Adrenal Neoplasms: Lessons from Adrenal Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards.

The radiologic diagnosis of adrenal disease can be challenging in settings of atypical presentations, mimics of benign and malignant adrenal masses, and rare adrenal anomalies. Misdiagnosis may lead to suboptimal management and adverse outcomes. Adrenal adenoma is the most common benign adrenal tumor that arises from the cortex, whereas adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignant tumor of the cortex. Adrenal cyst and myelolipoma are other benign adrenal lesions and are characterized by their fluid and fat content, respectively. Pheochromocytoma is a rare neuroendocrine tumor of the adrenal medulla. Metastases to the adrenal glands are the most common malignant adrenal tumors. While many of these masses have classic imaging appearances, considerable overlap exists between benign and malignant lesions and can pose a diagnostic challenge. Atypical adrenal adenomas include those that are lipid poor; contain macroscopic fat, hemorrhage, and/or iron; are heterogeneous and/or large; and demonstrate growth. Heterogeneous adrenal adenomas may mimic ACC, metastasis, or pheochromocytoma, particularly when they are 4 cm or larger, whereas smaller versions of ACC, metastasis, and pheochromocytoma and those with washout greater than 60% may mimic adenoma. Because of its nonenhanced CT attenuation of less than or equal to 10 HU, a lipid-rich adrenal adenoma may be mimicked by a benign adrenal cyst, or it may be mimicked by a tumor with central cystic and/or necrotic change such as ACC, pheochromocytoma, or metastasis. Rare adrenal tumors such as hemangioma, ganglioneuroma, and oncocytoma also may mimic adrenal adenoma, ACC, metastasis, and pheochromocytoma. The authors describe cases of adrenal neoplasms that they have encountered in clinical practice and presented to adrenal multidisciplinary tumor boards. Key lessons to aid in diagnosis and further guide appropriate management are provided. © RSNA, 2023 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Tips for improving consistency of thyroid nodule interpretation with ACR TI-RADS.

Thyroid nodules are very common in the general population. Most are benign and even those that are malignant are typically slow-growing and do not require treatment. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of thyroid nodules has resulted in significant healthcare costs. ACR TI-RADS was developed to address these concerns, and reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies and follow-up intervals. ACR TI-RADS offers a point-based risk stratification system centered on five sonographic features: consistency, echogenicity, shape, margins and echogenic foci. While the system has noticeable benefits and comparable accuracy with other available risk stratification systems (ATA, EU-TIRADS and K-TIRADS), there are inherent challenges relating to suboptimal inter-reader agreement. In this article, we include 10 educational tips that may be helpful to the ultrasound practitioner for improving the consistency of nodule interpretation with ACR TI-RADS.

Effect of training on resident inter-reader agreement with American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR TI-RADS) was introduced to standardize the ultrasound characterization of thyroid nodules. Studies have shown that ACR-TIRADS reduces unnecessary biopsies and improves consistency of imaging recommendations. Despite its widespread adoption, there are few studies to date assessing the inter-reader agreement amongst radiology trainees with limited ultrasound experience. We hypothesize that in PGY-4 radiology residents with no prior exposure to ACR TI-RADS, a statistically significant improvement in inter-reader reliability can be achieved with a one hour training session. AIM: To evaluate the inter-reader agreement of radiology residents in using ACR TI-RADS before and after training. METHODS: A single center retrospective cohort study evaluating 50 thyroid nodules in 40 patients of varying TI-RADS levels was performed. Reference standard TI-RADS scores were established through a consensus panel of three fellowship-trained staff radiologists with between 1 and 14 years of clinical experience each. Three PGY-4 radiology residents (trainees) were selected as blinded readers for this study. Each trainee had between 4 to 5 mo of designated ultrasound training. No trainee had received specialized TI-RADS training prior to this study. Each of the readers independently reviewed the 50 testing cases and assigned a TI-RADS score to each case before and after TI-RADS training performed 6 wk apart. Fleiss kappa was used to measure the pooled inter-reader agreement. The relative diagnostic performance of readers, pre- and post-training, when compared against the reference standard. RESULTS: There were 33 females and 7 males with a mean age of 56.6 ± 13.6 years. The mean nodule size was 19 ± 14 mm (range from 5 to 63 mm). A statistically significant superior inter-reader agreement was found on the post-training assessment compared to the pre-training assessment for the following variables: 1. "Shape" (k of 0.09 [slight] pre-training vs 0.67 [substantial] post-training, P < 0.001), 2. "Echogenic foci" (k of 0.28 [fair] pre-training vs 0.45 [moderate] post-training, P = 0.004), 3. 'TI-RADS level' (k of 0.14 [slight] pre-training vs 0.36 [fair] post-training, P < 0.001) and 4. 'Recommendations' (k of 0.36 [fair] pre-training vs 0.50 [moderate] post-training, P = 0.02). No significant differences between the pre- and post-training assessments were found for the variables 'composition', 'echogenicity' and 'margins'. There was a general trend towards improved pooled sensitivity with TI-RADS levels 1 to 4 for the post-training assessment while the pooled specificity was relatively high (76.6%-96.8%) for all TI-RADS level. CONCLUSION: Statistically significant improvement in inter-reader agreement in the assigning TI-RADS level and recommendations after training is observed. Our study supports the use of dedicated ACR TI-RADS training in radiology residents.

