Pheochromocytoma and Adrenocortical Carcinoma: Morphological Characteristics in Endoscopic Ultrasound Imaging
OPEN ACCESS
CC
7 € E
Authors Neslihan Özkul1, 2, Peter Herbert Kann1, 3
Affiliations
1 Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University, Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetology & Osteology, Marburg, Germany
2 Clinic for Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
3 German Centre for Endocrine Care, Frankfurt, Germany
Key words ultrasound, adrenal gland, tumor
received 09.12.2020 accepted after revision 29.07.2021
Bibliography
Ultrasound Int Open 2021; 7: E64-E70 DOI 10.1055/a-1626-1678 ISSN 2199-7152
@ 2021. The Author(s).
This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG, Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
Correspondence
Ms. Neslihan Özkul Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetology & Osteology, Philipps University Marburg Faculty of Medicine, Baldingerstrasse 35043 Marburg Germany neslihan.oezkul@usb.ch
ABSTRACT
Purpose Pheochromocytoma (PCC) and adrenocortical car- cinoma (ACC) are two rare endocrine diseases. Early diagnosis is crucial to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality. In this study, we used endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for high-resolution imaging to investigate the endosonographic morphology pat- tern of PCC and ACC.
Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study in- cluded 58 PCC/ACC lesions diagnosed by EUS imaging at two tertiary care centers between 1997 and 2015. The following groups were defined by histology or by the presence of a phe- ochromocytoma-associated syndrome without histological proof: bPCC (benign PCC), mPCC (malignant PCC), and ACC. Results In our cohort, mPCC tended to be larger at the time of diagnosis (n=5; 39.9 ± 41.9 mm) than bPCC (n = 46; 27.3 ± 20.8 mm, P=0.548). ACC lesions were significantly larger (n= 7; 50.6± 14.8 mm) than bPCC and mPCC (n=51; 28.5± 23.3 mm, P=0.002). In EUS, bPCC and ACC lesions frequently appeared to have a round shape and nodular structure. bPCC and ACC tended to be more hyperechoic (P=0.112 and P=0.558, re- spectively) and heterogeneous (P=0.501 and P = 0.098, re- spectively) than mPCC. Compared to PCC, ACC did not show high hyperperfusion (P=0.022). In contrast to adenoma, all tumor entities showed hypo-/anechoic areas within the tumor (P<0.05).
Conclusion No significant differences in EUS morphology were found to reliably distinguish benign from malignant PCC and ACC lesions. However, EUS may be a reasonable alternative or complementary method to conventional imaging techniques for the early detection of these tumor entities.
Introduction
Pheochromocytoma (PCC) and adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) are rare tumor entities. PCC occurs in 3-8 cases per million patients per year. For ACC, 1-2 per million patients are newly diagnosed
every year [1-3]. While PCC, which often remains undiagnosed, may cause dramatic and life-threatening crises [4], ACC generally has a poor prognosis due to its high malignancy and the advanced
disease state at which it is usually diagnosed [1, 5]. Both PCC and ACC are associated with various hereditary diseases [1, 4].
Early diagnosis and optimal treatment of PCC and ACC require a multimodal approach [6]. Thus far, standard imaging modalities include computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), scintigraphy with somatostatin analogs, and metaiodoben- zylguanidine (MIBG), often used in combination [2, 3, 6, 7]. Endo- scopic ultrasound (EUS) has also been considered a relevant diag- nostic tool in adrenal gland imaging. In some cases, the high reso- lution of EUS allowed for the detection of smaller lesions missed by conventional imaging modalities like CT or MRI [8].
The aim of the present study was to analyze the power of EUS in the detection and differentiation of endosonographic characteris- tics, particularly tumor size, echogenicity, echostructure, and vas- cularization of benign and malignant PCC, as well as ACC.
Material and Methods
Patients
We retrospectively analyzed our database of 2328 adrenal lesion images that were acquired by EUS between January 1997 and March 2015 at two tertiary care centers. Inclusion criteria includ- ed histological evidence of PCC or ACC, or presentation of a pheo- chromocytoma-associated syndrome without histological exami- nation. Four lesions without histological confirmation were classi- fied as benign PCC (bPCC), due to patients not showing signs of malignancy at the time of examination. Histological confirmation of the other lesions was obtained after surgical resection. Malig- nancy was defined by the presence of metastases in non-chroma- ffin tissue such as bone, liver, or lymph nodes [2]. Subsequently, le- sions were classified into three groups: bPCC, malignant PCC (mPCC), and ACC. Missing data points regarding morphology were defined as unclassified.
