Search

BackgroundThe increasing use of computed tomography (CT) has identified many patients with incidental adrenal lesions. Further evaluation of these lesions is often dependent on the language used in the radiology report. Compared to the general population, patients with cancer have a higher risk for adrenal abnormalities, yet data on the prevalence and type of incidental adrenal lesions reported on radiologic reports in cancer patients is limited. In this study, we aimed to determine the prevalence and nature of adrenal abnormalities as an incidental finding reported on radiology reports of cancer patients evaluated for reasons other than suspected adrenal pathology.MethodsRadiology reports of patients who underwent abdominal CT within 30 days of presentation to a tertiary cancer center were reviewed and analyzed. We used natural language processing to perform a multi-class text classification of the adrenal reports. Patients who had CT for suspected adrenal mass including adrenal protocol CT were excluded. Three independent abstractors manually reviewed abnormal and questionable results, and we measured the interobserver agreement.ResultsFrom June 1, 2006, to October 1, 2017, a total of 600,399 abdominal CT scans were performed including 66,478 scans obtained within 30 days of the patient’s first presentation. Of these, 58,512 were eligible after applying the exclusion criteria. Adrenal abnormalities were identified in 7,817 (13.4%) reports, with adrenal nodularity (3,401 [43.5%]), adenomas (1,733 [22.2%]), and metastases (1,337 [17.1%]) being the most reported categories. Only 10 cases (0.1%) were reported as primary adrenal carcinomas and 2 as pheochromocytoma. Interobserver agreement using 300 reports yielded a Fleiss kappa of 0.893, implying almost perfect agreement between the abstractors.ConclusionsIncidental adrenal abnormalities are commonly reported in abdominal CT reports of cancer patients. As the terminology used by radiologists to describe these findings greatly determine the subsequent management plans, further studies are needed to correlate some of these findings to the actual confirmed diagnosis based on hormonal, histological and follow-up data and ascertain the impact of such reported findings on patients’ outcomes.