18F-FDG PET for the identification of adrenocortical carcinomas among indeterminate adrenal tumors at computed tomography scanning.

BACKGROUND: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) has been proposed for the evaluation of adrenal tumors. However, only scarce data are available to evaluate its usefulness for the identification of primary adrenal carcinomas in patients with no previous history of cancer and equivocal tumors on computed tomography (CT) scan. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG-PET to predict malignancy in such patients. METHODS AND PATIENTS: This was a retrospective study carried out from 2006 to 2009 in a single university hospital center. Twenty-three consecutive patients without previous history of cancer investigated for adrenal tumors without features of benign adrenocortical adenoma on CT scan but no obvious ACC underwent 18F-FDG PET. All patients underwent adrenalectomy because of CT scan characteristics regardless of the results of 18F-FDG PET. The ratio of maxSUV adrenal tumor on maxSUV liver (adrenal/liver maxSUV ratio) during 18F-FDG PET was compared to Weiss pathological criteria. RESULTS: Seventeen patients had an adrenal adenoma, 2 had small size adrenal carcinomas (<5 cm), 1 had an angiosarcoma, and 3 had noncortical benign lesions. An adrenal/liver maxSUV ratio above 1.6 provided 100% sensitivity, 90% specificity, and 100% negative predictive value for the diagnosis of malignant tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Because of its excellent negative predictive value, 18F-FDG-PET may be of help in avoiding unnecessary surgery in patients with non-secreting equivocal tumors at CT scanning and low 18F-FGD uptake.

Glycaemic control in type 2 diabetic patients on chronic haemodialysis: use of a continuous glucose monitoring system.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of diabetic patients undergoing haemodialysis is rapidly increasing. Glucose control among such patients is difficult to assess. We aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in type 2 diabetic patients on chronic haemodialysis. METHODS: We used a 4-day CGMS to monitor glucose levels in 19 haemodialysed type 2 diabetic patients (HD T2) including 2 days with and 2 days without dialysis session, and 39 non-HD T2 in a double-centre study. RESULTS: The glucose concentration according to the glucose meter and CGMS were correlated in HD T2 patients (r = 0.90, P < 0.0001) and in non-HD T2 patients (r = 0.81, P < 0.0001). The relative absolute difference (RAD) between glucose determined by a glucose meter and glucose determined by the CGMS did not differ between HD T2 and non-HD T2 patients (9.2 +/- 10.5 vs. 8.2 +/- 7.6%; P = 0.165). Glycated haemoglobin (A1c) and mean glucose concentration were strongly correlated in non-HD T2 patients (r = 0.71; P < 0.0001) but weakly correlated in HD T2 patients (r = 0.47; P = 0.042). Fructosamine was correlated with the mean glucose concentration in non-HD T2 (r = 0.67; P < 0.0001) but not in HD T2 patients (r = 0.04; P = 0.88). CONCLUSION: CGM is a validated marker of glycaemic control in HD diabetic patients. This tool showed that A1c and fructosamine, despite being good markers of glycaemic control in non-HD diabetic patients, are of poor value in HD diabetic patients.