A concomitant false-negative ¹⁸F-FDG PET imaging in an adrenocortical carcinoma and a high uptake in a corresponding liver metastasis

18F-FDG-PET/CT Evaluation of Indeterminate Adrenal Masses in Noncancer Patients

CONTEXT

Adrenal tumors in noncancer patients are common.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) in distinguishing between benign and malignant adrenal tumors.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review 2010-2019.

SETTING

Academic institution.

PATIENTS

One hundred and seventeen noncancer patients, defined as having no history of cancer or with cancer in remission for ≥5 years, completed 18F-FDG-PET/CT to evaluate adrenal masses, with pathologic diagnoses or imaging follow-up (≥12 months).

INTERVENTION

18F-FDG-PET/CT of 117 indeterminate adrenal masses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Receiver operator characteristic curve of the ratios of adrenal lesion standardized uptake value (SUV)max to liver SUVmean and of adrenal lesion SUVmax to aortic arch blood pool SUVmean were constructed.

RESULTS

Seventy benign and 47 malignant masses (35 adrenocortical carcinomas [ACCs], 12 adrenal metastases) were identified. Malignant masses had higher median liver SUV and blood pool SUV ratios than benign masses (6.2 and 7.4 vs 1.4 and 2.0, P < .001). Median liver and blood pool SUV ratios of ACC (6.1 and 7.3, respectively) and metastases (6.7 and 7.7, respectively) were higher than those of than adenomas (1.4 and 2.2, P < .05 for all comparisons). Optimal liver SUV ratio to discern between benign and malignant masses was 2.5, yielding 85% sensitivity, 90% specificity, and 7 false negative results (including 3 ACCs). Optimal blood pool SUV ratio was 3.4, yielding 83% sensitivity, 90% specificity, and 8 false negative results (including 4 ACCs).

CONCLUSION

When used in conjunction with other clinical assessments, 18F-FDG-PET/CT can be a valuable tool in evaluating adrenal masses in noncancer patients.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Disease State Clinical Review on the Evaluation and Management of Adrenocortical Carcinoma in an Adult: a Practical Approach

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this Disease State Clinical Review is to provide a practical approach to patients with newly diagnosed adrenocortical carcinoma, as well as to follow-up and management of patients with persistent or recurrent disease.

METHODS

This is a case-based clinical review. The provided recommendations are based on evidence available from randomized prospective clinical studies, cohort studies, cross-sectional and case-based studies, and expert opinions.

RESULTS

Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare malignancy, often with poor outcomes. For any patient with an adrenal mass suspicious for adrenocortical carcinoma, the approach should include prompt evaluation with detailed history and physical exam, imaging, and biochemical adrenal hormone assessment. In addition to adrenal-focused imaging, patients should be evaluated with chest-abdomen-pelvis cross-sectional imaging to define the initial therapy plan. Patients with potentially resectable disease limited to the adrenal gland should undergo en bloc open surgery by an expert surgeon. For patients presenting with advanced or recurrent disease, a multidisciplinary approach considering curative repeat surgery, local control with surgery, radiation therapy or radiofrequency ablation, or systemic therapy with mitotane and/or cytotoxic chemotherapy is recommended.

CONCLUSION

As most health care providers will rarely encounter a patient with adrenocortical carcinoma, we recommend that patients with suspected adrenocortical carcinoma be evaluated by an expert multidisciplinary team which includes clinicians with expertise in adrenal tumors, including endocrinologists, oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, pathologists, geneticists, and radiologists. We recommend that patients in remote locations be followed by the local health care provider in collaboration with a multidisciplinary team at an expert adrenal tumor program.

ABBREVIATIONS

ACC = adrenocortical carcinoma; ACTH = adrenocorticotropic hormone; BRACC = borderline resectable adrenocortical carcinoma; CT = computed tomography; DHEAS = dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate; EDP = etoposide, doxorubicin, cisplatin; FDG = ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose; FNA = fine-needle aspiration; HU = Hounsfield units; IVC = inferior vena cava; LFS = Li-Fraumeni syndrome; MEN1 = multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; OAC = oncocytic adrenocortical carcinoma; PC = palliative care; PET = positron emission tomography.

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Assessment of Patients with Indeterminate Abdominal Findings at Positron Emission Tomography Imaging

Widespread use of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET) in cancer imaging may result in a number of indeterminate and false-positive findings. We investigated the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as a second-level option after inconclusive PET. We reviewed CEUS images acquired over 4 y, selecting the examinations performed specifically to better assess an unclear PET image. Final diagnosis was confirmed by biopsy, surgery, further imaging or follow-up. Seventy CEUS examinations were performed after a PET scan (44 PET examinations, 19 PET-computer tomography [CT] examinations and 7 PET-CECT examinations). The target organ was the liver in 54 cases, spleen in 12, gallbladder in 2 and pancreas and kidney in one each. In 6 of 70 cases, CEUS was performed because of a negative PET (no uptake) despite an abnormal finding on the CT images of the PET-CT study; CEUS allowed a correct diagnosis in all of these. In 20 of 70 cases, the PET findings were categorized as indeterminate and non-specific (non-specific fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in PET report with no standardized uptake value given); CEUS reached a correct diagnosis in 19 of the 20 cases with one false negative. In 34 of 70 cases, PET was indeterminate, but specific (fluorodeoxyglucose uptake with a standardized uptake value provided); CEUS reached a correct diagnosis in 30 of these 34 cases. In 10 of 70 cases, PET was categorized as determinate but to be investigated because of discrepancy with clinical or imaging findings; CEUS a definitive diagnosis in 9 of 10 cases. CEUS proved to be effective option in the assessment of cancer patients with indeterminate PET findings.