Endoscopic Ultrasound
EUS was performed using a Pentax FG 32 UA endosonoscope (Pen- tax Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with a longitudinal 5-7.5 MHz sec- tor array probe in combination with a Hitachi EUB 420 or EUB 525 ultrasound unit (Hitachi Medical Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). All in- vestigations were performed by a single experienced examiner. Pa- tients received 25-50 mg pethidine, 5-20 mg diazepam, and 0.125-0.5 mg atropine for premedication. The examination time was approximately 30-40 minutes.
The ultrasound probe was placed in the duodenal bulb or an- trum, and in the proximal corpus region of the stomach to investi- gate the right and left adrenal glands, respectively. Extra-adrenal locations were viewed from the proximal esophagus down the hori- zontal part of the duodenum [8-10]. Pathological lesions were compared with the adjacent kidney and adrenal gland [8].
Other imaging modalities
All EUS-assessed lesions were retrospectively compared with the findings in corresponding MRI, CT, and MIBG scans, if available, to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of EUS [8].
Endosonographic morphological pattern
PCC and ACC were characterized by EUS regarding location, tumor size, shape, echogenicity ( Figs. 1-3), echostructure, architec- ture, boundaries, and vascularization [8].
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Version 23.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). For descriptive statistics, results are presented as frequency (%) or mean + SD and range. P-values <0.05, based on chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test, were considered significant.
DI
02
LEFT ADRENAL
002
DI
>
02
LEET ADRENAL
Data Availability Statement
Data supporting the findings of this study are available upon re- quest from the corresponding author.
Ethics Approval
Our local research ethics committee certified that this retrospec- tive study does not require formal evaluation by the ethics com- mittee as data were obtained during routine diagnostic procedures and were strictly de-identified.
Results
Among all EUS adrenal lesion images, we identified a total of 58 le- sions, corresponding to 38 patients, for inclusion in this study. Of these, 27 patients with 46 lesions were classified as bPCC, 4 patients with 5 lesions as mPCC, and 7 patients with 7 lesions as ACC.
008
LEFT ADRENAL
Among bPCC patients, 16 were male and 11 were female; mean age was 47.0 ± 14.6 years. The mean diameter of bPCC was 27.3 ± 20.8 mm (range: 7-94 mm). 23 lesions were located on the left side (50%) and 18 lesions on the right (39.1%). The remaining 5 lesions were extra-adrenal (10.9%). The lesions of 11 patients were associated with hereditary syndromes, while those of the re- maining patients (59.3%) were sporadic. The most frequent mor- phological patterns were hyperechogenicity (65.2%) ( Fig. 4), slight to strong heterogeneity (69.6%), round shape (93.5%), nod- ular structure (100%), encapsulated (76.1%), hypo-/anechoic areas within the tumor (58.7%), and mild to high hyperperfusion (63.1%).
mPCC (n=5 lesions) included two female and two male patients with a mean age of 42.3 + 22.3 years. Three lesions were located on the right side and two lesions on the left. All tumors were sporadic. Mean diameter was 39.9 +41.9 mm (range: 14.8-113.3mm). Mor- phological patterns of mPCC imaged by EUS included hypoecho- genicity (60%) (Fig. 4), homogeneity (60%), round shape (100%), nodular structure (80%), without a capsule, sharp to blurry margins (60%), lack of hypo-/anechoic areas within the tumor (60%), and mild hyperperfusion (60%).
In 11 patients with PCC, the lesions were associated with hered- itary syndromes including multiple endocrine neoplasia II (29.0%), von Hippel-Lindau syndrome (3.2%), and neurofibromatosis type 1 (3.2%). Among these, eight patients showed bilateral pheochro- mocytoma consistent with the benign morphological criteria.
