PURPOSE: This prospective multicentre study assesses the usefulness of FDG PET/CT in characterizing and making the therapeutic decision concerning adrenal tumours that are suspicious or indeterminate in nature after conventional examinations (CE). METHODS: Seventy-eight patients (37 men, 41 women, 81 adrenal lesions) underwent FDG PET/CT after CE including CT scan, biological tests and optionally (131)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) and/or (131)I-norcholesterol scans. FDG adrenal uptake exceeding that of the liver was considered positive. PET results were not decisive. Surgery was discussed when at least one of the following criteria was found during CE: size >3 cm, spontaneous attenuation value >10 HU, heterogeneous aspect, abnormal MIBG or norcholesterol scan or hormonal hypersecretion. RESULTS: Following the gold standard (histology analysis or >or=9 months follow-up), 49 lesions potentially qualified for surgery (malignant = 27, benign secreting = 22) and 32 benign non-secreting lesions did not. PET was negative in 97% of non-surgical lesions and positive in 73% of potentially surgical ones which included all the malignant lesions, except 3 renal cell metastases, and 12 of 22 benign secreting lesions. The negative predictive value for malignancy was 93% (41/44) and positive predictive value for detecting surgical lesions was 97% (36/37). A high FDG uptake (maximum standardized uptake value >or= 10) was highly predictive of malignancy. CONCLUSION: Adrenal FDG uptake is a good indicator of malignancy and/or of secreting lesions and should lead one to discuss surgery. If there is no prior history of poorly FDG-avid cancer, the absence of FDG uptake should avoid unnecessary removal of benign adrenal lesions.
PURPOSE: This prospective multicentre study assesses the usefulness of FDG PET/CT in characterizing and making the therapeutic decision concerning adrenal tumours that are suspicious or indeterminate in nature after conventional examinations (CE). METHODS: Seventy-eight patients (37 men, 41 women, 81 adrenal lesions) underwent FDG PET/CT after CE including CT scan, biological tests and optionally (131)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) and/or (131)I-norcholesterol scans. FDG adrenal uptake exceeding that of the liver was considered positive. PET results were not decisive. Surgery was discussed when at least one of the following criteria was found during CE: size >3 cm, spontaneous attenuation value >10 HU, heterogeneous aspect, abnormal MIBG or norcholesterol scan or hormonal hypersecretion. RESULTS: Following the gold standard (histology analysis or >or=9 months follow-up), 49 lesions potentially qualified for surgery (malignant = 27, benign secreting = 22) and 32 benign non-secreting lesions did not. PET was negative in 97% of non-surgical lesions and positive in 73% of potentially surgical ones which included all the malignant lesions, except 3 renal cell metastases, and 12 of 22 benign secreting lesions. The negative predictive value for malignancy was 93% (41/44) and positive predictive value for detecting surgical lesions was 97% (36/37). A high FDG uptake (maximum standardized uptake value >or= 10) was highly predictive of malignancy. CONCLUSION: Adrenal FDG uptake is a good indicator of malignancy and/or of secreting lesions and should lead one to discuss surgery. If there is no prior history of poorly FDG-avid cancer, the absence of FDG uptake should avoid unnecessary removal of benign adrenal lesions.
Authors: S Leboulleux; C Dromain; G Bonniaud; A Aupérin; B Caillou; J Lumbroso; R Sigal; E Baudin; M Schlumberger Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Andrea Frilling; Karsten Tecklenborg; Frank Weber; Hilmar Kühl; Stephan Müller; Georgios Stamatis; Christoph Broelsch Journal: Surgery Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Sébastien Aubert; Agnès Wacrenier; Xavier Leroy; Patrick Devos; Bruno Carnaille; Charles Proye; Jean Louis Wemeau; Martine Lecomte-Houcke; Emmanuelle Leteurtre Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Melvin M Grumbach; Beverly M K Biller; Glenn D Braunstein; Karen K Campbell; J Aidan Carney; Paul A Godley; Emily L Harris; Joseph K T Lee; Yolanda C Oertel; Mitchell C Posner; Janet A Schlechte; H Samuel Wieand Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-03-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Georg Zettinig; Markus Mitterhauser; Wolfgang Wadsak; Alexander Becherer; Christian Pirich; Heinrich Vierhapper; Bruno Niederle; Robert Dudczak; Kurt Kletter Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-06-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yon Mi Sung; Kyung Soo Lee; Byung Tae Kim; Joon Young Choi; Myung Jin Chung; Young Mog Shim; Chin A Yi; Tae Sung Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Désirée Deandreis; Sophie Leboulleux; Caroline Caramella; Martin Schlumberger; Eric Baudin Journal: Horm Cancer Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: L Tessonnier; C Ansquer; C Bournaud; F Sebag; E Mirallié; J C Lifante; F F Palazzo; I Morange; D Drui; C de la Foucardère; J Mancini; D Taïeb Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Philipp Backhaus; Benjamin Noto; Nemanja Avramovic; Lena Sophie Grubert; Sebastian Huss; Martin Bögemann; Lars Stegger; Matthias Weckesser; Michael Schäfers; Kambiz Rahbar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 9.236