Introduction
Endogenous Cushing syndrome (CS) includes neoplastic hypercortisolism either due to autonomous cortisol production or excessive ACTH secretion.
1 Non-neoplastic hypercortisolism (NNH) is also an important clinical entity that is characterized as bona fide cortisol excess caused by conditions such as depression, chronic kidney disease, and poorly controlled diabetes.
2,
3,
4 Chronically elevated cortisol levels contribute to significant morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular, metabolic, musculoskeletal, and immunologic effects, including hypertension, diabetes, osteoporosis, and increased susceptibility to infections
5,6 leading to prolonged disease burden and worsening clinical outcomes.
2,3
Biochemical evaluation is indicated for individuals presenting with features of hypercortisolism, as well as for those with adrenal incidentalomas, regardless of symptoms, in accordance with current guidelines.
7 However, the workup is complicated by varying severities of hypercortisolism and diurnal rhythm of endogenous cortisol requiring screening tests to take advantage of predictable nadirs and negative feedback.
1 One of the current first-line screening tests for CS is the 1 mg (low dose) overnight dexamethasone suppression test (oDST).
8 Positive oDST results require additional testing such as late-night salivary cortisol and 24 h urine free cortisol measurements.
8,
9,
10
The oDST takes advantage of decreased HPA negative feedback sensitivity in CS.
11 An oral 1 mg dexamethasone dose is given between 2300 hours and 2400 hours and serum cortisol (SerCort) is then measured at 0800 h the following morning with levels <1.8 mcg/dL (50 nmol/L) representing normal suppression.
8 A clinical sensitivity of 95% highlights the oDST as a useful screening tool; however, a specificity of ∼80% indicates a greater potential for false-positive results.
10,12 A higher burden of false-positive results complicates diagnosis, leading to further testing, delays in diagnosis and treatment, and increased costs and resource utilization for both patients and the health care system. Therefore, the measurement of a serum dexamethasone (SerDex) in the next morning SerCort sample should identify insufficient SerDex levels that may result from factors such as mistiming of, or altogether missing the dexamethasone dose, differences in dexamethasone metabolism, variation in gastrointestinal absorption, increased cortisol binding globulin (eg, due to oral contraceptives), and medications that alter CYP3A4 activity.
13,
14,
15,
16,
17
To reduce unnecessary and costly SerDex measurements, our institution implemented in 2023 a Reflex protocol in which SerDex is only measured if post-oDST SerCort is ≥ 1.6 mcg/dL (ie nonsuppressed). This approach was suggested but not evaluated by Genere et al.
18 Since the purpose of this study was not to validate the concept of the oDST, we chose 1.6 mcg/dL as a conservative cutoff so that borderline SerCort with small variations around the accepted 1.8 mcg/dL cutoff would not bias the results. This study assessed equivalency in test performance between Pre- and Post-Reflex-oDST implementation and estimated the associated cost savings. As a secondary outcome, we evaluated therapeutic SerDex levels necessary for valid testing.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of implementing a protocol to only reflex samples for the measurement of SerDex that do not suppress post-oDST SerCort (the “Reflex-oDST”) using a very conservative 8 AM cortisol cutoff. The major findings were as follows: (a) There was no detrimental effect on oDST-suppressed SerCort levels with the implementation of Reflex testing. That is, the SerCort levels in patients without CS were not different from each other Pre- and Post-Reflex-oDST. The same was found in the group who had CS. (b) There were comparable optimal SerCort ROC cutoff values in the Pre- and Post-Reflex-oDST groups, which also demonstrated a lack of a detrimental effect on test performance. (c) The Reflex protocol eliminated the need for SerDex measurement in 68% of oDSTs ordered without reducing the accuracy of the oDST. (d) No correlation was found between SerCort and SerDex indicating that the SerDex concentration achieved may not be an important factor in assessing the accuracy of the oDST; rather the presence of a detectible SerDex may be sufficient (ie, a Boolean function).
When comparing the Pre- and Post-Reflex-oDST groups, we observed no difference in patient population characteristics, including the prevalence of positive oDSTs, CS diagnosis, and CS etiology. Notably, patients who had CS were older than those who did not have CS in both groups. Ueland et al demonstrated a positive correlation between age and oDST SerCort, which may partially explain the significantly higher age in patients with CS.
17 Age-related changes in HPA axis dynamics likely contributed to an increased prevalence of unsuppressed results.
21 Additionally, older patients often have more comorbidities, which may lead clinicians to have a lower threshold for further evaluation, increasing the likelihood of identifying CS in this population.
To demonstrate that implementation of oDST Reflex protocol did not negatively affect diagnostic performance, we compared SerCort levels and false positive rates defined by unsuppressed SerCort later determined not to have CS through further testing. We found no difference in SerCort levels before and after implementation of Reflex testing (within the patients who did not have CS and within the patients who had CS). We observed a 7% false positive rate in the Pre-Reflex-oDST group that was comparable to 10% to 14% in previous studies.
