Evidence Hub

Prognostic factors and mitotane treatment of adrenocortical cancer. Two decades of experience from an institutional case series

Tőke J, Uhlyarik A, Lohinszky J, Stark J, Huszty G, Micsik T, Borka K, Reismann P et al.

Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022

68 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterise the clinicopathological features and prognostic factors of a large cohort of Hungarian patients with adrenocortical cancer diagnosed between 2000-2021.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included seventy-four patients (27 men and 47 women) with histologically confirmed adrenocortical cancer in a single tertiary referral endocrine centre. Descriptive statistics were performed, providing summaries of selected clinical and pathological parameters. Clinicopathological factors contributing to overall survival were analysed.

RESULTS: The median age of patients was 48,5 years (17-84 years) at diagnosis. The majority of cases were diagnosed at ENSAT stage II (39,2%) and stage IV (33,8%). At diagnosis, the median tumour size was 9,0 cm (4,5-20 cm). In 47 patients (71,6%), the tumour was hormonally active. The median overall survival and the 5-year survival rate were 23,5 months (95% CI, 17-30,5 months) and 18,3%, respectively. Primary tumour resection was performed in 68 patients (91,8%); R0 surgical resection was achieved in 30 patients. In univariate Cox regression model, tumours with stages III and IV, high proliferative activity (Ki67-index > 10%), R1-R2 surgical resection state and hormonal activity were associated with poorer survival. Cortisol excess, both isolated and combined with androgen production, was associated with poorer survival. Fifty-five patients were treated with mitotane. The overall survival of patients…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 68 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free