4.7 Article

Bilateral Adrenalectomy: Differences between Cushing Disease and Ectopic ACTH-Producing Tumors

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 10, 页码 3851-3857

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-08451-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Bilateral adrenalectomy (BA) is a curative treatment for hypercortisolism in patients with corticotropin (ACTH)-dependent Cushing syndrome. Indications include refractory Cushing's disease (CD) following failed pituitary surgery, and occult or unresectable ectopic ACTH-producing neoplasms (EA). Methods This was a single-center, retrospective review (1995-2017) of patients undergoing BA for CD or EA. Demographics, laboratory findings, and intraoperative and postoperative variables were analyzed. Results Of 137 patients, 83 (61%) had CD and 54 (39%) had EA; 87% of CD patients were female versus 46% of EA patients (p < 0.0001). Mean age at diagnosis was 40 +/- 15 years for CD and 49 +/- 18 years for EA (p = 0.004). Preoperative serum cortisol concentrations were higher in the EA cohort (63 +/- 40 mu g/dL) versus the CD cohort (33 +/- 19 mu g/dL) [p < 0.001], with no significant differences in serum ACTH. Time from diagnosis until adrenalectomy was 54 +/- 69 months for CD versus 4 +/- 13 for EA (p = 0.002). Most patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS; 86% CD vs. 75% EA; p = 0.19). There was no difference between the rates of conversion to an open approach, intraoperative blood loss, or operative time between groups, and no difference between complications in CD versus EA (p = 1.0). Five-year survival was significantly shorter among the EA cohort (30% for EA vs. 80% for CD; p < 0.001). Conclusion Patients with EA presented with higher serum cortisol levels compared with patients with CD. EA patients were more likely to require intraoperative transfusion and postoperative intensive care. BA in patients with CD and EA can be performed safely in an MIS fashion, with similar morbidity; however, survival at 5 years was significantly less in the EA cohort.

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

4.7
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