Among ACC patients (n = 7 lesions), mean age was 46.3 ± 6.9 years. All seven patients were female. Most lesions were located on the left side (n = 5, 71.4%). Mean lesion diameter was 50.6 ± 14.8 mm (range: 31.0-68.2 mm), with three of the lesions present- ing larger than 6 cm (42.9%). The most frequent morphological patterns of this group were hyperechogenicity (71.4%), slight to strong heterogeneity (100%), round shape (100%), and nodular structure (85.7%). The majority of these tumors (85.7%) present- ed hypo-/anechoic areas within the tumor and no hyperperfusion (57.1%).
There were no significant differences between groups regard- ing endosonographic morphological patterns, such as tumor size, echogenicity, echostructure, and vascularization (Table 1). How- ever, benign PCC tended to be more hyperechoic (P=0.112) than
PCC
bPCC n=46
mPCC n=5
hypoechoic n=9
isoechoic n=7
hyperechoic n=30
hypoechoic n=3
hyperechoic n=2
malignant PCC. In contrast to PCC, ACC did not show high hyper- perfusion (P= 0.022) but presented with a larger tumor size (P=0.002) (Tables 1 & 2).
EUS imaging of individual tumors was compared with findings on respective MRI, CT, and MIBG scintigraphy scans (Table 3). Find- ings based on MIBG scintigraphy (n = 50) were consistent with the EUS imaging diagnosis of PCC in 88 % of all PCC lesions. MIBG scin- tigraphy was negative for 12% of lesions diagnosed by EUS. Three lesions (50%), which could not be visualized by MIBG scintigraphy were malignant. The mean diameter of the MIBG-negative lesions was 28.9± 7.8 mm (range: 15.4-35.8 mm).
Discussion
In agreement with previous studies [8, 11], this retrospective study found malignant adrenal gland tumors to be larger than benign ad- renal lesions. However, EUS-based morphological distinction be- tween benign and malignant PCC as well as ACC remains difficult, since a reliable distinction between these tumor entities cannot be determined based on endosonographic morphological patterns including tumor size, echogenicity, echostructure, and vasculari- zation.
The distribution of sex and age in patients with benign or ma- lignant PCC in this study is in line with recent studies [11, 12]. Age distribution and presence of a higher proportion of females (100%) presenting with ACC lesions also corresponds well with previous analyses [3]. The majority of PCC cases arise sporadically, and in approximately 25% of cases, PCC is hereditary [13, 14]. Sporadic PCC appears to have a greater risk of malignancy [13]. 50% of cases with PCC were associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia II, 15-20% of cases with von Hippel-Lindau syndrome, and 5 % of cases with neurofibromatosis type 1 [7, 15]. Tumors of pheochromocy- toma-associated syndromes occur bilaterally and are less frequent- ly malignant [15]. 15-20% of PCC lesions arise in extra-adrenal chromaffin cells [16]. In general, 10-15% of PCCs and 20-50% of extra-adrenal PCCs are malignant [17]. In our study, all extra-adre- nal PCCs were benign in nature. Given the overall small number of cases in this study, this result should not be overinterpreted. No side preference for PCC and ACC has been reported in the recent literature [18].
