Adrenocortical Carcinoma: Patterns of Care and Role of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy—A Population-Based Study and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We reviewed the experience of a tertiary cancer centre in the management of adrenocortical carcinoma (acc) treated over 40 years. We also searched the literature for guidelines related to the treatment of acc and for evidence for adjuvant radiation therapy (rt). METHODS: In a retrospective chart review, acc patients treated between January 1974 and December 2013 were identified, and patient demographics and tumour characteristics were extracted. Outcomes data, including dates and sites of failure, vital status, and cause of death, were collected. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan- Meier method. A medline search using PubMed, Ovid, and embase was used to review the literature about the role of rt and any available management guidelines for acc. RESULTS: Of 81 patients identified during the chart review, 39 had confirmed acc. In 32 patients, surgical resection was performed, including in 2 patients with M1 disease. Of those 32 patients, 16 received adjuvant systemic treatment (mitotane or concurrent chemoradiation). Only 6 patients received adjuvant rt, of whom 3 are still alive (2 living with distant failure). At a median follow-up of 3.8 years, 28 patients had died (72%), 10 were living (26%), and 1 had been lost to follow-up. Of the 22 patients for whom failure data were available, 2 experienced local failure, and the rest, distant failure. CONCLUSIONS: The current data are insufficient to make treatment recommendations. Use of collaborative databases and consensus about diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines are warranted for better identification of optimum management. Adjuvant rt could be a reasonable option for R1 disease, but further research is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".