maximum improvement in surgical success rate

6.

Maximum costs for IOPTH, minimum costs associated with failed surgery (as in scenario 2 above) with minimum improvement in surgical success rate

Scenarios 5 and 6 use the same assumptions regarding improvements to probability of surgical success as 3 and 4 respectively. However, this will be considered under the cost assumptions of scenario 2, which assumes a higher net cost of IOPTH testing per person. Hence, the required improvement in quality of life following cure is expected to be higher in both scenarios compared to 1 and 2.

The result found in scenario 6 will represent the upper boundary of the required improvement in quality of life. That is, if it is reasonable to expect that curing PHPT will improve the patient’s quality of life more than this result, then it would be feasible to conclude that IOPTH testing is a cost-effective intervention.

Table 34. Summary of scenarios 1 to 6

7.

Scenario analysis assuming 100% accuracy of IOPTH

The exploratory cost-effectiveness analyses scenarios were re-run under the assumption of complete diagnostic accuracy for IOPTH tests. This scenario has been included as there is a high level of uncertainty regarding the diagnostic accuracy for IOPTH tests – in particular, with regard to the proportion of tests with a negative result (that is, showing the patient has not been cured) that are true negatives (that is, the patient actually has not been cured).

If the increase in proportion of surgeries that are extended for a parathyroidectomy with IOPTH testing relative to that of a parathyroidectomy without IOPTH testing is closer to the rate of improvement in surgical success, it indicates a lower rate of false positive results in IOPTH testing (i.e. where the test result shows non-cure for patients who are actually cured), thus lower unnecessary healthcare resource use. The committee advised that the increase in rate of extension in 4-gland surgery is likely to be lower than that of conversion in focused surgery, as surgeons who have conducted a full exploration are likely to have a better idea about the true nature of whether the patient has been cured. However, there is no clinical data comparing proportion of 4-gland explorations with IOPTH testing that are extended to that of 4-gland explorations without IOPTH testing that are extended. This scenario was incorporated into the model by assuming that the increase in the proportion of parathyroidectomies using IOPTH testing that are extended, relative to parathyroidectomies without IOPTH testing, is equal to the increase in proportion of patients cured for parathyroidectomies using IOPTH testing relative to proportion of patients cured for parathyroidectomies without IOPTH testing. This latter figure is taken to be 1.3% as reported by BAETS.

As previously noted, if there are a high number of false negative results, there will be a high number of surgeries that are unnecessarily extended. The assumption of 100% diagnostic accuracy will then skew the results in favour of IOPTH tests being cost effective, as it implies there will not be any unnecessary extensions in surgeries using IOPTH tests.

Note this will only be used in the sensitivity analysis for cost effectiveness, not cost neutrality. This is because for cost neutrality, the improvement in probability of successful surgery is the result to be determined. Therefore, as the calculation of proportion of surgeries that are extended is dependent on this result, it cannot be a variable input for this calculation.

I.1.2.4.2.3. For both cost-neutrality analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis
8.

Scenario analysis for non-rapid PTH test

An additional set of analyses was run to assess the cost effectiveness of a non-rapid IOPTH testing. The committee discussed that it is also possible (although uncommon) to test PTH during the operation, but not analyse the sample in theatre. In this case, the hospital does not need to acquire additional equipment, as the sample is sent to be analysed in the laboratory. The disadvantage of this method is that the turnaround time is much longer and consequently the surgical team and operating theatre would be required for a longer period of time as they wait for the results.

To assess the cost effectiveness of this scenario, the cost of running such a test was assumed to be the same as that of a standard PTH test, which has been estimated to be £8 using an average of quotes from 12 clinics, as reported by committee members. The time to run the test was extended to 30 minutes to reflect the average turnaround time for such a test.

I.1.2.5. Model validation

The model was developed in consultation with the committee; model structure, inputs and results were presented to and discussed with the committee for clinical validation and interpretation.

The model was systematically checked by the health economist undertaking the analysis; this included inputting null and extreme values and checking that results were plausible given inputs. The model was peer reviewed by a second experienced health economist from the NGC; this included systematic checking of the model calculations.

I.1.2.6. Calculations for cost-neutrality and cost-effectiveness
I.1.2.6.1. Cost-neutrality

In order for IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy to be cost-neutral, the additional costs associated with conducting the test needs to be balanced out by future savings that are attributable to the use of the IOPTH test. That is, where IOPTH test improves the cure rate of parathyroidectomy, fewer patients will require a second operation and thus not incur the costs for this reoperation.