In our study, PCC and ACC showed differences regarding tumor size. Allolio and Fassnacht [19] reported the size of adrenal tumors measured by CT or MRI to be a good indicator of malignancy. Lesions larger than 6 cm are highly suspicious for malignancy and should be surgically removed. Interestingly, the malignant lesions detected had smaller diameters. Thus, the resolution provided by EUS may be better than conventional methods and enable the detection of small tumors at an early stage of disease [20]. The reported mean tumor size of PCC detected either by conventional imaging techniques or after surgical removal ranged from 2.9 to 5.5 cm [15, 21]. Thus, our mean tumor size of 2.9 ± 2.3 cm in EUS images was at the lower range of reported values. In addition, we found no significant difference in tumor size between patients with benign and malignant lesions. Kann et al. [8] reported that benign PCCs tended to be smaller than malignant PCCs. However, values did not reach significance. One rea- son may be that EUS was performed in patients for follow-up assess- ment of their lesions. In this way, small recurrences and metastases
| Characteristics | P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age in years mean ± SD | |||
| bPCC (n=27) | 47.0 (± 14.6) | P=0.589 | |
| mPCC (n=4) | 42.3 (± 22.3) | ||
| ACC (n=7) | 46.3 (± 6.9) | P= 1.000 | |
| PCC (n=31) | 46.4 (± 15.4) | ||
| Sex, n (%) | |||
| Male | Female | ||
| bPCC (n=27) | 16 (59.3%) | 11 (40.7%) | P= 1.000 |
| mPCC (n=4) | 2 (50%) | 2 (50%) | |
| ACC (n=7) | 0 (0%) | 7 (100%) | P=0.009 |
| PCC (n=31) | 18 (58.1%) | 13 (41.9%) | |
| Side, n (%) | |||
| Left | Right | ||
| bPCC (n=46) | 23 (50%) | 18 (39.1%) | P=0.637 |
| mPCC (n=5) | 2 (40%) | 3 (60%) | |
| ACC (n=7) | 5 (71.4%) | 2 (28.6%) | P=0.692 |
| PCC (n=51) | 25 (49.0%) | 21 (41.2%) | |
| Mean diameter in mm mean ± SD | |||
| bPCC (n=46) | 27.3 (± 20.8) | P=0.548 | |
| mPCC (n=5) | 39.9 (± 41.9) | ||
| ACC (n=7) | 50.6 (± 14.8) | P=0.002 | |
| PCC (n=51) | 28.5 (± 23.3) | ||
| Hyperechoic, n (%) | |||
| bPCC (n=46) | 30 (65.2%) | P=0.112 | |
| mPCC (n=5) | 2 (40%) | ||
| ACC (n=7) ** | 5 (71.4%) | ||
| PCC (n=51) | 32 (62.8%) | ||
| Heterogeneous, n (%) | |||
| bPCC (n=46) | 32 (69.6%) | P=0.501 | |
| mPCC (n=5) | 2 (40%) | ||
| ACC (n=7) *** | 5 (71.4%) | ||
| PCC (n=51) | 34 (66.7%) | ||
| Hyperperfusion, n (%) | |||
| bPCC (n=46) | 29 (63.1%) | P=1.000 | |
| mPCC (n=5) | 3 (60%) | ||
| ACC (n=7) | 0 (0 %) | P=0.022 | |
| PCC (n=51) | 32 (62.7%) | ||
| Hypo-/anechoic areas within the tumor, n (%) | |||
| bPCC (n=46) | 27 (58.7%) | P=0.641 | |
| mPCC (n=5) | 2 (40%) | ||
| ACC (n=7) **** | 6 (85.7%) | ||
| PCC (n=51) | 29 (56.9%) | ||
* no correction for multiple testing; ** mPCC vs. ACC P=0.558;
*** mPCC vs. ACC P=0.098; **** mPCC vs. ACC P=0.222 ..
| Morphology/ position | bPCC (n=46) | mPCC (n=5) | ACC (n=7) |
| Echogenicity, n (%) | Hyperechoic, 30 (65.2%) | Hypoechoic, 3 (60%) | Hyperechoic, 5 (71.4%) |
| Echostructure, n (%) | Heterogeneous, 32 (69.5%) | Homogeneous, 3 (60%) | Strongly heterogeneous, 5 (71.4%) |
| Form, n (%) | Round, 43 (93.5%) | Round, 5 (100%) | Round, 7 (100%) |
| Architecture, n (%) | Nodular, 46 (100%) | Nodular, 4 (80%) | Nodular, 6 (85.7%) |
| Boundaries, n (%) | With a "capsule", 35 (76.1%) | With a "capsule" -sharp margin without a "capsule", 4 (80%) | With a "capsule"- blurry margin, 6 (85.7%) |
| Hypoechoic/ echo-free areas within the tumor, n (%) | Yes, 27 (58.7%) | No, 3 (60%) | Yes, 6 (85.7%) |
| Vascularization, n (%) | Mild hyperper- fusion, 24 (52.2%) | Mild hyperperfu- sion, 3 (60%) | No hyperperfusion, 4 (57.1%) |
| Localization, n (%) | Adrenal, 41 (89.1%) | Adrenal, 5 (100%) | Adrenal, 7 (100%) |
| Total number of investigations | No tumor detected | |
|---|---|---|
| bPCC | ||
| CT, n (%) | 21 (100%) | 0 (0%) |
| MRI, n (%) | 33 (100%) | 1 (3%) |
| MIBG scintiscan, n (%) | 45 (100%) | 3 (6.7%) |
| mPCC | ||
| CT, n (%) | 5 (100%) | 1 (20%) |
| MRI, n (%) | 3 (100%) | 0 (0%) |
| MIBG scintiscan, n (%) | 5 (100%) | 3 (60%) |
at an early stage could be detected using EUS [8]. Previous reports also show no significant difference in tumor size between malignant and benign PCC [22]. Therefore, the ability of EUS imaging to detect small lesions missed by routine diagnostic methods could be a good indicator of its superior sensitivity. Concerning small endocrine tu- mors in the pancreas, EUS has been proven to detect lesions with a diameter as small as 1-2 mm [20].
