4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Features of synchronous versus metachronous metastasectomy in adrenal cortical carcinoma: Analysis from the US adrenocortical carcinoma database

期刊

SURGERY
卷 167, 期 2, 页码 352-357

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2019.05.024

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare, aggressive cancer. We compared features of patients who underwent synchronous versus metachronous metastasectomy. Methods: Adult patients who underwent resection for metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma from 1993 to 2014 at 13 institutions of the US adrenocortical carcinoma group were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were categorized as synchronous if they underwent metastasectomy at the index adrenalectomy or metachronous if they underwent resection after recurrence of the disease. Factors associated with overall survival were assessed by univariate analysis. Results: In the study, 84 patients with adrenocortical carcinoma underwent metastasectomy; 26 (31%) were synchronous and 58 (69%) were metachronous. Demographics were similar between groups. The synchronous group had more T4 tumors at the index resection (42 vs 3%, P < .001). The metachronous group had prolonged median survival after the index resection (86.3 vs 17.3 months, P < .001) and metastasectomy (36.9 vs 17.3 months, P = .007). Synchronous patients with RO resections had improved survival compared to patients with R1/2 resections (P = .008). Margin status at metachronous metastasectomy was not associated with survival (P = .452). Conclusion: Select patients with metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma may benefit from metastasectomy. Patients with metachronous metastasectomy have a more durable survival benefit than those undergoing synchronous metastasectomy. This study highlights need for future studies examining differences in tumor biology that could explain outcome disparities in these distinct patient populations. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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