What Is the Optimal Duration of Adjuvant Mitotane Therapy in Adrenocortical Carcinoma? An Unanswered Question
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A relevant issue on the treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) concerns the optimal duration of adjuvant mitotane treatment. We tried to address this question, assessing whether a correlation exists between the duration of adjuvant mitotane treatment and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients with ACC. We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis on 154 ACC patients treated for ≥12 months with adjuvant mitotane after radical surgery and who were free of disease at the mitotane stop. During a median follow-up of 38 months, 19 patients (12.3%) experienced recurrence. We calculated the RFS after mitotane (RFSAM), from the landmark time-point of mitotane discontinuation, to overcome immortal time bias. We found a wide variability in the duration of adjuvant mitotane treatment among different centers and also among patients cared for at the same center, reflecting heterogeneous practice. We did not find any survival advantage in patients treated for longer than 24 months. Moreover, the relationship between treatment duration and the frequency of ACC recurrence was not linear after stratifying our patients in tertiles of length of adjuvant treatment. In conclusion, the present findings do not support the concept that extending adjuvant mitotane treatment over two years is beneficial for ACC patients with low to moderate risk of recurrence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".