Search

Context: Although complete surgical resection provides the only means of cure in adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC), the magnitude of the survival benefit of adrenalectomy in metastatic ACC (mACC) is unknown., Objective: This work aimed to assess the effect of adrenalectomy on survival outcomes in patients with mACC in a real-world setting., Methods: Patients with mACC aged 18 years or older with metastatic ACC at initial presentation who were treated between 2004 and 2020 were identified within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (SEER 2004-2020), and we tested for differences according to adrenalectomy status. Intervention included primary tumor resection status (adrenalectomy vs no adrenalectomy). Kaplan-Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression models, and landmark analyses were used. Sensitivity analyses focused on use of systemic therapy, contemporary (2012-2020) vs historical (2004-2011), single vs multiple metastatic sites, and assessable specific solitary metastatic sites (lung only and liver only)., Results: Of 543 patients with mACC, 194 (36%) underwent adrenalectomy. In multivariable analyses, adrenalectomy was associated with lower overall mortality without (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.39; P < .001), as well as with 3 months' landmark analyses (HR: 0.57; P = .002). The same association effect with 3 months' landmark analyses was recorded in patients exposed to systemic therapy (HR: 0.49; P < .001), contemporary patients (HR: 0.57; P = .004), historical patients (HR: 0.42; P < .001), and in those with lung-only solitary metastasis (HR: 0.50; P = .02). In contrast, no statistically significant association was recorded in patients naive to systemic therapy (HR: 0.68; P = .3), those with multiple metastatic sites (HR: 0.55; P = .07), and those with liver-only solitary metastasis (HR: 0.98; P = .9)., Conclusion: The present results indicate a potential protective effect of adrenalectomy in mACC, particularly in patients exposed to systemic therapy and those with lung-only metastases., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com. See the journal About page for additional terms.)

Objective: To test the ability of the 2015 modified version of the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors staging system (mENSAT) in predicting cancer-specific mortality (CSM), as well as overall mortality (OM) in adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) patients of all stages, in a large-scale, and contemporary United States cohort., Methods: We relied on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2020) to test the accuracy and calibration of the mENSAT and subsequently compared it to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (AJCC)., Results: In 858 ACC patients, mENSAT accuracy was 74.7% for 3-year CSM predictions and 73.8% for 3-year OM predictions. The maximum departures from ideal predictions in mENSAT were +17.2% for CSM and +11.8% for OM. Conversely, AJCC accuracy was 74.5% for 3-year CSM predictions and 73.5% for 3-year OM predictions. The maximum departures from ideal predictions in AJCC were -6.7% for CSM and -7.1% for OM., Conclusion: The accuracy of mENSAT is virtually the same as that of AJCC in predicting CSM (74.7% vs 74.5%) and OM (73.7% vs 73.5%). However, calibration is lower for mENSAT than for AJCC. In consequence, no obvious benefit appears to be associated with the use of mENSAT relative to AJCC in US ACC patients., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In 2021, the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) Update Consortium reported improved overall survival (OS) rates in a modern cohort of metastatic non-seminoma testis cancer patients within each of the IGCCCG prognosis groups (96% in good vs. 89% in intermediate vs. 67% in poor), compared to the previous IGCCCG publication (92% in good vs. 80% in intermediate vs. 48% in poor). We hypothesized that a similar survival improvement may apply to a contemporary North-American population-based cohort of non-seminoma testis cancer patients., Patients and Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2018) was used. Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression models tested the effect of IGCCCG prognosis groups on overall mortality (OM)., Results: Of 1672 surgically treated metastatic non-seminoma patients, 778 (47%) exhibited good vs. 251 (15%) intermediate vs. 643 (38%) poor prognosis. In the overall cohort, five-year OS rate was 94% for good prognosis vs. 87% for intermediate prognosis vs. 65% for poor prognosis. In multivariable Cox regression models predicting OM, intermediate (Hazard ratio [HR] 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-3.9, P < 0.001) and poor prognosis group (HR 6.6, 95% CI 1.0-1.0, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of higher OM, relative to good prognosis group., Conclusions: The survival improvement reported by the IGCCCG Update Consortium is also operational in non-seminoma testis cancer patients within the most contemporary SEER database. This observation indicates that the survival improvement is not only applicable to centres of excellence, but also applies to other institutions at large., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)