Expectations for the methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of the general public, medical students and animal researchers in North America.

To determine what are considered acceptable standards for animal research (AR) methodology and translation rate to humans, a validated survey was sent to: a) a sample of the general public, via Sampling Survey International (SSI; Canada), Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT; USA), a Canadian city festival (CF) and a Canadian children's hospital (CH); b) a sample of medical students (two first-year classes); and c) a sample of scientists (corresponding authors and academic paediatricians). There were 1379 responses from the general public sample (SSI, n = 557; AMT, n = 590; CF, n = 195; CH, n = 102), 205/330 (62%) medical student responses, and 23/323 (7%, too few to report) scientist responses. Asked about methodological quality, most of the general public and medical student respondents expect that: AR is of high quality (e.g. anaesthesia and analgesia are monitored, even overnight, and 'humane' euthanasia, optimal statistical design, comprehensive literature review, randomisation and blinding, are performed), and costs and difficulty are not acceptable justifications for lower quality (e.g. costs of expert consultation, or more laboratory staff). Asked about their expectations of translation to humans (of toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity and treatment findings), most expect translation more than 60% of the time. If translation occurred less than 20% of the time, a minority disagreed that this would "significantly reduce your support for AR". Medical students were more supportive of AR, even if translation occurred less than 20% of the time. Expectations for AR are much higher than empirical data show to have been achieved.

The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether the public and scientists consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of animal research (AR) convincing. METHODS: After validation, the survey was sent to samples of public (Sampling Survey International (SSI; Canadian), Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT; US), a Canadian city festival and children's hospital), medical students (two second-year classes), and scientists (corresponding authors, and academic pediatricians). We presented questions about common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses were compared using Chi-square with Bonferonni correction. RESULTS: There were 1220 public [SSI, n = 586; AMT, n = 439; Festival, n = 195; Hospital n = 107], 194/331 (59%) medical student, and 19/319 (6%) scientist [too few to report] responses. Most public respondents were <45 years (65%), had some College/University education (83%), and had never done AR (92%). Most public and medical student respondents considered 'benefits arguments' sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same 'benefits arguments' do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened 'benefits arguments'. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by 'characteristics of non-human-animals arguments', including that non-human-animals are not sentient, or are property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by 'human exceptionalism' arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special 'kind', can enter social contracts, or face a 'lifeboat situation'. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities ['argument from species overlap'], and that the notion of 'kind' is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the 'kind' 'sentient-animal' or 'subject-of-a-life'?]. Medical students were more supportive (80%) of AR at the end of the survey (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Responses suggest that support for AR may not be based on cogent philosophical rationales, and more open debate is warranted.

Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans. METHODS: After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory-therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, methodology of AR, and expectations from AR. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: Response rate was 44/114(39%) (pediatricians), and 69/120 (58%) (nurses/RTs). Asked about methodological quality, most respondents expect that: AR is done to high quality; costs and difficulty are not acceptable justifications for low quality; findings should be reproducible between laboratories and strains of the same species; and guidelines for AR funded with public money should be consistent with these expectations. Asked about benefits of AR, most thought that there are sometimes/often large benefits to humans from AR, and disagreed that "AR rarely produces benefit to humans." Asked about expectations of translation to humans (of toxicity, carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and treatment findings), most: expect translation >40% of the time; thought that misleading AR results should occur <21% of the time; and that if translation was to occur <20% of the time, they would be less supportive of AR. There were few differences between pediatricians and nurses/RTs. CONCLUSIONS: HCW have high expectations for the methodological quality of, and the translation rate to humans of findings from AR. These expectations are higher than the empirical data show having been achieved. Unless these areas of AR significantly improve, HCW support of AR may be tenuous.

