Cited by 693Adrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsRenal cell carcinoma treatment

Characterization of adrenal masses using unenhanced CT: an analysis of the CT literature

Boland, G W, Lee, M J, Gazelle, G S, Halpern, E F, McNicholas, M M, Mueller, P R·1998·American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Unenhanced CT scanning can reliably characterize incidentally detected adrenal masses when observers use density measurements of the adrenal gland. However, controversy exists as to the optimal density threshold required to differentiate benign from malignant lesions. This study attempts to establish a consensus by performing a pooled analysis of data found in the CT literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten CT reports were analyzed, from which individual adrenal lesion density measurements were obtained for 495 adrenal lesions (272 benign lesions and 223 malignant lesions). Threshold analysis generated a range of sensitivities and specificities for lesion characterization at different density thresholds. RESULTS: Sensitivity for characterizing a lesion as benign ranged from 47% at a threshold of 2 H to 88% at a threshold of 20 H. Similarly, specificity varied from 100% at a threshold of 2 H to 84% at a threshold of 20 H. CONCLUSION: The attempt to be absolutely certain that an adrenal lesion is benign may lead to an unacceptably low sensitivity for lesion characterization. The threshold chosen will depend on the patient population and the cost-benefit approach to patient care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648789

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In patients without known extra-adrenal malignancy, HU ≤10 on noncontrast CT is consistent with lipid-rich benign adenoma.

    “In patients without known extra-adrenal malignancy, an HU of ≤10 on a noncontrast CT is consistent with a lipid-rich benign adenoma (294).”

    From Adrenal incidentaloma (2020) · cites this paper as [294]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boland, G. W., Lee, M. J., Gazelle, G. S., Halpern, E. F., McNicholas, M. M., & Mueller, P. R.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Roentgenology
Published
1998-07
Volume
171
Issue
1
Pages
201-204
ISSN
  • 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 0361-803X
  • 1546-3141
OpenAlex
W2171815806
Cited by
693
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 25
FWCI
4.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Roentgenology (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 › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Renal cell carcinoma treatment
Keywords
adrenal mass, unenhanced CT, benign versus malignant differentiation, density limit, sensitivity and specificity, incidental adrenal lesions, adrenal incidentaloma
MeSH terms
Adrenal Gland Diseases, Adrenal Gland Neoplasms, Diagnosis, Differential, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, X-Ray Computed

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