BACKGROUND: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare cancer for which little level evidence exists to guide management. (18)F-FDG PET ((18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography) is an increasingly used diagnostic tool in patients with suspicious or indeterminate adrenal tumors. In some other solid tumors, (18)F-FDG PET may offer prognostic information that can guide optimal patient treatment. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether preoperative (18)F-FDG PET based on SUVs assessments has a prognostic value in ACC patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in patients who underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT for the evaluation of ACC. Inclusion criteria were an unequivocal diagnosis of ACC; all data from primary diagnosis available; (18)F-FDG PET/CT performed prior to surgery or other treatment of the primary tumor; a minimum of 6-months follow-up for surviving patients. All (18)F-FDG PET/CT procedures were reinterpreted in a blind fashion. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (23 without metastasis [M0], 14 with metastasis [M1]) fulfilled the study criteria. Median uptake values were tumor standardized uptake values (SUV)(max) = 11 (range: 3-56) and a tumor/liver SUV(max) ratio = 4.2 (range: 1.3-15). Median follow-up was 20 months. Although classic risk factors (tumoral stage, Weiss score) were associated with poor outcome, there was no correlation between primary tumor FDG uptake with overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) in M0 patients and with overall survival in M1 patients. (18)F-FDG uptake correlated inconsistently with sinister histological features, such as atypical mitoses or necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: At initial staging, primary tumor FDG uptake in ACC patients does not correlate with OS and DFS at 2 years. Patient prognosis and treatment strategy should not be based on uptake values.
BACKGROUND:Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare cancer for which little level evidence exists to guide management. (18)F-FDG PET ((18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography) is an increasingly used diagnostic tool in patients with suspicious or indeterminate adrenal tumors. In some other solid tumors, (18)F-FDG PET may offer prognostic information that can guide optimal patient treatment. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether preoperative (18)F-FDG PET based on SUVs assessments has a prognostic value in ACC patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in patients who underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT for the evaluation of ACC. Inclusion criteria were an unequivocal diagnosis of ACC; all data from primary diagnosis available; (18)F-FDG PET/CT performed prior to surgery or other treatment of the primary tumor; a minimum of 6-months follow-up for surviving patients. All (18)F-FDG PET/CT procedures were reinterpreted in a blind fashion. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (23 without metastasis [M0], 14 with metastasis [M1]) fulfilled the study criteria. Median uptake values were tumor standardized uptake values (SUV)(max) = 11 (range: 3-56) and a tumor/liver SUV(max) ratio = 4.2 (range: 1.3-15). Median follow-up was 20 months. Although classic risk factors (tumoral stage, Weiss score) were associated with poor outcome, there was no correlation between primary tumor FDG uptake with overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) in M0 patients and with overall survival in M1 patients. (18)F-FDG uptake correlated inconsistently with sinister histological features, such as atypical mitoses or necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: At initial staging, primary tumor FDG uptake in ACC patients does not correlate with OS and DFS at 2 years. Patient prognosis and treatment strategy should not be based on uptake values.
Authors: Désirée Deandreis; Sophie Leboulleux; Caroline Caramella; Martin Schlumberger; Eric Baudin Journal: Horm Cancer Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: Gavin C Mackie; Barry L Shulkin; Raul C Ribeiro; Francis P Worden; Paul G Gauger; Rajen J Mody; Len P Connolly; Ghada Kunter; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Jerold W Wallis; Craig A Hurwitz; David E Schteingart Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 5.958
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: 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
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: Andrea Gallamini; Martin Hutchings; Luigi Rigacci; Lena Specht; Francesco Merli; Mads Hansen; Caterina Patti; Annika Loft; Francesco Di Raimondo; Francesco D'Amore; Alberto Biggi; Umberto Vitolo; Caterina Stelitano; Rosario Sancetta; Livio Trentin; Stefano Luminari; Emilio Iannitto; Simonetta Viviani; Ivana Pierri; Alessandro Levis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Satoshi Takeuchi; Aparna Balachandran; Mouhammed Amir Habra; Alexandria T Phan; Roland L Bassett; Homer A Macapinlac; Hubert H Chuang Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Matthias Kroiss; Masatoyo Nakajo; Dirk O Mügge; Stefanie Hahner; Martin Fassnacht; Andreas Schirbel; Christina Bluemel; Takahiro Higuchi; Laszló Papp; Norbert Zsótér; Andreas K Buck; Ralph A Bundschuh; Constantin Lapa Journal: Endocrine Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 3.633