Clonidine Stimulation Test: Is Single Best Time Point, Convenient Yet Efficacious?

CONTEXT: To find a single time point during clonidine stimulation test (CST), with highest diagnostic value to rule out growth hormone deficiency (GHD). SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This is a retrospective study of 79 CSTs carried out in a tertiary care center in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 79 children with unexplained short stature was divided into two groups: GHD and non-GHD. Any one stimulated growth hormone (GH) level >10 ng/mL was used to rule out GHD. Diagnostic accuracy of not only single time points but also time points in pairs was calculated. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software 22.0. Descriptive statistics were used for analyzing demographic data. Mode for time to peak GH was calculated in each group. The specificity and false positive rates at each time point as well as combined time points were determined. RESULTS: Assaying a single sample at 60 min after clonidine resulted in 20.5% false positive tests with specificity of 79.5%. Addition of the 90 min sample increased specificity to 92.3%. CONCLUSION: The 60 min sample after clonidine stimulation was the best single sample to rule out GH deficiency. Combined sampling at 60 min + 90 min is economical and less cumbersome, with minimal compromise on the specificity.

Comparison of 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT in localisation of tumours in ectopic ACTH syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Localising ectopic adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) syndrome (EAS) tumour source is challenging. Somatostatin receptor-based PET imaging has shown promising results, but the data is limited to case reports and small case series. We reviewed here the performance of (68)Ga-DOTANOC positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in our cohort of 12 consecutive EAS patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective data analysis of 12 consecutive patients of EAS presenting to a single tertiary care centre in a period between January 2013 and December 2014 was done. CECT and (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT were reported (blinded) by an experienced radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician, respectively. The performance of CECT and (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT was compared. RESULTS: Tumours could be localised in 11 out of 12 patients at initial presentation (overt cases), whereas in one patient, tumour remained occult. Thirteen lesions were identified in 11 patients as EAS source (true positives). CECT localised 12 out of these 13 lesions (sensitivity 92.3%) and identified five false-positive lesions (positive predictive value (PPV) 70.5%). Compared with false-positive lesions, true-positive lesions had greater mean contrast enhancement at 60s (33.2 vs 5.6 Hounsfield units (HU)). (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT was able to identify 9 out of 13 lesions (sensitivity 69.2%) and reported no false-positive lesions (PPV 100%). CONCLUSION: CECT remains the first-line investigation in localisation of EAS. The contrast enhancement pattern on CECT can further aid in characterisation of the lesions. (68)Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT can be added to CECT, to enhance positive prediction of the suggestive lesions.