| Literature DB >> 33868171 |
Kai Yu1, Qingping Xue2,3, Fangli Zhou1, Haoming Tian1, Qiao Xiang1, Tao Chen1, Yan Ren1.
Abstract
Objective: Primary adrenal lymphoma (PAL) is easily misdiagnosed as other adrenal masses, such as adrenocortical carcinoma and pheochromocytoma, but patients with PAL benefit little from surgery. The diagnostic method for PAL thus far is limited to adrenal biopsy. In our study, we aimed to develop a quick and efficient diagnostic method for PAL. Methods andEntities:
Keywords: diagnosis; nomogram; nonfunctional adrenal mass; pheochromocytoma; primary adrenal lymphoma
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33868171 PMCID: PMC8050348 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.636658
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Figure 1Distribution of the patients in the primary study by age. The incidence of the cohort patients stratified by the age at diagnosis, including (A) absolute and (B) proportional cases. PAL, primary adrenal lymphoma; NAA, nonfunctional adrenal adenoma; PCC, pheochromocytoma; ACC, adrenocortical carcinoma; AMT, adrenal metastasis; ATB, adrenal tuberculosis; ACH, adrenocortical hyperplasia.
The etiology distribution of patients in the primary and validation cohorts.
| Type | The primary cohort (n = 505) | The validation cohort (n = 171) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BL (n =59) | UL (n = 446) | BL (n = 16) | UL (n = 155) | |
| PAL | 16 (27.12%) | 14 (3.14%) | 3 (18.75%) | – |
| NAA | 2 (3.39%) | 12 (2.69%) | 5 (31.25%) | 38 (24.52%) |
| PCC | 31 (52.54%) | 394 (88.34%) | 2 (12.50%) | 55 (35.48%) |
| Functional | 26 (44.07%) | 307 (68.83%) | 2 (12.50%) | 41 (26.45%) |
| Nonfunctional | 5 (8.47%) | 87 (21.53%) | – | 14 (9.03%) |
| ACC | – | 2 (0.45%) | – | 4 (2.58%) |
| AMT | 5 (8.47%) | 21 (4.71%) | 1 (6.25%) | 14 (9.03%) |
| ATB | 5 (8.47%) | 1 (0.22%) | 1 (6.25%) | – |
| ACH | – | 2 (0.45%) | 1 (6.25%) | 7 (4.52%) |
| AML | – | – | – | 1 (0.65%) |
| AC | – | – | – | 4 (2.58%) |
| Sarcoma | – | – | – | 4 (2.58%) |
| ML | – | – | 2 (12.50%) | 19 (12.26%) |
| NB | – | – | – | 2 (1.29%) |
| GNB | – | – | – | 1 (0.65%) |
| LA | – | – | – | 3 (1.94% |
| GN | – | – | 1 (6.25%) | 2 (1.29%) |
| Teratoma | – | – | – | 1 (0.65%) |
| Angioma | – | – | – | – |
PAL, primary adrenal lymphoma; NAA, nonfunctional adrenal adenoma; PCC, pheochromocytoma; ACC, adrenocortical carcinoma; AMT, adrenal metastasis; ATB, adrenal tuberculosis; ACH, adrenocortical hyperplasia; AML, angioleiomyolipoma; AC, adrenal cyst; ML, myelolipoma; NB, neuroblastoma; GNB, ganglioneuroblastoma; LA, lymphangioma; GN, ganglioneuroma.
The basic characteristics of the primary and validation cohort patients.
| The primary cohort (n = 505) |
| The validation cohort (n = 171) |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAL (n = 29) | non-PAL (n = 476) | PAL (n = 3) | non-PAL (n = 168) | |||
|
| 61.55 (13.22) | 46.13 (14.31) | <0.001 | 72.33 (8.02) | 48.10 (15.95) | 0.028 |
|
| 0.015 | 0.116 | ||||
| Female | 9 (31.03%) | 267 (56.09%) | 3 (100.00%) | 81 (48.21%) | ||
| Male | 20 (68.97%) | 209 (43.91%) | 0 (0.00%) | 87 (51.79%) | ||
|
| 0.156 | 1.000 | ||||
| No | 28 (96.55%) | 413 (86.76%) | 3 (100.00%) | 136 (80.95%) | ||
| Yes | 1 (3.45%) | 63 (13.24%) | 0 (0.00%) | 32 (19.05%) | ||
|
| 0.349 | 1.000 | ||||
| No | 25 (86.21%) | 366 (76.89%) | 3 (100.00%) | 150 (89.29%) | ||
| Yes | 4 (13.79%) | 110 (23.11%) | 0 (0.00%) | 18 (10.71%) | ||
|
| 0.111 | 0.327 | ||||
| No | 20 (68.97%) | 393 (82.56%) | 2 (66.67%) | 148 (88.10%) | ||
| Yes | 9 (31.03%) | 83 (17.44%) | 1 (33.33%) | 20 (11.90%) | ||
|
| 0.002 | 0.044 | ||||
| No | 17 (58.62%) | 395 (82.98%) | 1 (33.33%) | 148 (88.10%) | ||
| Yes | 12 (41.38%) | 81 (17.02%) | 2 (66.67%) | 20 (11.90%) | ||
|
| 0.057 | 0.018 | ||||
| No | 28 (96.55%) | 476 (100.00%) | 2 (66.67%) | 168 (100.00%) | ||
| Yes | 1 (3.45%) | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (33.33%) | 0 (0.00%) | ||
|
| <0.001 | 0.001 | ||||