Benign PCC visualized by EUS tended to be more hyperechoic and heterogeneous and to have more signs of hyperperfusion than malignant PCC. Lesions of the PCC groups were round and nodu- lar. Correspondingly, Kann et al. [8] observed hyperechogenicity only in benign lesions. Laparoscopic ultrasound imaging of adrenal tumors during laparoscopic adrenalectomy revealed PCC to be clearly heterogeneous [23]. Schwerk et al. [24] described sono- graphic features of PCC compared to renal parenchyma (as a refer- ence tissue) as being isoechoic or hypoechoic and heterogeneous in mass. All were encapsulated or well delimited, as well as round or ovoid. 32% of these tumors showed cystic components. Patho- logical findings of adrenal masses are usually associated with ne- crosis, signs of internal hemorrhage, and cystic areas with old blood or necrotic debris [15, 24]. Hyperechoic features in ultrasound im- aging may demonstrate cystic and necrotic changes and acute hemorrhage in a PCC [15]. Collienne et al. [10,25] described ade- nomas on EUS as hypoechoic and slightly heterogeneous lesions with no hyperperfusion and no hypo-/anechoic areas within the tumor. In comparison to adenomas, benign PCCs and ACCs tended to be more hyperechoic. Similar to adenomas, malignant PCCs pre- sented hypoechoic on EUS. A significant difference between these tumor entities was that, in contrast to adenomas, PCCs and ACCs showed hypo-/anechoic areas within the tumor (P<0.05) [10, 25].
MRI and CT are common imaging methods used initially for the high sensitivity localization of PCC. However, the specificity is less than optimal [26]. The sensitivity of CT for detecting lesions with a diameter above 1 cm ranges between 78 and 98 % while the spec- ificity ranges between 29 and 92 % [26]. For lesions of the same size, MRI has a sensitivity of 93-100% and a specificity of 50-100% [26]. Studies using non-spiral CT techniques were not able to iden- tify tumors with a diameter<1 cm. Lesions ranging from 1-3 cm could be identified by CT in 30% of cases, and those with a diame- ter>3 cm were identified in 95% of cases [27]. Due to their strong hyperperfusion, PCCs have a strong hyperintensity on T2-weight- ed MRI images [15, 26]. PCCs with a heterogeneous appearance, especially if they are cystic, may show less signal intensity on T2- weigthed MRI. However, T2-weighted signaling intensity can also be caused by different adrenal masses such as adenomas, carcino- mas, hematomas, or hemorrhage [24]. In cases of intra-cytoplas- mic fat, PCC can mimic adenoma [15] and show ≤ 10 HU attenua- tion on unenhanced CT scans as well as loss of signal on chemi- cal-shift imaging. In some cases, these tumors can mimic the characteristics of ACC and metastases by showing rapid contrast enhancement and slow washout [7]. With 71 %, MIBG-negative scintigraphy cases show a higher rate of malignancy. Some MIBG-negative tumors are associated with von Hippel-Lindau syn- drome, while the MIBG-negative presentation may also be caused by a low expression of norepinephrine transporter, metastasized tumors, SDHB gene mutations, or PCC with necrosis. MIBG scintig- raphy has a high specificity (95-100%) and good sensitivity (77- 90%) for PCC detection [7, 8,26,28]. One possible reason for the superior detection of MIBG-negative PCCs by EUS could be its high resolution compared with conventional imaging methods and its independence regarding tracer uptake [8].