The cost of the initial parathyroidectomy is calculated by applying unit costs to length of time required for surgery. The BAETS data reports that a certain proportion of parathyroidectomies – both with and without IOPTH testing – will be converted or extended. If this occurs, there will be an additional cost.

The cost of surgery without IOPTH testing C(A) has been calculated as the following weighted average:

C(A)=(C1(A)×P1(A))+(C2(A)×P2(A))

Where C1(A) is the cost of surgery without IOPTH testing that are not converted; P1(A) is the proportion of surgery without IOPTH testing that are not converted; C2(A) is the cost of surgery without IOPTH testing that are converted; and P2(A) is the proportion of surgery without IOPTH testing that are converted.

The same formula was used to calculate the cost of surgery with IOPTH testing C(B).

Therefore, the incremental cost (CIOPTH) of IOPTH testing compared to no IOPTH testing is given by:

CIOPTH=C(A)C(B)

Future cost savings (CSAVINGS) attributable to using IOPTH testing is calculated by:

CSAVINGS=(Improvement in cure rate)×(Cost of reoperation)

IOPTH testing will be cost-neutral where CIOPTH = CSAVINGS. The aim of the analysis is to find the improvement in cure rate required to achieve this cost neutrality.

I.1.2.6.2. Threshold analysis

The widely used cost-effectiveness metric is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). This is calculated by dividing the difference in costs associated with 2 alternatives by the difference in QALYs. The decision rule then applied is that if the ICER falls below a given cost per QALY threshold the result is considered to be cost effective. If both costs are lower and QALYs are higher the option is said to dominate and an ICER is not calculated.

ICER=Costs(B)Costs(A)QALYs(B)QALYs(A)
Where: Costs(A) = total costs for option A; QALYs(A) = total QALYs for option A
Cost effective if:
  • ICER < Threshold

The analysis will determine the QALY gain required for people undergoing parathyroid surgery with IOPTH testing compared to those without. Specifically, this refers to the additional QALYs gained from an increase in the number of patients cured after surgery due to the improvement in surgical success rate following IOPTH testing.

This difference then is: QALYs(B) − QALYs(A), or the denominator of the right-hand side of the above equation, where B is surgery with IOPTH testing and A is surgery without IOPTH testing. Rearranging the above equation then gives:

(QALYs(B)QALYs(A))=Costs(B)Costs(A)ICER

An ICER threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained and £30,000 per QALY gained will be used in consideration of cost effectiveness. This exploratory analysis aimed to determine the minimum level of improvement in quality of life following a success operation required to make IOPTH testing cost-effective.

I.1.3. Results
I.1.3.1. Base case

Under the base case, results of the analysis showed that in order for IOPTH testing to be cost-neutral, there needs to be an improvement in the probability of surgical success of 11.3%.

Under the base case, results of the analysis suggest that in order for IOPTH to be cost-effective at the £20,000 threshold, an incremental QALY gain of 2.02 per additional person cured is required for each patient following successful parathyroid surgery. For the £30,000 threshold, a QALY gain of 1.35 per additional person cured is required.

I.1.3.2. Sensitivity analyses
I.1.3.2.1. One-way sensitivity analyses

Results from one-way analysis (see Table 35) are illustrated in Figure 29 below. It may be observed that the factors with the largest influence on outcomes are the cost of the analyser and the reagents. This was in line with expectations as these constitute the items subject to the greatest amount of variation. In the case where the analyser machine is provided at no cost, the required QALY gain for IOPTH testing to be cost effective is lowered to 1.54, all else being equal. Where the upper limit of £20,000 was assumed, this required gain increased to 2.18, all else being equal. For the reagents, the case where the lowest estimated value (£270) was assumed, the required QALY gain fell to 1.77, all else being equal. Under the scenario using the highest estimated value (£400), the required QALY gain increased to 2.27, all else being equal.

Table 35. Improvement in qualtiy of life following cure required for IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy to be cost effective (£20,000 treshold)

Figure 29. Improvement in quality of life following cure required for IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy to be cost effective (£20,000 threshold)

I.1.3.2.2. Scenario analyses
IOPTH testing
Cost neutrality

Under scenario 1, the analysis shows that an improvement of 5.2% is required for IOPTH testing to be cost-neutral. Under scenario 2, an improvement of 30.0% is required for IOPTH testing to be cost-neutral.

Table 36. Improvement in probability of surgical success required for IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy to be cost-neutral

Threshold analysis

Under scenario 3, an additional 0.35 QALYs for each additional person cured is required for IOPTH testing to be cost-effective at the £20,000 threshold, and an additional 0.23 QALYs at the £30,000 threshold.