17,22 We found a comparable 9% false positive rate in the Post-Reflex-oDST group demonstrating preservation of test performance with Reflex implementation. These data are similar to those theorized by Genere et al
18 and we have now validated the approach.
Implementation of reflex SerDex testing reduced the number of oDST SerDex measurements by ∼68% and resulted in a cost savings of $18.64 per ordered oDST using Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Test reimbursement data, though this likely underestimates the true financial burden as patients are often billed at higher rates.
20 Therefore, the Reflex protocol not only did not have a detrimental effect on test performance but also improved efficiency by reducing unnecessary costs and resource utilization. It is also important to point out that the approach is likely to save additional costs like avoiding additional analysis such as unnecessary plasma ACTH, salivary cortisols, UFCs, and even MRIs.
For the purposes of diagnosis of CS, we used accepted oDST SerCort cutoff of ≤1.8 mcg/dL (50 nmol/L) that yields a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of ∼80%.
10,12 We, like most clinicians, utilize a ≤1.8 mcg/dL SerCort diagnostic cutoff with concomitant measurement of SerDex to improve specificity by reducing false positives due to subtherapeutic dexamethasone levels. For the current study, we used the cutoff of 1.6 mcg/dL to determine when to reflex samples for SerDex in the Post-Reflex-oDST group to be as conservative as possible particularly when considering biological variability around a value of 1.8 mcg/dL.
To demonstrate equivalency, we found SerCort cutoff values that maximize specificity based on oDSTs performed similarly in both Pre- and Post-Reflex-oDST groups. Our calculated cutoff value for SerCort Pre- and Post-Reflex-oDST validated that a small increase in SerCort oDST cutoffs results in an increase in specificity to >95% (utilizing Youden’s index). However, given that the oDST is a screening test, sensitivity should be prioritized. While higher specificity reduces false positives, it may also increase the risk of missing mild CS cases. Notably, it has been shown that concomitant SerDex measurement reduces false positives by 20%,
17 reinforcing the benefit of its inclusion.
To be conservative, we reanalyzed all of the data excluding the 6 patients with NNH. This had no effect on any of the outcomes. In fact, the oDST 8AM cortisol was almost identical when comparing NH to NNH patients further emphasizing the clinical challenge of distinguishing these highly overlapping groups in terms of their laboratory results.
Similar to previous studies, we found a broad range of SerDex levels across all oDSTs with minimal or no correlation to SerCort.
9,23,24 To maximize specificity, Ueland et al proposed a SerDex cutoff value of 130 ng/dL [0.130 mcg/dL (3.3 nmol/L)], while Ceccato et al proposed a SerDex cutoff of 180 ng/dL [0.180 mcg/dL (4.5 nmol/L)] prioritizing specificity.
17,25 SerCort levels the morning after taking 1 mg of dexamethasone (8 AM–9 AM) reflects delayed glucocorticoid negative feedback at the pituitary and hypothalamus that takes at least 1-2 h to be fully expressed.
26 Therefore, differences in measured SerDex at 8 AM the morning after the 1 mg dose ingestion reflect the variability of HPA axis feedback sensitivity and the timing of the pharmacokinetics of dexamethasone metabolism that can be influenced by several factors, such as age, BMI, and concomitant medications.
11,13,27,28 Our findings suggest that any detectible SerDex level (>50 ng/dL in our study), even if below the established reference interval (eg,140–295 ng/dL), is sufficient for a valid test and probably does not require repetition. That said, it may still be prudent to repeat the test if the SerCort does not suppress to <1.8 mcg/dL and the SerDex is < 100 ng/dL particularly with a high index of suspicion for CS.
24 oDSTs with SerDex values below the laboratory’s detectable limits (LOQ) should still be considered invalid, most likely due to dexamethasone noncompliance or differences in absorption and/or pharmacokinetics as described above. It is also important to point out that the LOQ for some serum dexamethasone assays are higher than the assay we used, which makes this point even more important.
18
An important final point is the practicability of the approach. Why not just store the serum cortisol sample and only test it for serum dexamethasone if requested
18? This is very challenging for clinicians in practice who work with a variety of reference laboratories and are often not aware of the SerCort oDST results until after the sample has been discarded. By building the reflex approach into the ordering system, this problem is avoided as it does not require the intervention of the ordering clinician, thereby reducing the administrative burden while reducing laboratory costs. The significance of our novel study is confirmed by the fact that, subsequent to our implementation, a major reference laboratory has recently established a similar Reflex oDST test (
https://www.labcorp.com/tests/503990/cortisol-dexamethasone-suppression-test-with-reflex-to-dexamethasone). Others are likely to follow. Our study, which is the first of its kind to our knowledge, should give the clinician assurance that this approach is appropriate. At our relatively small laboratory, this results in annual cost savings of $11,500 per year just for the dexamethasone levels not needed. The savings for each institutional and provider would obviously be different depending on their patient mix and test volumes.