Characterization of adrenal masses by using FDG PET: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance

Radiology

Volumn 259, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 117-126

  Boland, Giles W L ^a   Dwamena, Ben A ^b,c   Sangwaiya, Minal Jagtiani ^a   Goehler, Alexander G ^a   Blake, Michael A ^a   Hahn, Peter F ^a   Scott, James A ^a   Kalra, Mannudeep K ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c VA ANN ARBOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ADRENAL CANCER; ADRENAL CORTEX ADENOMA; ADRENAL CORTEX CARCINOMA; ADRENAL TUMOR; CAVERNOUS HEMANGIOMA; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FOLLOW UP; GANGLIONEUROMA; HEMATOMA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; META ANALYSIS; METASTASIS; MYELOLIPOMA; NEUROBLASTOMA; NEUROMA; PHEOCHROMOCYTOMA; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SARCOMA; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADRENAL GLAND NEOPLASMS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREVALENCE; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 79952994769     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11100569     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Song JH, Chaudhry FS, Mayo-Smith WW. The incidental adrenal mass on CT: prevalence of adrenal disease in 1,049 consecutive adrenal masses in patients with no known malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(5):1163-1168. (Pubitemid 351684914)
2. Boland GW, Blake MA, Hahn PF, Mayo-Smith WW. Incidental adrenal lesions: principles, techniques, and algorithms for imaging characterization. Radiology 2008;249(3):756-775.
3. Boland GW, Lee MJ, Gazelle GS, Halpern EF, McNicholas MM, Mueller PR. Characterization of adrenal masses using unenhanced CT: an analysis of the CT literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171(1):201-204. (Pubitemid 28308675)
4. Caoili EM, Korobkin M, Francis IR, et al. Adrenal masses: characterization with combined unenhanced and delayed enhanced CT. Radiology 2002;222(3):629-633. (Pubitemid 34215205)
5. Korobkin M, Brodeur FJ, Francis IR, Quint LE, Dunnick NR, Londy F. CT time-attenu ation washout curves of adrenal adenomas and nonadenomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170(3):747-752. (Pubitemid 28106677)
6. Boland GW, Hahn PF, Peña C, Mueller PR. Adrenal masses: characterization with delayed contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology 1997;202(3):693-696. (Pubitemid 27093439)
7. Peña CS, Boland GW, Hahn PF, Lee MJ, Mueller PR. Characterization of indeterminate (lipid-poor) adrenal masses: use of washout characteristics at contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology 2000;217(3):798-802.
8. Mayo-Smith WW, Lee MJ, McNicholas MM, Hahn PF, Boland GW, Saini S. Characterization of adrenal masses (< 5 cm) by use of chemical shift MR imaging: observer performance versus quantitative measures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165(1):91-95.
9. Dunnick NR, Korobkin M. Imaging of adrenal incidentalomas: current status. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(3):559-568. (Pubitemid 34919559)
10. Mayo-Smith WW, Boland GW, Noto RB, Lee MJ. State-of-the-art adrenal imaging. RadioGraphics 2001;21(4):995-1012.
11. Abrams HL, Spiro R, Goldstein N. Metastases in carcinoma: analysis of 1000 autopsied cases. Cancer 1950;3(1):74-85.
12. Copeland PM. The incidentally discovered adrenal mass. Ann Intern Med 1983;98(6):940-945. (Pubitemid 13053411)
13. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology 2004;231(2):305-332. (Pubitemid 38552885)
14. Lynch TB. PET/CT in clinical practice. New York, NY: Springer, 2007.
15. Elaini AB, Shetty SK, Chapman VM, et al. Improved detection and characterization of adrenal disease with PET-CT. RadioGraphics 2007;27(3):755-767.
16. Chong S, Lee KS, Kim HY, et al. Integrated PET-CT for the characterization of adrenal gland lesions in cancer patients: diagnostic efficacy and interpretation pitfalls. Radio-Graphics 2006;26(6):1811-1824; discussion 1824-1826.
17. Gross MD, Avram A, Fig LM, Fanti S, Al-Nahhas A, Rubello D. PET in the diagnostic evaluation of adrenal tumors. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;51(3):272-283. (Pubitemid 47189065)
18. Boland GW, Goldberg MA, Lee MJ, et al. Indeterminate adrenal mass in patients with cancer: evaluation at PET with 2-[F-18]- fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology 1995;194(1):131-134. (Pubitemid 24380938)
19. Erasmus JJ, Patz EF Jr, McAdams HP, et al. Evaluation of adrenal masses in patients with bronchogenic carcinoma using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168(5):1357-1360.
20. Maurea S, Klain M, MainolfiC, Ziviello M, Salvatore M. The diagnostic role of radionuclide imaging in evaluation of patients with nonhypersecreting adrenal masses. J Nucl Med 2001;42(6):884-892. (Pubitemid 32537435)
21. Yun M, Kim W, Alnafisi N, Lacorte L, Jang S, Alavi A. 18F-FDG PET in characterizing adrenal lesions detected on CT or MRI. J Nucl Med 2001;42(12):1795-1799. (Pubitemid 34016347)
22. Gupta NC, Graeber GM, Tamim WJ, Rogers JS, Irisari L, Bishop HA. Clinical utility of PET-FDG imaging in differentiation of benign from malignant adrenal masses in lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 2001;3(1):59-64. (Pubitemid 32904317)
23. Kumar R, Xiu Y, Yu JQ, et al. 18F-FDG PET in evaluation of adrenal lesions in patients with lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2004;45(12):2058-2062. (Pubitemid 47611636)
24. Zettinig G, Mitterhauser M, Wadsak W, et al. Positron emission tomography imaging of adrenal masses: (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose and the 11 b -hydroxylase tracer (11) C-metomidate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31(9):1224-1230.
25. Frilling A, Tecklenborg K, Weber F, et al. Importance of adrenal incidentaloma in patients with a history of malignancy. Surgery 2004;136(6):1289-1296. (Pubitemid 39647547)
