Check for updates
ORIGINAL ARTICLE - ENDOCRINE TUMORS
Defining Optimal Management of Non-metastatic Adrenocortical Carcinoma
Jesse E. Passman, MD, MPH1(D, Wajid Amjad, BS1, Jacqueline M. Soegaard Ballester, MD, MBMI1, Sara P. Ginzberg, MD, MS1, and Heather Wachtel, MD1,2
1Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA; 2Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
ABSTRACT
Background. Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is an aggressive, deadly malignancy. Resection remains the primary treatment; however, there is conflicting evidence regarding the optimal approach to and extent of surgery and the role of adjuvant therapy. We evaluated the impact of surgical technique and adjuvant therapies on survival in non- metastatic ACC.
Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of subjects who underwent surgery for non-metastatic ACC between 2010 and 2019 utilizing the National Cancer Data- base. The primary outcome was overall survival. Cox pro- portional hazards models were developed to identify asso- ciations between clinical and treatment characteristics and survival.
Results. Overall, 1175 subjects were included. Their mean age was 54 +15 years, and 62% of patients were female. 67% of procedures were performed via the open approach, 22% involved multi-organ resection, and 26% included lymphadenectomy. Median survival was 77.1 months. Age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.019; p <0.001), advanced stage (stage III HR 2.421; p<0.001), laparoscopic approach (HR 1.329; p=0.010), and positive margins (HR 1.587; p<0.001) were negatively associated with survival, while extent of resection (HR 1.189; p=0.140) and lymphadenectomy (HR 1.039; p=0.759) had no association. Stratified by stage, laparo- scopic resection was only associated with worse survival in stage III disease (HR 1.548; p=0.007). Chemoradiation
was only associated with improved survival in patients with positive resection margins (HR 0.475; p=0.004).
Conclusion. Tumor biology and surgical margins are the primary determinants of survival in non-metastatic ACC. Surgical extent and lymphadenectomy are not associ- ated with overall survival. In advanced disease, the open approach is associated with improved survival.
Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare, aggressive malignancy with a grim prognosis. The estimated annual incidence is between 0.72 and 2 cases per million.1-7 Patients are often diagnosed at an advanced stage with large, high- grade tumors and distant metastatic disease.1-7 Prognosis is exceedingly poor, with a median survival of 7-51.2 months and disease-specific 5-year survival of 11.6-60%.2,3,8,9 Given disease rarity and the death of prospective rand- omized trial data, many controversies remain regarding the optimal surgical and medical management of patients with ACC, especially for those without distant metastatic disease at diagnosis.
Surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment for non-metastatic ACC, and margin-negative resection is strongly associated with improved survival. However, regardless of margin status, the relatively high rate of recur- rence following resection suggests that these patients fre- quently have occult micrometastatic disease.3,9,10 However, controversy remains regarding surgical decision making in patients with non-metastatic ACC, including the extent of surgery required, the utility of regional lymphadenectomy, and the role of minimally invasive techniques.
Given the proven benefit of margin-negative resection, en bloc multi-organ resection is generally considered the standard surgical approach for locally invasive ACC. None- theless, data to support multi-organ resection are limited;
@ Society of Surgical Oncology 2023
First Received: 8 June 2023
Accepted: 18 October 2023 Published online: 5 November 2023
multi-organ resection has not been shown to impact survival accounting for margin status, 10-15 and whether universal en bloc resection improves rates of margin-negative resection has not been well-described in the existing literature. Simi- larly, there is no consensus regarding the appropriate extent of regional lymph node dissection during primary ACC resection, although a recent meta-analysis did identify an association between lymphadenectomy and improved sur- vival in localized ACC.10,16,17 Beyond considerations about the extent of surgery, the topic of surgical approach has been hotly debated in ACC. Some studies have identified higher rates of recurrence and lower overall survival in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection, but others have found no difference between the open and minimally invasive approaches.7,10,17
Additionally, adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy are often utilized in ACC treatment, although most supporting data are retrospective. Some studies demonstrate improve- ments in recurrence-free survival with mitotane, although perhaps only in certain populations.7,17,18 Despite some conflicting studies, adjuvant radiation appears to improve recurrence-free survival but not overall survival.7
Given the conflicting data on optimal treatment, this study aimed to evaluate the relationship between extent of surgery, surgical approach, adjuvant therapies, and survival in a large, national cohort of patients with non-metastatic ACC.
METHODS
Data Source
We utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to perform a retrospective cohort study of all patients who presented with non-metastatic ACC. The NCDB is a joint initiative of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society and is one of the largest cancer registries in the world.19 The NCDB is a nationwide, facility-based dataset of all incident cancer diag- noses from over 1500 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs, representing 72% of all newly diagnosed malignancies in the United States annually.20 This study was deemed exempt from University of Pennsylvania Insti- tutional Review Board approval.
Study Cohort
All adult patients diagnosed with ACC from 2010 to 2019 were identified for inclusion by either International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Revision (ICD-O-3) histology code for adrenal cortical carcinoma (8370 and 8373) or by ICD Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code for malignant neoplasm of the adrenal cortex (C74.0).
