4.5 Article

Minimally Invasive Resection of Adrenocortical Carcinoma: a Multi-Institutional Study of 201 Patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 352-362

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-016-3262-4

Keywords

Adrenocortical carcinoma; Minimally invasive surgery; Survival; Disease-free survival; Surgical approach

Funding

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [KL2 TR000428, UL1 TR000427] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [R21 CA192072, K08 CA168999] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Minimally invasive surgery for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is controversial. We sought to evaluate the perioperative and long-term outcomes following minimally invasive (MIS) and open resection (OA) of ACC in patients treated with curative intent surgery. Retrospective data from patients who underwent adrenalectomy for primary ACC at 13 tertiary care cancer centers were analyzed, including demographics, clinicopathological, and operative outcomes. Outcomes following MIS were compared to OA. A total of 201 patients were evaluated including 47 MIS and 154 OA. There was no difference in utilization of MIS approach among institutions (p = 0.24) or 30-day morbidity (29.3 %, MIS, vs. 30.9 %, OA; p = 0.839). The only preoperatively determined predictor for MIS was smaller tumor size (p < 0.001). There was no difference in rates of intraoperative tumor rupture (p = 0.612) or R0 resection (p = 0.953). Only EBL (p = 0.038) and T stage (p = 0.045) were independent prognostic indicators of overall survival after adjusting for significant factors. The surgical approach was not associated with overall or disease-free survival. MIS adrenalectomy may be utilized for preoperatively determined ACC 10.0 cm; however, OA should be utilized for adrenal masses with either preoperative or intraoperative evidence of local invasion or enlarged lymph nodes, regardless of size.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available