For scenario 5, the required improvements are 1.51 QALYs for each additional person cured for IOPTH testing to be cost-effective at the £20,000 threshold, and an additional 1.01 QALYs at the £30,000 threshold.

Under scenarios 4 and 6, the use of IOPTH test during parathyroidectomy leads to a lower surgical success rate, hence this intervention is both less effective and more costly. In this case, the option of using IOPTH testing is dominated by the option of not using IOPTH testing.

Assumed 100% diagnostic accuracy

Under scenario 7, an additional 1.97 QALYs for each additional person cured is required for IOPTH testing to be cost-effective at the £20,000 threshold, and an additional 1.31 QALYs is required at the £30,000 threshold.

Non-rapid PTH testing

Under scenario 8, the savings in costs relating to the IOPTH equipment, reagents and IOPTH technician was partially offset by the additional costs incurred due to the longer turnaround time in testing.

Results of the analysis suggest that for non-rapid PTH testing to be cost neutral, there needs to be an increase in the probability of surgical success of 5.7%. For non-rapid PTH testing to be cost effective, the required incremental QALY gain per additional person cured is 0.88 at the £20,000 threshold, and 0.59 for the £30,000 threshold.

Table 37. Improvement in quality of life (QALYs) required for IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy to be cost-effective

I.1.4. Discussion
I.1.4.1. Summary of results

The result from the base case cost neutrality analysis shows that, even using highly ‘favourable’ assumptions, there needs to be an improvement in surgical success rate of 5.7% in order for IOPTH to be cost-neutral. Given that an average of 94.9% of parathyroidectomies without the use of IOPTH are successful in curing PHPT – as reported in BAETS – such an improvement would not be possible. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that use of IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy is cost-neutral.

The results of the base-case threshold analysis suggests that there needs to be an improvement of 2.02 QALYs per additional person cured for IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy to be considered cost-effective at the £20,000 per QALY threshold. That is, each patient who has been cured of PHPT following parathyroidectomy must experience an improvement of 2.02 QALYS per year, relative to their quality of life prior to surgery. As a year of full health is equivalent to 1 QALY, this improvement would not be possible. Hence, IOPTH testing is not cost effective.

The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the inputs with the strongest influence on results for required QALY gains for IOPTH to be cost effective are the cost of the machine and the reagents.

Under sensitivity analysis using the most ‘favourable’ conditions for cost effectiveness (scenario 3), an improvement of 0.35 QALYs per additional person cured is required for IOPTH testing to be considered cost effective at the £20,000 threshold, and 0.23 QALYs per additional person cured at the £30,000 threshold. The committee advised that it was extremely unlikely that such an improvement in quality of life could be achieved from curing PHPT.

Under the assumption of the IOPTH test having 100% diagnostic accuracy, the required improvement in quality of life for IOPTH testing to be considered cost effective is slightly lower than the base case at 1.97 for the £20,000 threshold and 1.31 at the £30,000 threshold. However, this is still not a feasible improvement in quality of life for IOPTH testing to be cost effective.

The scenario analysis for a non-rapid IOPTH test indicated that an improvement in probability of surgical success of 5.7% is required for IOPTH testing to be cost neutral. A QALY gain of 0.88 per additional patient cured is required for IOPTH testing to be considered cost effective at the £20,000 threshold, and a QALY gain of 0.59 at the £30,000 threshold. As in the base case above, these outcomes have been considered highly unlikely to reflect reality and thus non-rapid IOPTH testing is also not cost neutral or cost effective.

I.1.4.2. Limitations

The purpose of the above analyses was to provide some indication as to whether using IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy can be justified from an economic standpoint. Although the analyses sought to use the most appropriate methodology based on available evidence, the lack of clinical evidence remains a serious limitations that must be considered when interpreting model results.

Data input – effectiveness

Data for clinical effectiveness of IOPTH tests were largely taken from the BAETS audit data. The audit was considered to be the most comprehensive dataset on clinical outcomes available for parathyroidectomy and was considered to reflect the real world. However, there are a number of limitations for this data. First, all data in the audit have been self-reported by the surgeons. Hence, if there are any systematic differences in outcomes of surgeons who report outcomes and those who do not, the outcomes reported may be biased. For example, if surgeons who use IOPTH tests but have lower probability of surgical success are less likely to report outcomes, the increase in surgical success attributable to IOPTH testing may be overestimated, in which case IOPTH testing would be less cost-effective than indicated by results here. However, it is possible that surgeons with lower probability of surgical success with IOPTH tests will also have lower probability of success without IOPTH tests, therefore the overall impact of this on measurement of improvement attributable to IOPTH tests may be negligible. While it is not possible to determine from the available data whether either of these cases apply, committee consensus is that even if there is some bias in favour of the benefit of IOPTH testing to surgical outcomes, this is likely to be very small.

