OBJECTIVE: Although representing a minority of adrenal adenomas, the lipid-poor variety cannot be accurately identified on unenhanced CT or chemical shift MR imaging. We compared the delayed contrast-enhanced CT features of lipid-poor adenomas with those of lipid-rich adenomas and of adrenal nonadenomas to determine whether there were differences in the washout features between these groups of lesions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighteen proven lipid-poor adenomas, 56 lipid-rich adenomas, and 40 adrenal nonadenomas underwent CT before, immediately after, and 15 min delay after IV contrast injection. Region-of-interest measurements were made of all adrenal lesions at the three time points. The degree of enhancement, enhancement washout, percentage enhancement washout, and relative percentage enhancement washout were calculated for each adrenal mass. Pooled data were analyzed statistically. Optimal threshold values for diagnosing adrenal adenomas were also determined. RESULTS: The mean CT attenuation of lipid-poor adenomas was significantly higher than that of lipid-rich adenomas at all three phases but not significantly different from that of nonadenomas. The mean percentage enhancement washout on images obtained 15 min after administration of contrast material was similar for lipid-rich and lipid-poor adenomas but was significantly higher than that of nonadenomas. The mean relative percentage enhancement washout was significantly different among all three groups. CONCLUSION: Lipid-poor adenomas cannot be differentiated from adrenal nonadenomas on the basis of a single mean attenuation value. However, lipid-poor adrenal adenomas show enhancement and enhancement washout features nearly identical to lipid-rich adenomas and can be distinguished from nonadenomas on the basis of a percentage washout threshold value of 60% and a relative percentage washout of 40%.
OBJECTIVE: Although representing a minority of adrenal adenomas, the lipid-poor variety cannot be accurately identified on unenhanced CT or chemical shift MR imaging. We compared the delayed contrast-enhanced CT features of lipid-poor adenomas with those of lipid-rich adenomas and of adrenal nonadenomas to determine whether there were differences in the washout features between these groups of lesions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighteen proven lipid-poor adenomas, 56 lipid-rich adenomas, and 40 adrenal nonadenomas underwent CT before, immediately after, and 15 min delay after IV contrast injection. Region-of-interest measurements were made of all adrenal lesions at the three time points. The degree of enhancement, enhancement washout, percentage enhancement washout, and relative percentage enhancement washout were calculated for each adrenal mass. Pooled data were analyzed statistically. Optimal threshold values for diagnosing adrenal adenomas were also determined. RESULTS: The mean CT attenuation of lipid-poor adenomas was significantly higher than that of lipid-rich adenomas at all three phases but not significantly different from that of nonadenomas. The mean percentage enhancement washout on images obtained 15 min after administration of contrast material was similar for lipid-rich and lipid-poor adenomas but was significantly higher than that of nonadenomas. The mean relative percentage enhancement washout was significantly different among all three groups. CONCLUSION:Lipid-poor adenomas cannot be differentiated from adrenal nonadenomas on the basis of a single mean attenuation value. However, lipid-poor adrenal adenomas show enhancement and enhancement washout features nearly identical to lipid-rich adenomas and can be distinguished from nonadenomas on the basis of a percentage washout threshold value of 60% and a relative percentage washout of 40%.
Authors: Michael J Kirsch; Miranda W Kohli; Kristin L Long; Susan C Pitt; David F Schneider; Rebecca S Sippel; Priya H Dedhia Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Giovanni Foti; Giuseppe Malleo; Niccolò Faccioli; Andrea Guerriero; Lino Furlani; Giovanni Carbognin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Tobias Else; Alex C Kim; Aaron Sabolch; Victoria M Raymond; Asha Kandathil; Elaine M Caoili; Shruti Jolly; Barbra S Miller; Thomas J Giordano; Gary D Hammer Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: Jin Young Kim; See Hyung Kim; Hee Jung Lee; Young Hwan Kim; Mi Jeong Kim; Seung Hyun Cho Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: L Tessonnier; F Sebag; F F Palazzo; C Colavolpe; C De Micco; J Mancini; B Conte-Devolx; J F Henry; O Mundler; D Taïeb Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 9.236