Retrospective analysis shows high diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT for primary aldosteronism, indicating effective subtyping methods.
68Ga-Pentixafor positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has shown potential in primary aldosteronism (PA) subtyping, but analysis of its diagnostic accuracy based on contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) concordance and PET/CT avidity patterns is lacking. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT for subtyping PA, and to assess its performance based on concordance with CECT and PET/CT avidity patterns. Clinical, biochemical, radiological, functional imaging, treatment, histopathological and follow-up details of 30 patients with PA who underwent PET/CT over two years at a tertiary centre in India were retrospectively analysed. Diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT for PA subtyping was evaluated in the whole cohort and in subgroups based on CECT-PET/CT concordance and PET/CT avidity patterns. Out of the 30 patients, final subtype classification was achieved in 15 (9 unilateral and 6 bilateral) based on surgical outcomes and/or AVS. PET/CT correctly subtyped 14/15 (93.3%) patients. CECT and PET/CT concordance was seen in 10 patients and PET/CT accuracy was 100% (10/10) in this subgroup. CECT and PET/CT discordance (CECT bilateral and PET/CT unilateral) was seen in 5 patients and PET/CT accuracy in this subgroup was 80% (4/5). PET/CT avidity patterns in the 15 patients having final subtype classification were unilateral avid(n=10), bilateral avid(n=2), and bilateral non-avid(n=3). Diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT was 90% (9/10) in patients with unilateral avidity, and 100% in those with bilateral avidity or non-avidity. Preliminary analysis of CECT-PET/CT scan concordance and PET/CT avidity patterns suggests that PET/CT demonstrates higher accuracy in certain subgroups, potentially guiding the triage for AVS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ban et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: