Cited by 76Adrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances

Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for the characterization of adrenal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Kim, Seong-Jang, Lee, Sang-Woo, Pak, Kyoungjune, Kim, In-Ju, Kim, Keunyoung·2018·The British Journal of Radiology

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to explore the role of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F fluodeoxyglucose PET (18F-FDG PET) or PET/CT for characterization of adrenal lesions through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library database, from the earliest available date of indexing through 30 April 2017, were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for characterization of adrenal lesions. We determined the sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR + and LR–), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: Across 29 studies (2421 patients), the pooled sensitivity for 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT was 0.91 [95% CI (0.88–0.94)] with heterogeneity (χ 2 = 141.8, p = 0.00) and a pooled specificity of 0.91 [95% CI (0.87–0.93)] with heterogeneity (χ 2 = 113.7, p = 0.00). Likelihood ratio (LR) syntheses gave an overall positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 9.9 [95% CI (7.1–13.7)] and negative likelihood ratio (LR–) of 0.09 [95% CI (0.07–0.13)]. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 105 [95% CI (63–176)]. In metaregression analysis, study design, publication year, study location (western vs others), interpretation criteria of PET or PET/CT images, quantification of PET or PET/CT [SUVmax (maximum standardized uptake value) vs SUV (standardized uptake value) ratio], patient group, and analysis method (patient-based vs lesion-based) were the sources of the study heterogeneity. However, in multivariate metaregression, no definite variable was the source of the study heterogeneity. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity for the characterization of adrenal masses. At present, the literature regarding the use of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for the characterization of adrenal masses remains still limited; thus, further large multicenter studies would be necessary to substantiate the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT characterization of adrenal masses. Advances in knowledge: 18F- FDG PET or PET/CT showed good sensitivity and specificity for the characterization of adrenal masses and could provide additional information for that purpose.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1259/bjr.20170520

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • FDG PET-CT has pooled sensitivity 91% and specificity 91% for characterization of adrenal masses in a meta-analysis of 29 studies (2421 patients).

    “FDG PET-CT has high diagnostic accuracy for characterization of adrenal masses with a pooled sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 91% in a recent meta-analysis of 29 studies involving 2421 patients (311).”

    From Adrenal incidentaloma (2020) · cites this paper as [311]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [54]Tsushima Y, Ishizaka H, Matsumoto M. Adrenal masses: differentiation with chemical shift, fast low-angle shot MR imaging. Radiology 1993; 186: 705–9. doi: 10.1148/radiology.186.3.8430178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, S.-J., Lee, S.-W., Pak, K., Kim, I.-J., & Kim, K.
Affiliations
  • Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital (KR)
  • Kyungpook National University (KR)
  • Pusan National University Hospital (KR)
Venue
The British Journal of Radiology
Published
2018-02-05
Volume
91
Issue
1086
Pages
20170520-20170520
ISSN
  • 0007-1285 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-880X
OpenAlex
W2783166877
Cited by
76
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Adrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Keywords
PET/CT, adrenal mass, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, standardized uptake value, adrenal incidentaloma, adrenal tumors, likelihood ratios, study heterogeneity, adrenal metastasis, adrenal pheochromocytoma
MeSH terms
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Adenoma, Adrenal Gland Neoplasms, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Positron-Emission Tomography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review