4.4 Article

Adrenocortical carcinoma: effect of hospital volume on patient outcome

期刊

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 397, 期 2, 页码 201-207

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-011-0866-8

关键词

Adrenocortical carcinoma; Patient volume; Oncologic outcome; Adrenal tumor

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Optimal management of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) involves a detailed diagnostic workup, radical surgery, and appropriate adjuvant therapy. However, due to the rarity of this disease, adequate expertise is necessary to ensure optimal patient care. We evaluated if the experience of a treating center influences the outcome of ACC. Methods Two hundred sixty-three patients who underwent adrenalectomy for ACC were included in a multi-institutional surgical survey and divided into 2 groups: high-volume center (HVC) (>= 10 adrenalectomies for ACC) and low-volume center (LVC) (<10 adrenalectomies for ACC). A comparative analysis was performed. Results One hundred seventy-two patients underwent adrenalectomy at HVC and 91 at LVC. The two groups were homogeneous for age, sex, clinical presentation, and stage. The mean lesions size of ACC was higher in HVC than in LVC (104.1 +/- 54.6 vs 82.8 +/- 41.3 mm; P < 0.001). A significantly higher rate of lymph node dissection (P < 0.01) and of multiorgan resection (P < 0.01) was accomplished in HVC. The number of patients who underwent adjuvant therapy was significantly higher in HVC (P < 0.001). Local recurrence rate was lower in patients treated at HVC (6% vs 18.5%; P = NS). Mean time to recurrence was significantly longer in HVC than in LVC (25.2 +/- 28.1 vs 10.1 +/- 7.5; P < 0.01). Conclusion The expertise of dedicated centers had a positive impact on the outcome of patients with ACC, resulting in a lower recurrence rate and improved mean time to recurrence. The improved patient outcome could be related not only to the appropriateness of the surgical procedure, but also to a more adequate multidisciplinary approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据