Cited by 305Adrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsAdrenal Hormones and DisordersMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

Delayed enhanced CT of lipid-poor adrenal adenomas

Caoili, Elaine M., Korobkin, Melvyn, Francis, Isaac R., Cohan, Richard H., Dunnick, N. Reed·2000·American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although representing a minority of adrenal adenomas, the lipid-poor variety cannot be accurately identified on unenhanced CT or chemical shift MR imaging. We compared the delayed contrast-enhanced CT features of lipid-poor adenomas with those of lipid-rich adenomas and of adrenal nonadenomas to determine whether there were differences in the washout features between these groups of lesions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighteen proven lipid-poor adenomas, 56 lipid-rich adenomas, and 40 adrenal nonadenomas underwent CT before, immediately after, and 15 min delay after IV contrast injection. Region-of-interest measurements were made of all adrenal lesions at the three time points. The degree of enhancement, enhancement washout, percentage enhancement washout, and relative percentage enhancement washout were calculated for each adrenal mass. Pooled data were analyzed statistically. Optimal threshold values for diagnosing adrenal adenomas were also determined. RESULTS: The mean CT attenuation of lipid-poor adenomas was significantly higher than that of lipid-rich adenomas at all three phases but not significantly different from that of nonadenomas. The mean percentage enhancement washout on images obtained 15 min after administration of contrast material was similar for lipid-rich and lipid-poor adenomas but was significantly higher than that of nonadenomas. The mean relative percentage enhancement washout was significantly different among all three groups. CONCLUSION: Lipid-poor adenomas cannot be differentiated from adrenal nonadenomas on the basis of a single mean attenuation value. However, lipid-poor adrenal adenomas show enhancement and enhancement washout features nearly identical to lipid-rich adenomas and can be distinguished from nonadenomas on the basis of a percentage washout threshold value of 60% and a relative percentage washout of 40%.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2214/ajr.175.5.1751411

Cites

13 of 13 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?

  • ACAs demonstrate a greater contrast washout than adrenal nonadenomas.

    “ACAs demonstrate a greater contrast washout than adrenal nonadenomas (103, 104).”

    From Adrenocortical carcinoma (2014) · cites this paper as [103]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caoili, E. M., Korobkin, M., Francis, I. R., Cohan, R. H., & Dunnick, N. R.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
American Journal of Roentgenology
Published
2000-11
Volume
175
Issue
5
Pages
1411-1415
ISSN
  • 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 0361-803X
  • 1546-3141
OpenAlex
W1992652357
Cited by
305
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 10
FWCI
5.33
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 › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Adrenal Hormones and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
adrenal adenoma, CT attenuation
MeSH terms
Adenoma, Adrenal Gland Neoplasms, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Contrast Media, Diatrizoate, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Injections, Intravenous, Lipids, Male, Middle Aged, Radiographic Image Enhancement, Sensitivity and Specificity, Time Factors, 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