Of 3251 patients with ACC, 1200 had documentation of metastatic disease and were excluded. Patients who did not have documentation of staging information (n=416), did not receive upfront surgery (n= 114), did not undergo any surgery (n= 114), or underwent debulking surgery or unknown surgical intervention (n=41) were also excluded, as were an additional 305 patients who underwent partial adrenalectomy, excisional biopsy, or other unspecified local excision, leaving a final cohort of 1175 patients. Data regarding adjuvant immunotherapy or hormonal therapy were excluded due to inadequate sample size.
Study Measures
Demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, Charlson-Deyo score), tumor charac- teristics (clinical and pathologic staging, tumor size and grade, margin status after resection), and hospital type were abstracted. For analysis, pathologic stage was utilized if available, otherwise clinical stage was used.
Treatment characteristics were also abstracted. Surgi- cal procedures were classified as adrenal resection (total adrenalectomy) or en bloc multi-organ resection (defined by the NCDB as any surgery involving ‘partial or total removal of the primary site with a resection in continuity … with other organs’). Patients who underwent partial adrenalectomy were excluded as this does not meet stand- ard of care for ACC. Procedures were also classified by surgical approach (laparoscopic or open) and whether lym- phadenectomy was performed. For the surgical approach, intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was utilized such that patients converted from laparoscopic to open procedure were defined as ‘laparoscopic’. Lymphadenectomy was also defined via ITT, per the NCDB definition. In this data- set, there was strong correlation between number of nodes reported excised in pathology and operative reports (cor- relation 99.3% for no nodes, 97.8% for one to three nodes, 97.9% for four or more nodes). There is no preset defi- nition for number of nodes to count as formal lymphad- enectomy in ACC, and prior studies have used definitions ranging between any purposeful removal of lymph nodes to removal of five or more lymph nodes.21-23 In the NCDB, the operative report is used to define the purposeful extent of lymph node dissection. For this study, lymphadenec- tomy was defined as any attempt at regional nodal resec- tion regardless of the number of nodes removed. Suba- nalyses were performed using more stringent definitions of lymphadenectomy. Patients treated with mitotane were classified as receiving chemotherapy according to the NCDB. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as the length of time from diagnosis to mortality.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were reported as means with stand- ard deviations (SDs) or medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs) for continuous variables, and categorical variables were reported as frequencies with percentages. Group com- parisons were performed using Chi-square tests, Student’s t-tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, as appropriate. Logistic regression was utilized to determine traits associated with treatment strategies.
Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Median survival time and 1-, 3-, and 5-year sur- vival rates were calculated; Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare differences in survival. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were created to determine associations between clinical and treatment characteristics and overall survival, with multiple imputa- tion by chained equations utilized to account for missing- ness. All variables were integrated into the multivariable models except for insurance status, which was excluded due to collinearity with age, and pathologic grade due to a high degree of missingness. Multivariable models were strati- fied by stage and resection margin. Statistical inference was performed utilizing Stata, version 17.0 (Stata Corp LCC, College Station, TX, USA).24
RESULTS
Cohort Characteristics
A total of 1175 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 54.1 years (SD 15.2) and 62.1% were female. The majority of patients (86.0%) were White, 9.5% were Black, and 7.9% identified as Hispanic. Most patients were privately insured (56.5%) or insured by Medicare (29.3%). At the time of presentation, most patients had stage II (45.9%) or stage III (44.5%) disease, and the median tumor size was 10.3 cm (IQR 7.0-14.5). These characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Surgical Approach
Most procedures were performed via the open approach (67.2%). While 32.8% of procedures were attempted lapa- roscopically or robotically, 14.9% of those (4.9% overall) were converted to open procedures (Table 2). Most resec- tions were restricted to the adrenal gland (78.4%); 21.6% included en bloc multi-organ resections. Lymphadenectomy was performed in 25.9% of procedures. Patients with more advanced disease more frequently underwent open surgery (stage I, 29.7%; stage II, 65.2%; stage III, 77.8%; p <0.001), as well as en bloc multi-organ resection (stage I, 4.4%; stage II, 17.8%; stage III, 29.3%; p <0.001) and lymphadenectomy
(stage I, 4.2%; stage II, 18.5%; stage III, 37.7%; p<0.001) [Table 2]. The rate of R0 resection was lower for patients with stage III (70.8%) disease compared with those with stage I (85.4%; p=0.002) and stage II disease (89.8%; p<0.001), but there was no significant difference between stage I and II (p=0.195).
Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were uti- lized to determine associations between patient demographic and tumor characteristics and selected surgical approach. On multivariable analysis, only stage (stage II odds ratio [OR] 0.569, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.338-0.960, p=0.034; stage III OR 0.303, 95% CI 0.177-0.518, p<0.001) and tumor size (OR 0.984, 95% CI 0.981-0.9888; p <0.001) were associated with the open surgical approach and higher Charlson-Deyo score with laparoscopy (OR 0.225, 95% CI 0.141-0.358; p<0.001). For lymphadenectomy, female sex was associated with lower likelihood (OR 0.586, 95% CI 0.425-0.807; p=0.001), while tumor size (OR 1.002, 95% CI 1.001-1.003; p=0.001) and advanced stage (stage II OR 5.697, 95% CI 1.736-18.694, p=0.004; stage III OR 14.688, 95% CI 4.528-47.641, p <0.001) were associated with higher likelihood. For extent of resection, females were again less likely to undergo en bloc multi-organ resec- tion (OR 0.611, 95% CI 0.455-0.820; p=0.001), whereas patients with more advanced tumors were more likely (stage II OR 5.252, 95% CI 1.874-14.721, p=0.002; stage III OR 10.069, 95% CI 03.611-28.073, p<0.001). There were no differences in surgical approach by race or insurance status.
