4.7 Article

Characterization of indeterminate (lipid-poor) adrenal masses:: Use of washout characteristics at contrast-enhanced CT

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 217, Issue 3, Pages 798-802

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMER
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.217.3.r00dc29798

Keywords

adrenal gland, CT; adrenal gland, neoplasms; computed tomography (CF), contrast enhancement; fat

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To determine whether computed tomographic (CT) scans and attenuation measurements on contrast material-enhanced and nonenhanced CT scans could be used to characterize adrenal masses, in particular, to characterize these lesions by using adrenal washout characteristics at contrast-enhanced CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-six patients (49 men, 37 women; age range, 29-86 years; mean age, 72 years) with 101 adrenal lesions depicted at contrast-enhanced CT underwent delayed (mean, 9 minutes) enhanced scanning. Seventy-eight patients also underwent nonenhanced CT. Mean diameter of the benign lesions was 2.1 cm (range, 1.0-4.2 cm); mean diameter of the malignant lesions was 2.3 cm (range, 1.0-4.1 cm). Region-of-interest. measurements were obtained at nonenhanced, dynamic enhanced, and delayed enhanced CT and were used to calculate a relative percentage washout as follows: 1 - (Hounsfield unit measurement on delayed image divided by Hounsfield unit measurement on dynamic image) x 100%. RESULTS: Ninety-nine of 101 lesions were correctly characterized as benign or malignant with a relative percentage washout threshold of 50% on delayed scans; benign lesions demonstrated more than 50% washout; and malignant lesions, less than 50% washout. Two benign lesions demonstrating less than 50% washout were characterized as benign by using conventional CT. CONCLUSION: Calculation of relative percentage washout on dynamic and delayed enhanced CT scans may lead to a highly specific test for adrenal lesion characterization, reduce the need for, and possibly obviate, follow-up imaging or biopsy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available