4.7 Article

Improving Outcomes in Adrenocortical Cancer: An Australian Perspective

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 7, Pages 2309-2316

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-4133-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy that carries a poor prognosis. There has yet to be a large Australian series that documents the characteristics of ACC and there are a paucity of data on management and the long-term outcomes. We sought to provide a unique insight into the management of ACC in Australia as well as to identify factors associated with prognosis and survival. A multivariate analysis of a cohort of patients identified with ACC between 1998 and 2013 was undertaken. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed as the main outcome measures and correlated with multiple clinical variables in order to identify prognostic markers. Of the 104 patients identified, a total of 98 patients with complete clinical and outcome data were included in the study. Median OS was 56 months, with the 5-year survival being 48 % (95 % confidence interval 36-59). On multivariate analysis, age a parts per thousand yen50 years, metastases at presentation, and evidence of extra-adrenal invasion were found to be statistically associated with reduced OS. RFS was analyzed in patients without metastases. On multivariate analysis, extra-adrenal invasion and no preoperative endocrine investigations were found to be statistically significant poor prognostic factors, with a non-significant trend for higher individual surgeon volume to be associated with improved resection margins and RFS. We present clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for patients with ACC in a landmark Australian series. We suggest that management in a specialized tertiary endocrine and/or surgical oncology unit is more likely to lead to improved outcomes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available