Adjuvant Therapy
Overall, 24.6% of patients received adjuvant chemo- therapy only, 9.3% received adjuvant radiation only, and 17.7% received both adjuvant chemotherapy and radio- therapy (Table 2). Utilization of adjuvant therapies varied based on patient and tumor characteristics. Treated patients were significantly younger (radiation: 51.8 vs. 54.9 years, p=0.002; chemotherapy: 50.1 vs. 57.2 years, p<0.001). Female patients were more likely to receive chemotherapy (45.6% of females vs. 37.7% of males; p=0.009). Those receiving chemotherapy were more likely to have private insurance (chemotherapy: 68.1% vs. 48.4%; p<0.001), pre- sented with more advanced disease (p<0.001) and more frequently had positive resection margins (23.7% vs. 16.1%; p=0.002). Patients treated with adjuvant radiation presented with more advanced disease (p<0.001) and more frequently had positive resection margins (33.3% vs. 13.8%; p<0.001).
Margin Status by Surgical Approach
Logistic regression was utilized to determine associations between surgical technique and margin status as a potential driver of downstream survival. On univariable regression,
| All patients (N=1175) | Total adre- nalectomy (n=921) | En bloc multi-organ p value resection (n=254) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age, years (SD) | 54.1 (15.2) | 53.9 (15.3) | 54.7 (15.0) | 0.424 |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 445 (37.9) | 325 (35.3) | 120 (47.2) | 0.001 |
| Female | 730 (62.1) | 596 (64.7) | 134 (52.8) | |
| Race | ||||
| White | 1011 (86.0) | 788 (85.6) | 223 (87.8) | 0.179 |
| Black | 111 (9.5) | 94 (10.2) | 17 (6.7) | |
| Other | 53 (4.5) | 39 (4.2) | 14 (5.5) | |
| Spanish/Hispanic origin | ||||
| Yes | 93 (7.9) | 78 (8.5) | 15 (5.9) | 0.180 |
| No | 1082 (92.1) | 843 (91.5) | 239 (94.1) | |
| Insurance status | ||||
| Private | 656 (55.8) | 523 (56.8) | 133 (52.4) | 0.337 |
| Medicare | 340 (29.9) | 259 (28.1) | 81 (31.9) | |
| Medicaid | 87 (7.4) | 70 (7.6) | 17 (6.7) | |
| Other government | 30 (2.6) | 23 (2.5) | 7 (2.8) | |
| Uninsured | 48 (4.1) | 38 (4.1) | 10 (3.9) | |
| Unknown | 14 (1.2) | 8 (0.9) | 6 (2.4) | |
| Charlson-Deyo score | ||||
| 0 | 875 (74.5) | 678 (73.6) | 197 (77.6) | 0.416 |
| 1 | 225 (19.2) | 185 (20.1) | 40 (15.8) | |
| 2 | 49 (4.2) | 39 (4.2) | 10 (3.9) | |
| ≥3 | 26 (2.2) | 19 (2.1) | 7 (2.8) | |
| Laterality | ||||
| Left | 646 (55.1) | 487 (53.1) | 159 (62.6) | 0.007 |
| Right | 526 (44.9) | 431 (47.0) | 95 (37.4) | |
| Stage of disease | ||||
| I | 113 (9.6) | 108 (11.7) | 5 (2.0) | <0.001 |
| II | 539 (45.9) | 443 (48.1) | 96 (37.8) | |
| III | 523 (44.5) | 370 (40.2) | 153 (60.2) | |
| Median tumor size, cm (IQR) | 10.3 (7.5) | 9.9 (7.2) | 13.0 (8.8) | <0.001 |
| Margin status | ||||
| R0 | 866 (80.9) | 679 (81.0) | 187 (80.6) | 0.885 |
| R1 or R2 | 204 (19.1) | 159 (19.0) | 45 (19.4) | |
| Adjuvant therapy | ||||
| None | 539 (48.3) | 422 (48.1) | 117 (49.2) | 0.462 |
| Radiation only | 104 (9.3) | 83 (9.5) | 21 (8.8) | |
| Chemotherapy only | 275 (24.6) | 210 (23.9) | 65 (27.3) | |
| Radiation and chemotherapy | 198 (17.7) | 163 (18.6) | 35 (14.7) | |
Data are expressed as n (%) unless otherwise specified
Bold values indicate p <0.05
ACC adrenocortical carcinoma, IQR interquartile range, SD standard deviation
there was no association between surgical approach (ITT, OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.699-1.407; p=0.962) or extent of resection (OR 1.028, 95% CI 0.711-1.485; p=0.885) with margin status. There was also no association between surgi- cal approach and margin status when using an alternative ‘as
treated’ definition of surgical approach, where laparoscopic to open conversions were counted as open procedures (OR 0.800, 95% CI 0.548-1.166; p=0.246). Multivariable logis- tic regression incorporating stage, extent of resection, and surgical approach again found positive margin status was
| All patients (N=1175) | Stage I (n=113) | Stage II (n=539) | Stage III (n=523) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical approach | |||||
| Minimally invasive | 288 (27.9) | 70 (69.3) | 138 (28.4) | 80 (17.9) | <0.001 |
| MIS converted to open | 51 (4.9) | 1 (1.0) | 31 (6.4) | 19 (4.3) | |
| Open | 694 (67.2) | 30 (29.7) | 317 (65.2) | 347 (77.8) | |
| Extent of resection | |||||
| Adrenalectomy only | 921 (78.4) | 108 (95.6) | 443 (82.2) | 370 (70.8) | <0.001 |