In contrast to PCCs, ACCs appear with no hyperperfusion. When using ultrasound, malignant lesions showed inhomogeneous echo- texture with increasing size [3]. On other imaging like MRI or CT,
ACCs often appear as large heterogeneous and locally aggressive adrenal masses [1]. Compared with adenomas, ACCs seem to be larger, heterogeneous, lobulated, and with areas of hemorrhage and necrosis [3]. In general, adenomas are often incidentally dis- covered, homogeneous, small, and nonaggressive lesions with sta- ble growth [1]. Using MRI, ACCs appear heterogeneous because of hemorrhage and necrosis on both T1- and T2-weighted imaging. On unenhanced CT scans, larger signs of necrosis are more indica- tive of malignancy [29].
In conclusion, EUS is a minimally invasive imaging method that provides high resolution for both diagnostic and therapeutic pur- poses. EUS may be valuable in the early detection of PCC, which can be associated with genetic syndromes. Given the high resolution of the method, metastases or recurrences often missed by conven- tional diagnostic methods can be identified at an earlier stage of disease. EUS may provide additional useful information for surgical planning [8]. An important limitation of EUS is the difficulty to dis- tinguish between different tumor entities, especially in cases of postoperative inflammatory changes or modified anatomical situ- ations. Possible complications of EUS procedures include perfora- tion, aspiration, and bacteremia [10, 30]. However, none of these have been observed in our series. Due to its two-dimensional rep- resentation of tumors, EUS does not allow for precise calculation of the actual tumor volume [10] > Tables 1-3.
The present study revealed no significant differences in EUS mor- phology patterns to reliably distinguish between benign and ma- lignant PCC and ACC. Due to the low incidence of these tumor en- tities and the lack of histological confirmation of the four lesions of bPCC, the results may not have reached statistical significance. Fur- thermore, in some cases, information like vascularization of the le- sions was missing, and additional imaging was not performed on all patients.
Nevertheless, EUS might be a good alternative and/or comple- mentary method to conventional imaging techniques without the use of contrast media and exposure to radiation in the case of sus- pected sporadic and especially hereditary PCC and/or ACC [10].
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Allison Dwileski, Clinic for Anesthesiology, Uni- versity Hospital Basel, and Maike Collienne, for making a significant non-author contribution by revising the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Ranathunga DS, Cherpak LA, Schieda N et al. Macroscopic fat in adrenocortical carcinoma: A systematic review. Am J Roentgenol 2020; 214: 390-394. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21851
[2] Sbardella E, Grossman AB. Pheochromocytoma: An approach to diagnosis. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020; 34. doi:10.1016/j.beem.2019.101346
[3] Ahmed AA, Thomas AJ, Ganeshan DM et al. Adrenal cortical carcinoma: pathology, genomics, prognosis, imaging features, and mimics with impact on management. Abdom Radiol 2020; 45. doi:10.1007/s00261-019-02371-y
[4] Neumann HPH, Young WF, Eng C. Pheochromocytoma and Paragangli- oma. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 552-565. doi: 10.1056/nejmra1806651
[5] Shetty I, Fuller S, Raygada M et al. Adrenocortical carcinoma masquerading as pheochromocytoma: A histopathologic dilemma. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Reports 2020; 2020. doi: 10.1530/ EDM-19-0147
[6] Kaltsas GA, Besser GM, Grossman AB. The diagnosis and medical management of advanced neuroendocrine tumors. Endocr Rev 2004; 25: 458-511. doi: 10.1210/er.2003-0014
[7] Low G, Dhliwayo H, Lomas DJ. Adrenal neoplasms. Clin Radiol 2012; 67: 988-1000. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.02.005
[8] Kann PH, Wirkus B, Behr T, et al. Endosonographic imaging of benign and malignant pheochromocytomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004; 89: 1694-1697. doi: 10.1210/jc.2003-031709
[9] Kann PH. Endoscopic Ultrasound in Endocrinology: Imaging of the Adrenals and the Endocrine Pancreas. Front Horm Res 2016; 45: 46-54. doi: 10.1159/000442277