Another drawback of the BAETS data is that many of the reported outcomes which have been used as inputs to the model may not be directly applicable to the relevant population. The improvement in probability of successful surgery from using IOPTH testing has been calculated as the difference in the probability of successful surgery with IOPTH testing and that without IOPTH testing. However, it is unclear whether the population reporting these outcomes are identical. Therefore, if there are systematic differences between these two groups of patients it is possible that this observed difference may not be fully attributable to IOPTH testing. For example, if IOPTH is typically used for more complex cases, it is possible that it will achieve a smaller improvement in probability of surgical success than if it was used for the general population, in which case it will bias the results against IOPTH being cost effective. However, without more comprehensive data on underlying patient characteristics, it is not possible to conclude whether this is the case in practice.

Additionally, the outcomes for surgery with and without IOPTH were not reported separately for types of surgery (e.g. targeted surgery or 4-gland exploration). Therefore, as above, it is difficult to discern whether any difference in surgical outcomes is attributable to IOPTH testing or to differences in types of surgeries used. Again, this may bias the reported outcomes however it is not possible to tell from reported data the direction or magnitude of this bias.

Furthermore, while probability of conversion from planned targeted surgery to 4-gland exploration was reported separately for surgeries with IOPTH testing and surgeries without IOPTH testing, the probability of extending surgery in planned 4-gland exploration was not reported. For the purpose of analysis, it was assumed that the probability of conversion and probability of extension were the same. However, it was also noted in discussions with the committee that in the case of 4-gland exploration, it is less likely that a surgeon will choose to extend the surgery just on the basis of IOPTH testing, hence false positive results in IOPTH tests are likely to have less of an impact on probability of extension. The BAETS audit reports that 4-gland explorations are used in over half of all parathyroidectomies, hence it is possible the number of unnecessary extensions assumed for the above analyses has been overestimated. If this is the case, it is possible a smaller number of QALYs need to be gained per additional patient cured to make IOPTH testing cost effective. However, in consideration of above results, it is still highly unlikely that IOPTH testing will be cost effective, particularly due to the fact that even under scenario analysis with an assumption of 100% diagnostic accuracy, IOPTH testing remains not cost effective.

As well as this, there is uncertainty regarding whether IOPTH actually improves probability of success in parathyroidectomy. While on average there is an increase in probability of cure associated with the use of IOPTH testing, there is an overlap in the 95% confidence intervals for probability of cure with IOPTH testing and that for probability of cure without IOPTH testing. Hence, there is a possibility IOPTH tests do not improve outcomes, or even reduces probability of surgical success. If this is the case, IOPTH testing would not be cost-effective at any cost.

Data input – costs

Where possible, the analyses used NHS Reference costs and PSSRU unit costs to calculate cost inputs. However, due to the highly specialised nature of IOPTH tests, not all costs are listed on these sources. In particular, costs of IOPTH testing equipment are not publically available. Consequently, it was necessary for the input data to be supplemented with estimates drawn from committee experience. The uncertainty associated with these estimates is addressed by incorporating a large range for costs of both the analyser and the reagents. Given that neither extreme of the costs assumption altered the outcome by a significant degree, it is reasonable to conclude that the results are robust against variations on these costs.

Likewise, there is wide variation in the costs associated with re-operation, particularly in relation to pre-operative screening and consultations. This is due to the fact that re-operations typically have a higher level of complexity relative to initial operations, and there is no standardised approach. Sensitivity analysis shows that results are robust against these variations as overall conclusions regarding the cost effectiveness of IOPTH are not altered by either extreme of the range of costs considered.

In addition to this, potential long-term costs have not been included as part of this analysis. It has been noted above that if long-term costs of PHPT following non-cure from surgery is extremely high, then even a small improvement in the probability of surgical success as a result of using IOPTH may be sufficient for the intervention to be considered cost-effective. Following discussions with the committee, it was agreed that due to the high level of uncertainty regarding long-term care and outcomes of people with PHPT, it would not be possible to estimate such long term costs with any degree of accuracy. For example, while it would be feasible to calculate average cost of monitoring over a specific time period, it would be difficult to incorporate costs of events such as fragility fractures or cardiovascular events. As a result, the range for potential long-term costs was considered far too speculative and could not be taken without taking tenuous assumptions that are not be adequately supported by evidence. It is also noted that the relevant population for this outcome is extremely small, hence the likelihood of overall costs being affected is also quite low. Consequently, while consideration for long-term costs should be noted, they have not been included as part of the main analysis.