| En bloc multi-organ resection | 254 (21.6) | 5 (4.4) | 96 (17.8) | 153 (29.3) | |
| Lymphadenectomy performed | |||||
| No | 688 (74.1) | 91 (95.8) | 331 (81.5) | 266 (62.3) | <0.001 |
| Yes | 240 (25.9) | 4 (4.2) | 75 (18.5) | 161 (37.7) | |
| Margin status | |||||
| R0 | 866 (80.9) | 88 (85.4) | 441 (89.8) | 337 (70.8) | <0.001 |
| R1 or R2 | 204 (19.1) | 15 (14.6) | 50 (10.2) | 139 (29.2) | |
| Adjuvant therapy | |||||
| None | 539 (48.3) | 68 (60.7) | 276 (53.5) | 195 (40.0) | <0.001 |
| Radiation only | 104 (9.3) | 11 (9.8) | 41 (8.0) | 52 (10.7) | |
| Chemotherapy only | 275 (24.6) | 21 (18.8) | 125 (24.2) | 129 (26.4) | |
| Radiation and chemotherapy | 198 (17.7) | 12 (10.7) | 74 (14.3) | 112 (23.0) |
Data are expressed as n (%)
Bold values indicate p<0.05
ACC adrenocortical carcinoma, MIS minimally invasive surgery
only associated with stage III disease (OR 2.575, 95% CI 1.356-4.891; p=0.004). Similarly, there was no relationship on univariable or multivariable analysis between margin sta- tus and surgical approach or extent when stratified by stage.
Unadjusted Survival
The median follow-up time was 37.1 months (IQR 51.2), and the overall median survival was 77.1 months (95% CI 65.2-91.4). One-year survival was 85.9% (95% CI 83.6-87.8%), 3-year survival was 64.0% (95% CI 60.9-66.8%), and 5-year survival was 54.7% (95% CI 51.4-57.9%). At each timepoint, the survival rate decreased with increasing stage (p<0.001). For instance, 3-year sur- vival was as follows: stage I: 75.4% (95% CI 65.5-82.8%); stage II: 72.6% (95% CI 68.3-76.4%); stage III: 52.1% (95% CI 47.3-56.7%).
Kaplan-Meier survival curves were created, stratifying by stage (Fig. 1A-D), surgical approach (Fig. 2A-C), and adjuvant therapy. Stratifying by stage at presentation, there was no difference in unadjusted survival by extent of surgi- cal resection (p=0.226), lymphadenectomy (p=0.815), use of adjuvant radiation (p=0.436), or use of adjuvant chemo- therapy (p=0.329). Open surgery was associated with an unadjusted survival advantage over minimally invasive sur- gery (p=0.002). Stratified by stage, there was no difference
in unadjusted survival by surgical approach in stage I or II disease; however, in stage III disease, survival was signifi- cantly improved with open surgery over laparoscopic sur- gery (p=0.001).
Cox Proportional Hazards Modeling
Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were developed to determine associations between clinical and treatment characteristics and overall survival; missing values were imputed (Table 3). On univariable analysis, increasing age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.018, 95% CI 1.012-1.024; p <0.001), Medicare insurance (HR 1.432, 95% CI 1.178-1.740; p <0.001), higher Charlson-Deyo score (HR 1.247, 95% CI 1.103-1.411; p<0.001), stage III disease (HR 2.326, 95% CI 1.584-3.240; p <0.001) and poorly differentiated tumors (HR 2.084, 95% CI 1.054-4.119; p=0.035) were associated with worse prog- nosis. Treatment with en bloc multiorgan resection (HR 1.230, 95% CI 1.055-1.601; p=0.014), performance of lymphadenectomy (HR 1.245, 95% CI 1.004-1.543; p=0.045), positive surgical margins (HR 1.822, 95% CI 1.476-2.348; p <0.001), and adjuvant radiation (HR 1.359, 95% CI 1.005-1.837; p=0.046) were also associated with worse survival. Adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.112, 95% CI 0.886-1.395; p=0.362) and adjuvant chemoradiation (HR
A Survival by Adjuvant Therapy in Stage I ACC
B Survival by Adjuvant Therapy in Stage II ACC
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Survival
Survival
0
12
24
36
48
60
0
12
24
36
48
60
Months
Months
Surgery Only
Adjuvant Radiation
Adjuvant Radiation
Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Adjuvant Chemoradiation
Surgery Only
Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Adjuvant Chemoradiation
0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
C Survival by Adjuvant Therapy in Stage III ACC
D Survival by Adjuvant Therapy in Stage I-III ACC
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Survival
Survival
0
12
24
36
48
60
0
12
24
36
48
60
Months
Months
Surgery Only
Adjuvant Radiation
Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Adjuvant Chemoradiation
Surgery Only
Adjuvant Radiation
Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Adjuvant Chemoradiation
0.987, 95% CI 0.761-1.279; p=0.918) were not associated with survival.