[10] Collienne M, Timmesfeld N, Bergmann SR et al. Adrenal Incidentaloma and Subclinical Cushing’s Syndrome: A Longitudinal Follow-Up Study by Endoscopic Ultrasound. Ultraschall der Medizin 2017; 38: 411-419. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-107996
[11] Dhir M, Li W, Hogg ME et al. Clinical Predictors of Malignancy in Patients with Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24: 3624-3630. doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-6074-1
[12] Barski D. Management and follow up of extra-adrenal phaeochromo- cytoma. Cent Eur J Urol 2014; 67: 156-161. doi: 10.5173/ ceju.2014.02.art8
[13] Brancíková D, Mechl Z, Adam Z et al. Patient with inoperable pheochromocytoma. Curr Oncol 2015; 22: e216-e219. doi: 10.3747/ co.22.2324
[14] Beck O, Fassbender WJ, Beyer P et al. Pheochromocytoma in childhood: implication for further diagnostic procedures. Acta Paediatr 2004; 93: 1630-1634
[15] Katabathina VS, Rajebi H, Chen M et al. Genetics and imaging of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas: current update. Abdom Radiol 2020; 45: 928-944. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-02044-w
[16] Fang F, Ding L, He Q et al. Preoperative Management of Pheochromo- cytoma and Paraganglioma. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2020; 11. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.586795
[17] Pappachan JM, Tun NN, Arunagirinathan G et al. Pheochromocytomas and Hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep 2018; 20. doi: 10.1007/ s11906-018-0804-z
[18] Iñiguez-Ariza NM, Kohlenberg JD, Delivanis DA et al. Clinical, Biochemical, and Radiological Characteristics of a Single-Center Retrospective Cohort of 705 Large Adrenal Tumors. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes 2018; 2: 30-39. doi: 10.1016/j.may- ocpiqo.2017.11.002
[19] Allolio B, Fassnacht M. Clinical review: Adrenocortical carcinoma: Clinical update. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006; 91: 2027-2037. doi: 10.1210/jc.2005-2639
[20] Kann PH, Balakina E, Ivan D et al. Natural course of small, asympto- matic neuroendocrine pancreatic tumours in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: An endoscopic ultrasound imaging study. Endocr Relat Cancer 2006; 13: 1195-1202. doi: 10.1677/erc.1.01220
[21] Hoegerle S, Nitzsche E, Altehoefer C et al. Pheochromocytomas: Detection with 18F DOPA whole-body PET-initial results. Radiology 2002; 222: 507-512. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2222010622
[22] Edström Elder E, Hjelm Skog AL, Hoog A et al. The management of benign and malignant pheochromocytoma and abdominal paragangli- oma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29: 278-283. doi: 10.1053/ ejso.2002.1413
[23] Brunt LM, Bennett HF, Teefey SA et al. Laparoscopic ultrasound imaging of adrenal tumors during laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Am J Surg 1999; 178: 490-494. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)00220-2
[24] Schwerk WB, Gorg C, Gorg K et al. Adrenal pheochromocytomas: A broad spectrum of sonographic presentation. J Ultrasound Med 1994; 13: 517-521. doi: 10.7863/jum.1994.13.7.517
[25] Collienne M. Endosonographische Charakteristika und longitudinale Verlaufskontrolle hormonellinaktiver Nebennierenläsionen und des subklinischen Cushing-Syndroms [Dissertation]. Marburg: University Marburg; 2015
[26] Ilias I, Pacak K. Current Approaches and Recommended Algorithm for the Diagnostic Localization of Pheochromocytoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004; 89: 479-491. doi: 10.1210/jc.2003-031091
[27] Rockall AG, Reznek RH. Imaging of neuroendocrine tumours (CT/MR/ US). Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007; 21: 43-68. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2007.01.003
[28] Kurisaki-Arakawa A, Saito T, Takahashi M et al. A case of (123)I-MIBG scintigram-negative functioning pheochromocytoma: immunohisto- chemical and molecular analysis with review of literature. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2014; 15: 4438-4447
[29] Blake MA, Cronin CG, Boland GW. Adrenal imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 1450-1460. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.4547
[30] Dietrich CF. Endosonographie. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2008. doi: 10.1055/b-002-39797