Retrospective Study
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Nephrol. Aug 6, 2014; 3(3): 92-100
Published online Aug 6, 2014. doi: 10.5527/wjn.v3.i3.92
Role of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration evaluating adrenal gland enlargement or mass
Melissa Martinez, Julia LeBlanc, Mohammad Al-Haddad, Stuart Sherman, John DeWitt
Melissa Martinez, Julia LeBlanc, Mohammad Al-Haddad, Stuart Sherman, John DeWitt, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, United States
Author contributions: Martinez M and DeWitt J contributed equally to this work, abstracted data from medical records and analyzed data; Martinez M, DeWitt J, Al-Haddad M, Sherman S and LeBlanc J wrote the paper.
Correspondence to: John DeWitt MD, FASGE, FACG, Associate Professor of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, 550 North University Blvd, UH 4100, Indianapolis, IN 46202, United States. jodewitt@iu.edu
Telephone: +1-317-9441113 Fax: +1-317-2781949
Received: December 4, 2013
Revised: February 18, 2014
Accepted: May 8, 2014
Published online: August 6, 2014
Abstract

AIM: To report the clinical impact of adrenal endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the evaluation of patients with adrenal gland enlargement or mass.

METHODS: In a retrospective single-center case-series, patients undergoing EUS-FNA of either adrenal gland from 1997-2011 in our tertiary care center were included. Medical records were reviewed and results of EUS, cytology, adrenal size change on follow-up imaging ≥ 6 mo after EUS and any repeat EUS or surgery were abstracted. A lesion was considered benign if: (1) EUS-FNA cytology was benign and the lesion remained < 1 cm from its original size on follow-up computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging or repeat EUS ≥ 6 mo after EUS-FNA; or (2) subsequent adrenalectomy and surgical pathology was benign.

RESULTS: Ninety-four patients had left (n = 90) and/or right (n = 5) adrenal EUS-FNA without adverse events. EUS indications included: cancer staging or suspected recurrence (n = 31), pancreatic (n = 20), mediastinal (n = 10), adrenal (n = 7), lung (n = 7) mass or other indication (n = 19). Diagnoses after adrenal EUS-FNA included metastatic lung (n = 10), esophageal (n= 5), colon (n = 2), or other cancer (n = 8); benign primary adrenal mass or benign tissue (n = 60); or was non-diagnostic (n = 9). Available follow-up confirmed a benign lesion in 5/9 non-diagnostic aspirates and 32/60 benign aspirates. Four of the 60 benign aspirates were later confirmed as malignant by repeat biopsy, follow-up CT, or adrenalectomy. Adrenal EUS-FNA diagnosed metastatic cancer in 24, and ruled out metastasis in 10 patients. For the diagnosis of malignancy, EUS-FNA of either adrenal had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 86%, 97%, 96% and 89%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Adrenal gland EUS-FNA is safe, minimally invasive and a sensitive technique with significant impact in the management of adrenal gland mass or enlargement.

Keywords: Adrenal gland neoplasms/diagnosis, Adrenal glands/pathology, Adrenal gland/ultrasonography, Adrenal gland neoplasms/secondary, Endosonography, Biopsy, Fine-needle

Core tip: Studies evaluating endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of the adrenal gland generally include patients with underlying malignancy only and most lack follow-up for benign lesions. We report the clinical utility of adrenal gland EUS-FNA in a retrospective study that included 94 patients who underwent EUS-FNA of either adrenal for various indications and provide follow-up information for those with benign EUS-FNA cytology results. For the diagnosis of malignancy, EUS-FNA of either adrenal had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 86%, 97%, 96% and 89%, without serious adverse events.