On multivariable modeling, increasing age (HR 1.019, 95% CI 1.013-1.026; p <0.001), increasing stage at presen- tation (stage II: HR 1.294, 95% CI 0.891-1.879, p=0.176; stage III: HR 2.421, 95% CI 1.649-3.555; p <0.001), mini- mally invasive approach (HR 1.329; 95% CI 1.072-1.648; p=0.010), and positive surgical margins (HR 1.587, 95% CI 1.260-1.999; p <0.001) portended worse survival. Extent of surgery, lymphadenectomy, and adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy were not significantly associated with survival.
Stratification by stage yielded slight variation in these results. In stage I disease, only age was associated with sur- vival (HR 1.041, 95% CI 1.005-1.078; p=0.026). In stage II disease, age (HR 1.021, 95% CI 1.011-1.031; p<0.001) and Charlson-Deyo score (HR 1.393, 95% CI 1.153-1.684; p=0.001) were associated with survival. In stage III dis- ease, age (HR 1.016, 95% CI 1.007-1.026; p=0.001), posi- tive margins (HR 1.584; 95% CI 1.193-2.102; p=0.001),
and minimally invasive approach (HR 1.548, 95% CI 1.126-2.130; p=0.007) were associated with worse sur- vival. Neither lymphadenectomy nor extent of surgery were significantly associated with survival at any stage of disease.
Additional analyses were performed to determine the association between the number of lymph nodes resected and survival outcomes. Resection of four or more lymph nodes was not significantly associated with survival on univariable analysis (HR 1.131, 95% CI 0.828-1.544; p=0.438) or on multivariable analysis (HR 0.901, 95% CI 0.636-1.276; p=0.556). When lymphadenectomy was cat- egorized as resection of no nodes, resection of one to three nodes, and resection of four or more nodes, both resection of one to three lymph nodes (HR 1.254, 95% CI 0.944-1.666; p=0.117) and resection of four or more lymph nodes were not significantly associated with survival compared with no lymph node resection (HR 1.223, 95% CI 0.892-1.677; p=0.211). On multivariable analysis with both granu- lar alternative definitions of lymphadenectomy, only age,
A Survival of Laparoscopic vs. Open Surgery
B Survival of Adrenalectomy Only vs. En-Bloc Resection
1
1
.9
.9
Survival
00
Survival
00
.7
.7
0.
0.
in
I
.5
0
12
24
36
48
60
0
12
24
36
48
60
Months
Months
95% Cl
95% Cl
95% Cl
95% Cl
Open Surgery
Minimally Invasive Surgery
Adrenalectomy
En Bloc Multi-Organ Resection
C Survival with and without Lymphadenectomy
1
.9
Survival
00
.7
0.
in
0
12
24
36
48
60
Months
95% Cl
95% Cl
No Lymphadenectomy
Lymphadenectomy
advanced stage, positive margins, and laparoscopic approach otherwise remained significantly associated with worse sur- vival, similar to the original model.
To isolate the effect of surgical treatment, a model was developed incorporating demographic and clinical char- acteristics, but excluding operative approach. This model incorporated the same patient demographic and diagnostic information as above (age, sex, stage, race, comorbidities) with information on adjuvant therapies (chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or chemoradiation), stratified by surgi- cal margins, the primary factor by which teams will gen- erally consider appropriate adjuvant therapies. In patients with negative resection margins, age (HR 1.021, 95% CI 1.013-1.029; p <0.001), stage (stage II: HR 1.375, 95% CI 0.868-2.178, p=0.175; stage III: HR 2.558, 95% CI 1.610-4.062, p<0.001), and Charlson-Deyo score (HR 1.196, 95% CI 1.023-1.398; p=0.025) were associated with worse survival. When resection margins were positive, female sex (HR 0.601, 95% CI 0.404-0.895; p=0.012) and adjuvant chemoradiation (HR 0.475, 95% CI 0.288-0.783;
p=0.004) were associated with improved survival. Adju- vant chemotherapy alone (HR 0.749, 95% CI 0.458-1.225; p=0.250) and adjuvant radiation alone (HR 0.614, 95% CI 0.353-1.068; p=0.084) were not associated with improved survival in margin-positive resection, and nor were stage or Charlson-Deyo score.
