4.4 Article

Adrenalectomy was recommended for patients with subclinical Cushing's syndrome due to adrenal incidentaloma

Journal

CANCER BIOMARKERS
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 367-372

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/CBM-170531

Keywords

Subclinical Cushing's syndrome; adrenal incidentaloma; adrenalectomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether adrenalectomy may improve biochemical and metabolic impairment for patients with subclinical Cushing syndrome (SCS) due to adrenal incidentaloma (AI) compared with conservative management. METHODS: A total of 87 patients with SCS due to AI in Peking Union Medical College Hospital between September 2011 and January 2016 have been treated. Forty-eight patients underwent laparoscopic adrenalectomy (operative group), whereas 39 were managed conservatively (control group). RESULTS: The duration of follow-up was 32.5 +/- 10.6 months in operative group, and 30.1 +/- 13.1 months in control group, respectively. In the operative group, laboratory corticosteroid parameters normalized in all patients but not in the control group. In the operative group, BP of hypertensive patients improved or normalized (22 of 48); to the contrary, in the control group, cure or improvement was never achieved among the patients with hypertension, whereas a worsening was observed in 5 patients (P = 0.004). No significant difference was found in glycemic control and blood lipid change between the two groups. However, a decrease in triglyceridaemia and HBA1c was found in operative group compared with the control group (P = 0.011 and P = 0.017, respectively). Substitutive corticosteroid treatment was administered in 3 patients due to postoperative adrenal insufficiency during hospital stay, and the duration of treatment was 9 weeks, 10 weeks and 12 weeks, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy should be performed for patients with SCS due to AI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available