The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing. DESIGN: After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: Response rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered 'benefits arguments' sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same 'benefits arguments' do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened 'benefits arguments'. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by 'characteristics of non-human-animals arguments', including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by 'human exceptionalism' arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special 'kind', can enter into social contracts, or face a 'lifeboat situation'. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of 'kind' is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind 'sentient animal' or 'subject-of-a-life']. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate.

The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science.

BACKGROUND: Animal research (AR) findings often do not translate to humans; one potential reason is the poor methodological quality of AR. We aimed to determine this quality of AR reported in critical care journals. METHODS: All AR published from January to June 2012 in three high-impact critical care journals were reviewed. A case report form and instruction manual with clear definitions were created, based on published recommendations, including the ARRIVE guidelines. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Seventy-seven AR publications were reviewed. Our primary outcome (animal strain, sex, and weight or age described) was reported in 52 (68%; 95% confidence interval, 56% to 77%). Of the 77 publications, 47 (61%) reported randomization; of these, 3 (6%) reported allocation concealment, and 1 (2%) the randomization procedure. Of the 77 publications, 31 (40%) reported some type of blinding; of these, disease induction (2, 7%), intervention (7, 23%), and/or subjective outcomes (17, 55%) were blinded. A sample size calculation was reported in 4/77 (5%). Animal numbers were missing in the Methods section in 16 (21%) publications; when stated, the median was 32 (range 6 to 320; interquartile range, 21 to 70). Extra animals used were mentioned in the Results section in 31 (40%) publications; this number was unclear in 23 (74%), and >100 for 12 (16%). When reporting most outcomes, numbers with denominators were given in 35 (45%), with no unaccounted numbers in 24 (31%), and no animals excluded from analysis in 20 (26%). Most (49, 64%) studies reported >40, and another 19 (25%) reported 21 to 40 statistical comparisons. Internal validity limitations were discussed in 7 (9%), and external validity (to humans) discussed in 71 (92%), most with no (30, 42%) or only a vague (9, 13%) limitation to this external validity mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: The reported methodological quality of AR was poor. Unless the quality of AR significantly improves, the practice may be in serious jeopardy of losing public support.

The ethical dimension in published animal research in critical care: the public face of science.

INTRODUCTION: The ethical quality of animal research is important for many reasons, including for maintaining public support. We aimed to determine the reported attention to the ethical dimensions of the 3Rs (Refinement, Reduction, and Replacement) in critical care animal research published in 2012. METHODS: A data-collection form and instruction manual were created based on published recommendations, and completed for all consecutive critical care animal research (using mammals) publications from January to June 2012 in three critical care journals. Predefined subgroups were by journal, sepsis model, and animal age, compared by using the χ2 statistic, with statistical significance accepted at P < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 77 consecutive animal research publications were reviewed. Most studies did not report monitoring the level of anesthesia during invasive procedures, even when muscle paralytics were used, nor monitoring or treatment of expected pain. When euthanasia was used, the method was often not stated, and when stated, most methods were not appropriate for the species. A sample-size calculation was rarely used, and animal numbers were often poorly described. No studies performed a systematic review to ensure that the animal research would be useful and not simple repetition. Seventeen (22%) publications met the composite outcome of, if indicated, using anesthesia and pain control, and stating the method of euthanasia. Most studies were funded with public funds (foundation or government funding). Sepsis models less often met the composite outcome of, if indicated, using anesthesia and pain control, and stating the method of euthanasia (2 (7%) of 27 versus 15 (30%) of 50; P = 0.023). No other statistically significant differences were found in reporting of any criterion by animal age, sepsis model, or journal. CONCLUSIONS: Reported (although not necessarily actual) ethical quality of animal research in three high-impact critical care journals during 6 months of 2012 was poor. This has important implications for the practice of critical care animal research.