Patients who received partial adrenalectomy (n=253) were excluded from the original model, given it is not current standard of care. A separate multivariable sur- vival analysis was performed to compare partial adrenal- ectomy outcomes with total adrenalectomy and en bloc multi-organ resection. Across the entire cohort, again age, stage, positive surgical margins, and open approach were significantly associated with worse survival. Par- tial adrenalectomy was not significantly associated with survival compared with total adrenalectomy across all patients (HR 1.179, 95% CI 0.954-1.456; p = 0.128), nor when the analysis was stratified by stage for stage I (partial adrenalectomy, n = 37 patients; HR 0.982, 95% CI 0.450-2.141; p=0.962) or stage III disease (partial
| Univariable | Multivariable | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | p value | HR | 95% CI | p value | |
| Age | 1.018 | 1.012-1.024 | <0.001 | 1.019 | 1.013-1.026 | <0.001 |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | Ref | – | – | Ref | – | – |
| Female | 0.908 | 0.757-1.088 | 0.296 | 0.917 | 0.761-1.106 | 0.365 |
| Race | ||||||
| White | Ref | – | – | Ref | – | – |
| Black | 0.843 | 0.607-1.170 | 0.307 | 0.872 | 0.626-1.215 | 0.419 |
| Other | 1.025 | 0.654-1.605 | 0.915 | 1.121 | 0.712-1.767 | 0.621 |
| Insurance | ||||||
| Private | Ref | – | – | Ref | – | – |
| Medicare | 1.432 | 1.178-1.740 | <0.001 | – | – | – |
| Medicaid | 0.988 | 0.677-1.441 | 0.950 | – | – | – |
| Other government | 1.832 | 1.010-3.053 | 0.020 | – | – | – |
| Uninsured | 1.001 | 0.613-1.634 | 0.998 | – | – | – |
| Charlson-Deyo Score, per point | 1.247 | 1.103-1.411 | <0.001 | 1.121 | 0.986-1.272 | 0.075 |
| Stage of disease | Ref | – | – | |||
| I | Ref | – | – | |||
| II | 1.173 | 0.814-1.689 | 0.391 | 1.294 | 0.891-1.879 | 0.176 |
| III | 2.266 | 1.584-3.240 | <0.001 | 2.421 | 1.649-3.555 | <0.001 |
| Pathologic grade | ||||||
| Well-differentiated | Ref | – | – | – | – | – |
| Moderately differentiated | 0.951 | 0.404-2.241 | 0.909 | – | – | – |
| Poorly differentiated | 2.084 | 1.054-4.119 | 0.035 | – | – | – |
| Undifferentiated | 1.562 | 0.758-3.216 | 0.227 | – | – | – |
| Surgical approach | – | – | ||||
| Open | Ref | – | – | Ref | – | – |
| MIS | 1.101 | 0.908-1.335 | 0.328 | 1.329 | 1.072-1.648 | 0.010 |
| Type of resection | ||||||
| Adrenalectomy | Ref | – | – | Ref | – | – |
| En bloc multi-organ resection | 1.230 | 1.055-1.601 | 0.014 | 1.189 | 0.945-1.495 | 0.140 |
| Lymphadenectomy | ||||||
| No | Ref | – | – | Ref | – | – |
| Yes | 1.245 | 1.004-1.543 | 0.045 | 1.039 | 0.812-1.330 | 0.759 |
| Margins | ||||||
| R0 | Ref | – | Ref | – | – | |
| R1 or R2 | 1.822 | 1.476-2.248 | <0.001 | 1.587 | 1.260-1.999 | <0.001 |
| Adjuvant therapy | ||||||
| None | Ref | – | – | Ref | – | – |
| Radiation | 1.359 | 1.005-1.837 | 0.046 | 1.117 | 0.814-1.532 | 0.494 |
| Chemotherapy | 1.112 | 0.886-1.395 | 0.362 | 1.190 | 0.937-1.512 | 0.154 |
| Radiation and chemotherapy | 0.987 | 0.761-1.279 | 0.918 | 0.892 | 0.674-1.180 | 0.424 |
Bold values indicate p<0.05
ACC adrenocortical carcinoma, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, Ref reference
adrenalectomy, n = 134; HR 0.979, 95% CI 0.694-1.380; p=0.903). However, partial adrenalectomy was associated with worse survival in stage II patients (partial adrenalec- tomy, n= 82; HR 1.529, 95% CI 01.135-2.059; p=0.005).
DISCUSSION
In non-metastatic ACC, the optimal extent and approach to surgery and the role of adjuvant therapy remain
controversial due to the lack of robust supporting data. As with other rare diseases, the dearth of prospective clinical trial data means that large retrospective cohort studies pro- vide the highest-quality evidence for clinical management. While multiple recent studies have utilized the NCDB to analyze aspects of surgical management of ACC, most have focused on a single aspect of ACC care, such as laparo- scopic versus open resection, the utility of lymphadenec- tomy, or postoperative radiation.16,25-29 Our study expands upon this prior work by holistically evaluating multiple pre- and postoperative decision points across all patients within the NCDB over the last 10 years. We found that the most important predictors of survival were patient age, stage at diagnosis, resection margins, and open surgical approach, consistent with prior studies. Multi-organ resection and lymphadenectomy were not associated with survival, and nor were adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy. However, two notable exceptions were that (1) in patients with stage I-II disease, open versus minimally invasive surgery was not associated with survival; and (2) in patients with positive resection margins, adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with improved survival.
We found that complete resection of the primary tumor was the most important modifiable risk factor in non-meta- static ACC. Compared with R0 margins, R1 or R2 margins were associated with a significantly worse median survival (34.6 vs. 97.2 months; p <0.001). Few would debate the inextricable link between the extent of surgery and complete oncologic resection, however more aggressive and extensive surgery is also often linked to worse complication rates.30 Furthermore, frequent distant recurrence of ACC following reported R0 resections suggests that early micrometastatic disease may significantly impact outcomes despite effective surgery.3,9,10 Thus, we suggest that the ideal surgical deci- sion making in non-metastatic ACC strives for the goal of achieving grossly negative margins while performing the least intensive operation possible. Some have advised en bloc resection as a default in the pursuit of negative mar- gins;31 however, our findings indicate that this likely con- stitutes overtreatment unless a tumor is clearly invading an adjacent structure. In our analysis, en bloc resection had no impact on survival, indicating that such aggressive sur- gery likely has no benefit unless it is clearly necessary to attain negative margins due to tumor extension into adjacent organs. Additionally, more extensive surgery and surgical approach had no relationship with margin status, indicat- ing that differences in tumor biology and extent rather than technical differences in surgical management are the primary drivers of resectability.