Model assumptions

As noted in I.1.2.2.1, the assumption that all patients who are not cured by the first operation will go on to have reoperation and be cured is an oversimplification of real-world outcomes from parathyroidectomy. It is possible that a proportion of patients who are not cured the first time will choose not to have a second operation. It is also possible that some patients will not be cured even after re-operation. For these patients, the long-term treatment options are highly varied and are usually assessed on a case-by-case basis. Options may include further operations, pharmacological interventions such as calcimimetics, as well as long-term monitoring. As such, it was not possible to estimate long-term costs for these patients without making too many tenuous assumptions.

In interpreting the results of the analyses above, it must be noted that if IOPTH testing leads to a higher probability of cure in the initial operation, there will be fewer patients who face the probability of not being cured by parathyroidectomy – whether by choice not to have re-operation or due to unsuccessful re-operation – and who will need alternative long-term interventions, relative to the outcome where IOPTH testing is not used. If this is the case, there will be additional costs associated with parathyroidectomy without IOPTH, and a lower number of QALYs compared to the outcome where IOPTH testing is used. Hence, the above analyses may underestimate the cost-effectiveness of IOPTH if such long-term costs are very high.

In addition to this, the time horizon for this analysis has been limited to one year, which is assumed to be the average time between operations for patients who need reoperation. The committee advised this was a reasonable estimate for the average waiting time, however it was also noted that it was possible that a small number of patients will have a longer waiting time. Assuming IOPTH leads to higher probability of successful surgery, a longer waiting period would mean there will be a larger difference in QALYs for the group that had parathyroidectomy with IOPTH testing and those that had parathyroidectomy without IOPTH testing. A longer waiting period also means it is likely patients who are not cured during this time will accumulate higher treatment costs.

I.1.4.3. Implications of results

By designing scenarios to reflect the extreme values for cost and effectiveness inputs, the sensitivity analyses shows that while there will be some variation in the magnitude of results, none of the input settings lead to results that suggest IOPTH is likely to be either cost neutral or cost effective. However, while the results are relatively robust to variations in input values, the scenario analysis was unable to test for potential limitations imposed by the necessary simplifying assumptions in the above analyses.

As noted in the previous section, if it is found that in practice, treatment pathways and outcomes for parathyroidectomy to treat primary hyperparathyroidism is substantially different from those assumed in the model, it is possible that IOPTH is more likely to be cost effective than the modelling results suggest. At the same time however, it is also possible that IOPTH is less likely to be cost effective, if real-world settings are less ‘favourable’ than that assumed in the model – for example, if the improvement in probability of successful surgery attributable to IOPTH testing is smaller than assumed here. Without further evidence, however, it is not possible to determine which direction is more probable.

The model aimed to reflect real world outcomes as closely as possible, with underlying assumptions regarding treatment pathways determined following extensive committee discussion. It was agreed by the committee that, despite a substantial degree of variation in practice, the approach used in this analyses was – on average – an appropriate approximation. At the same time however, it was recognised that further research in areas including the clinical effectiveness and diagnostic accuracy of IOPTH testing, long-term outcomes of non-cure following parathyroidectomy, and impact on quality of life following successful parathyroidectomy will be required in order to obtain improved certainty regarding the cost effectiveness of IOPTH testing during parathyroidectomy.

I.1.5. Conclusion

Under the assumptions of the model, this analysis suggests IOPTH testing is extremely unlikely to be cost-neutral. Likewise, results of the analyses suggest IOPTH testing is highly unlikely to be cost-effective. This is largely due the fact the probability of success for parathyroidectomy in curing primary hyperparathyroidism is very high to begin with, thus room for improvement is limited. At the same time, the magnitude of improvement attributable by IOPTH testing is highly uncertain, ranging from very small to possibly negative. It is also unclear from the available evidence whether any observable improvement is attributable to IOPTH testing or if it is influenced by other factors such as surgical skills. Hence, based on the results of this analysis, the addition of IOPTH testing during first-time parathyroidectomy is not considered cost-effective.

Appendix J. Excluded studies

J.2. Excluded health economic studies

None.

Final

Diagnostic evidence review

This evidence review was developed by the National Guideline Centre

Disclaimer: The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or service users. The recommendations in this guideline are not mandatory and the guideline does not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian.

Local commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients or service users wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.

NICE guidelines cover health and care in England. Decisions on how they apply in other UK countries are made by ministers in the Welsh Government, Scottish Government, and Northern Ireland Executive. All NICE guidance is subject to regular review and may be updated or withdrawn.

Copyright © NICE 2019.
Bookshelf ID: NBK577897PMID: 35167214

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (4.2M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...