26. Metser U, Miller E, Lerman H, Lievshitz G, Avital S, Even-Sapir E. 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of adrenal masses. J Nucl Med 2006;47(1):32-37. (Pubitemid 46768509)
27. Blake MA, Slattery JM, Kalra MK, et al. Adrenal lesions: characterization with fused PET/CT image in patients with proved or suspected malignancy - initial experience. Radiology 2006;238(3):970-977. (Pubitemid 43289929)
28. Jana S, Zhang T, Milstein DM, Isasi CR, Blaufox MD. FDG-PET and CT characterization of adrenal lesions in cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33(1):29-35. (Pubitemid 41785306)
29. Han SJ, Kim TS, Jeon SW, et al. Analysis of adrenal masses by 18F-FDG positron emission tomography scanning. Int J Clin Pract 2007;61(5):802-809.
30. Park BK, Kim CK, Kim B, Choi JY. Comparison of delayed enhanced CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of adrenal masses in oncology patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31(4):550-556. (Pubitemid 47457668)
31. Caoili EM, Korobkin M, Brown RK, Mackie G, Shulkin BL. Differentiating adrenal adenomas from nonadenomas using (18)F-FDG PET/CT: quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Acad Radiol 2007;14(4):468-475.
32. Sung YM, Lee KS, Kim BT, et al. (18)F-FDG PET versus (18)F-FDG PET/CT for adrenal gland lesion characterization: a comparison of diagnostic efficacy in lung cancer patients. Korean J Radiol 2008;9(1):19-28.
33. Maurea S, MainolfiC, Bazzicalupo L, et al. Imaging of adrenal tumors using FDG PET: comparison of benign and malignant lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173(1):25-29. (Pubitemid 29291083)
34. Maurea S, Caracò C, Klain M, Mainolfi C, Salvatore M. Imaging characterization of non-hypersecreting adrenal masses: comparison between MR and radionuclide techniques. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;48(3):188-197. (Pubitemid 39485386)
35. Minn H, Salonen A, Friberg J, et al. Imaging of adrenal incidentalomas with PET using (11)C-metomidate and (18)F-FDG. J Nucl Med 2004;45(6):972-979.
36. Tessonnier L, Sebag F, Palazzo FF, et al. Does 18F-FDG PET/CT add diagnostic accuracy in incidentally identified non-secreting adrenal tumours? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35(11):2018-2025.
37. Vikram R, Yeung HD, Macapinlac HA, Iyer RB. Utility of PET/CT in differentiating benign from malignant adrenal nodules in patients with cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(5):1545-1551.
38. Brady MJ, Thomas J, Wong TZ, Franklin KM, Ho LM, Paulson EK. Adrenal nodules at FDG PET/CT in patients known to have or suspected of having lung cancer: a proposal for an efficient diagnostic algorithm. Radiology 2009;250(2):523-530.
39. Boland GW, Blake MA, Holalkere NS, Hahn PF. PET/CT for the characterization of adrenal masses in patients with cancer: qualitative versus quantitative accuracy in 150 consecutive patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(4):956-962.
40. Okada M, Shimono T, Komeya Y, et al. Adrenal masses: the value of additional fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in differentiating between benign and malignant lesions. Ann Nucl Med 2009;23(4):349-354.
41. Groussin L, Bonardel G, Silvéra S, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of adrenocortical tumors: a prospective study in 77 operated patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009;94(5):1713-1722.
42. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.
43. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56(11):1129-1135. (Pubitemid 37386338)
44. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988;240(4857):1285-1293.
45. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-560. (Pubitemid 37088507)
46. Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Stat Soc A 1988;151:419-463.
47. Song F, Khan KS, Dinnes J, Sutton AJ. Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31(1):88-95. (Pubitemid 34284907)
48. van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med 2002;21(4):589-624. (Pubitemid 34141379)
49. Van Houwelingen HC, Zwinderman KH, Stijnen T. A bivariate approach to metaanalysis. Stat Med 1993;12(24):2273-2284.
50. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(10):982-990. (Pubitemid 41316441)
51. Chu H, Cole SR. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59(12):1331-1332; author reply 1332-1333.
52. Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JA. A unification of models for metaanalysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics 2007;8(2):239-251. (Pubitemid 46569586)
53. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med 2001;20(19):2865-2884. (Pubitemid 32923212)
54. Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess 2005;9(12):1-113, iii.
55. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should metaregression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 2002;21(11):1559-1573.
56. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 2002;21(11):1525-1537. (Pubitemid 34746061)
57. Glasziou PP, Sanders SL. Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviews. Stat Med 2002;21(11):1503-1511. (Pubitemid 34746059)
58. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2004.
59. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(9):882-893. (Pubitemid 41115772)
60. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B: what are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994;271(9):703-707.
61. Keyes JW Jr. SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? J Nucl Med 1995;36(10):1836-1839.
62. Thie JA. Understanding the standardized uptake value, its methods, and implications for usage. J Nucl Med 2004;45(9):1431-1434. (Pubitemid 47618494)
63. Boellaard R, Krak NC, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA. Effects of noise, image resolution, and ROI definition on the accuracy of standard uptake values: a simulation study. J Nucl Med 2004;45(9):1519-1527. (Pubitemid 47618506)
64. Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology 2002;225(2):575-581. (Pubitemid 35239264)