In our cohort, we did find that the minimally invasive surgical approach was associated with worse overall sur- vival. On analysis stratified by stage, we found no differ- ence in survival based on open versus minimally invasive
techniques in stage I and II disease. However, for stage III tumors, open adrenalectomy was associated with a survival advantage. Notably, minimally invasive surgery appeared to be associated with worse outcomes independent of margin status. Bearing in mind that this analysis is inherently lim- ited to associations and does not establish causality, other studies have posited that the minimally invasive technique may be associated with a higher risk of capsular rupture and peritoneal carcinomatosis.7 Our finding is consistent with society guidelines, which recommend the open surgical tech- nique for larger tumors with local invasion or when ACC is suspected, although suggested tumor size cut-offs vary.31,32 Nonetheless, the emphasis of most guidelines is on achiev- ing an R0 resection with intact tumor capsule, regardless of technique.
Interestingly, we found that lymphadenectomy was not associated with survival in ACC. This result contrasts find- ings of a recent meta-analysis of non-metastatic ACC, in which lymphadenectomy was associated with a significantly decreased likelihood of death.16,21-23 Current European Soci- ety of Endocrinology guidelines also suggest regional lym- phadenectomy be routinely performed at the time of primary tumor resection for ACC.32 Our finding that lymphadenec- tomy does not improve overall survival may be due to dif- fering database definitions of lymphadenectomy, however using alternative numeric cut-offs for what constitutes a true lymphadenectomy did not alter our results. The inefficacy of lymphadenectomy in our study possibly represents the pres- ence of early distant micrometastasis in ACC, which may not be adequately addressed with this type of resection. Notably, we were unable to assess the impact of lymphadenectomy on locoregional control, as the NCDB does not capture data on recurrence or disease-free survival.
In addition to the extent of surgery, we evaluated the impact of adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy on survival. This is a particularly challenging area of investigation in retrospective cohort studies, as decisions about adjuvant therapy are influenced by tumor stage, margin status, and clinical details that may not be captured in a large database. We found no significant association between adjuvant chem- otherapy and radiation therapy and survival, both overall and when stratified by stage. However, when stratified by margin status, adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with a sig- nificantly lower risk of mortality in patients with positive surgical margins. Adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy used alone did not show any significant survival benefit regardless of stage or margin status.
This study is limited primarily by the selection bias inher- ent to its retrospective design. While prospective randomized controlled trials would be ideal, they are generally not prac- tical due to the rarity of ACC. Additionally, the NCDB is restricted to data collection from Commission on Cancer- accredited hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of
these findings. Nevertheless, the NCDB represents a broad national sampling and captures 72% of new cancer diag- noses in the United States. Information regarding disease recurrence and specific chemotherapeutic regimens is not available within the NCDB, meaning that recurrence-free survival and specific adjuvant regimens cannot be assessed. Finally, disease-specific characteristics such as hormone production and tumor Ki-67 index, and treatment-specific characteristics such as chemotherapeutic regimen, mitotane levels, and duration of chemotherapy could not be evaluated.
CONCLUSION
This study demonstrated that disease biology and the oncologic integrity of resection dictate outcomes for patients with non-metastatic ACC. While open surgery is likely supe- rior in patients with stage III disease, our data suggest that the extent of surgery and lymphadenectomy may have a minimal impact on disease trajectory in most patients. Adju- vant chemoradiation likely plays a role augmenting surgical resection in the setting of positive margins. In the absence of therapeutic advancements in the care of ACC, earlier identi- fication and intervention on suspicious adrenal tumors likely represents the most effective means of improving overall survival for patients with ACC.
FUNDING HW received funding from the National Institutes of Health, NCI grant K08 CA270385. JMSB received funding from the NIH T32 Training Program in Surgical Oncology Research at Penn, grant 5T32CA251063-02
DISCLOSURE Jesse E. Passman, Wajid Amjad, Jacqueline M. Soegaard Ballester, Sara P. Ginzberg, and Heather Wachtel declare no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Golden SH, Robinson KA, Saldanha I, Anton B, Ladenson PW. Prevalence and incidence of endocrine and metabolic disorders in the United States: a comprehensive review. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94(6):1853-78.
2. Sharma E, Dahal S, Sharma P, Bhandari A, Gupta V, Amgai B, Dahal S. The characteristics and trends in adrenocortical carci- noma: a United States population based study. J Clin Med Res. 2018;10(8):636.
3. Kebebew E, Reiff E, Duh Q-Y, Clark OH, McMillan A. Extent of disease at presentation and outcome for adrenocortical carci- noma: Have we made progress? World J Surg. 2006;30(5):872-8.