| No | 13 (44.83%) | 433 (90.97%) | 0 (0.00%) | 155 (92.26%) | ||
| Yes | 16 (55.17%) | 43 (9.03%) | 3 (100.00%) | 13 (7.74%) | ||
|
| 7.00 [5.80;10.00] | 4.90 [3.58;6.60] | <0.001 | 10.20 [9.60;10.30] | 3.90 [2.40;5.82] | 0.006 |
|
| 0.40 [0.36;0.50] | 0.34 [0.26;0.45] | 0.018 | 0.69 [0.62;0.73] | 0.41 [0.32;0.52] | 0.017 |
|
| 0.83 [0.53;1.26] | 1.52 [1.15;1.90] | <0.001 | 0.81 [0.80;0.94] | 1.54 [1.23;1.87] | 0.012 |
|
| 0.89 [0.62;1.07] | 1.46 [1.19;1.83] | <0.001 | 0.64 [0.60;1.00] | 1.19 [0.95;1.44] | 0.111 |
|
| 372.00 [265.00;614.00] | 162.00 [142.75;191.25] | <0.001 | 562.00 [403.50;682.00] | 154.00 [133.75;182.50] | 0.005 |
D-max, maximum diameter; M, monocyte; L, lymphocyte; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDH, serum lactate dehydrogenase.
P values were estimated by Student’s t-test or Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables.
Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis results for the nomogram.
| Characteristics | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
| ||
|
| 1.09 (1.05, 1.13) | <0.001 | 1.07 (1.02, 1.14) | 0.002 | |
|
| Female | 1.00 (ref.) | 0.011 | 1.00 (ref.) | 0.567 |
| Male | 2.84 (1.27, 6.36) | 0.68 (0.15, 3.02) | |||
|
| No | 1.00 (ref.) | 0.002 | 1.00 (ref.) | 0.124 |
| Yes | 3.44 (1.58, 7.48) | 2.93 (0.62, 14.76) | |||
|
| No | 1.00 (ref.) | <0.001 | 1.00 (ref.) | 0.004 |
| Yes | 12.39 (5.59, 27.48) | 7.37 (1.44, 39.29) | |||
|
| 1.30 (1.16, 1.45) | <0.001 | 0.96 (0.72, 1.24) | 0.710 | |
|
| 0.07 (0.03, 0.19) | <0.001 | 0.41 (0.10, 1.31) | 0.116 | |
|
| 0.02 (0.01, 0.06) | <0.001 | 0.12 (0.01, 0.68) | 0.007 | |
|
| 1.01 (1.01, 1.02) | <0.001 | 1.01 (1.01, 1.02) | <0.001 | |
D-max, maximum diameter; L, lymphocyte count; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDH, serum lactate dehydrogenase.
Figure 2Nomogram to predict PAL based on age, bilateral masses, HDL-C and LDH. To build the nomogram, the first step was to locate each statistically significant variable (including age, bilateral masses, HDL-C and LDH) on the relevant axis, and then a straight line was drawn upward to the point axis on the top to gain the points for each predictor. The second step was to sum all points gained from each predictor to calculate the total points and locate them on the total point axis. Finally, a straight line was drawn at the bottom to indicate the probability of developing PAL. HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDH, serum lactate dehydrogenase; PAL, primary adrenal lymphoma.
Figure 3Internal validation of the nomogram to diagnose PAL. (A) Discrimination: The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 95.4% (95% CI, 90.6%–100.0%). (B) Calibration curve of the nomogram to depict agreement between predicted risks and actual outcomes of PAL. The horizontal axis represents the predicted risk of PAL, and the vertical axis represents the actual risk of the tumor. The 45° dashed line indicates perfect prediction by an ideal model. The dotted and solid lines indicate the observed (apparent) nomogram performance before and after bootstrapping.
Figure 4External validation of the nomogram to diagnose PAL. (A) Discrimination: The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 99.0% (95% CI, 96.9%–100.0%). (B) Calibration curve of the nomogram to depict agreement between predicted risks and actual outcomes of PAL. The horizontal axis represents the predicted risk of PAL, and the vertical axis represents the actual risk of the tumor. The 45° dashed line indicates perfect prediction by an ideal model, and the solid line indicates the observed (apparent) nomogram performance.
The predictive efficacy of the nomogram in validation cohort patient groups.
| Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 66.67% | 99.40% | 66.67% | 99.40% |
| Bilateral group | 66.67% | 100.00% | 100% | 92.86% |
| Unilateral group | UK | 99.35% | UK | UK |
| Nonfunctional group | 50% | 99.2% | 50% | 99.2% |
| Functional group | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; UK, unknown.