4. Wooten MD, King DK. Adrenal cortical carcinoma. Epidemiol- ogy and treatment with mitotane and a review of the literature. Cancer. 1993;72(11):3145-55.
5. Luton J-P, Cerdas S, Billaud L, et al. Clinical features of adreno- cortical carcinoma, prognostic factors, and the effect of mitotane therapy. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(17):1195-201.
6. Fassnacht M, Allolio B. Clinical management of adreno- cortical carcinoma. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;23(2):273-89.
7. Else T, Kim AC, Sabolch A, et al. Adrenocortical carcinoma. Endocr Rev. 2014;35(2):282-326.
8. Vassilopoulou-Sellin R, Schultz PN. Adrenocortical carci- noma: clinical outcome at the end of the 20th century. Cancer. 2001;92(5):1113-21.
9. Bilimoria KY, Shen WT, Elaraj D, Bentrem DJ, Winchester DJ, Kebebew E, Sturgeon C. Adrenocortical carcinoma in the United States: treatment utilization and prognostic factors. Cancer. 2008;113(11):3130-6.
10. Datta J, Roses RE. Surgical management of adrenocortical carcinoma: an evidence-based approach. Surg Oncol Clin. 2016;25(1):153-70.
11. Bellantone R, Ferrante A, Boscherini M, et al. Role of reopera- tion in recurrence of adrenal cortical carcinoma: results from 188 cases collected in the Italian National Registry for Adrenal Cortical Carcinoma. Surgery. 1997;122(6):1212-8.
12. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Daffara F, et al. Does nephrectomy during radical adrenalectomy for stage II adrenocortical cancer affect patient outcome? J Endocrinol Investig. 2016;39(4):465-71.
13. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Daffara F, Zaggia B, Scarpa RM, Ter- zolo M. Does nephrectomy during radical adrenalectomy for adrenocortical cancer affect oncological results? J Urol. 2010;183(4S):e11-e11.
14. Marincola Smith P, Kiernan CM, Tran TB, et al. Role of addi- tional organ resection in adrenocortical carcinoma: analysis of 167 patients from the US adrenocortical carcinoma database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2308-15.
15. Gaujoux S, Brennan MF. Recommendation for standardized sur- gical management of primary adrenocortical carcinoma. Surgery. 2012;152(1):123-32.
16. Hendricks A, Müller S, Fassnacht M, Germer C-T, Wiegering VA, Wiegering A, Reibetanz J. Impact of lymphadenectomy on the oncologic outcome of patients with adrenocortical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers. 2022;14(2):291.
17. Jasim S, Habra MA. Management of adrenocortical carcinoma. Curr Oncol Rep. 2019;21(3):1-11.
18. Terzolo M, Angeli A, Fassnacht M, et al. Adjuvant mito- tane treatment for adrenocortical carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(23):2372-80.
19. Boffa DJ, Rosen JE, Mallin K, et al. Using the national can- cer database for outcomes research: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(12):1722-8.
20. Mallin K, Browner A, Palis B, et al. Incident cases captured in the National Cancer Database compared with those in US popu- lation based central cancer registries in 2012-2014. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(6):1604-12.
21. Reibetanz J, Jurowich C, Erdogan I, et al. Impact of lymphad- enectomy on the oncologic outcome of patients with adrenocorti- cal carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2012;255(2):363-9.
22. Gerry JM, Tran TB, Postlewait LM, et al. Lymphadenectomy for adrenocortical carcinoma: Is there a therapeutic benefit? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(5):708-13.
23. Saade N, Sadler C, Goldfarb M. Impact of regional lymph node dissection on disease specific survival in adrenal cortical carci- noma. Horm Metab Res. 2015;47(11):820-5.
24. Stata Statistical Software. Release 17 [computer program]. Col- lege Station: StataCorp LLC; 2021.
25. Ginsburg KB, Chandra AA, Handorf EA, et al. Association of surgical approach with treatment burden, oncological effective- ness, and perioperative morbidity in adrenocortical carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2022;20(5):497.e491-497.
26. Shah M, NeMoyer RE, Kashyap R, et al. Surgical resection for adrenocortical carcinoma: current trends affecting survival. J Surg Oncol. 2022;125:1224-30.
27. Tseng J, DiPeri T, Chen Y, et al. Adrenocortical carci- noma: the value of lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(3):1965-70.
28. Hue JJ, Ahorukomeye P, Bingmer K, et al. A comparison of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive adrenalectomy for adrenal malignancies. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(7):5374-81.
29. Delman AM, Turner KM, Griffith A, Schepers E, Ammann AM, Holm TM. Minimally invasive surgery for resectable adrenocortical carcinoma: a nationwide analysis. J Surg Res. 2022;279:200-7.
30. Lee J, El-Tamer M, Schifftner T, et al. Open and laparoscopic adrenalectomy: analysis of the national surgical quality improve- ment program. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(5):953-9.
31. Yip L, Duh Q-Y, Wachtel H, et al. American association of endo- crine surgeons guidelines for adrenalectomy: executive summary. JAMA Surg. 2022;157(10):870-7.
32. Fassnacht M, Dekkers OM, Else T, et al. European society of endocrinology clinical practice guidelines on the management of adrenocortical carcinoma in adults, in collaboration with the European network for the study of adrenal tumors. Eur J Endo- crinol. 2018;179(4):G1-46.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.