MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157651421 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvab048.336

Results of the ADIUVO Study, the First Randomized Trial on Adjuvant Mitotane in Adrenocortical Carcinoma Patients

2021· article· en· W3157651421 on OpenAlex
Massimo Terzolo, Martin Faßnacht, Paola Perotti, Rossella Libé, André Lacroix, Darko Kaštelan, Harm R. Haak, Wiebke Arlt, Paola Loli, Bénédicte Decoudier, Hélène Lasolle, Irina Bancos, Marcus Quinkler, Maria Candida Barisson Villares Fragoso, Letizia Canu, Soraya Puglisi, Matthias Kroiß, Tina Dušek, Isabelle Bourdeau, Éric Baudin, Paola Berchialla, Felix Beuschlein, Jerome Yves Bertherat, Alfredo Berruti

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMitotaneMedicineAdrenocortical carcinomaObservational studyAdjuvantRandomizationClinical endpointInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialStage (stratigraphy)OncologySurgeryGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The ESE-ENSAT guidelines on the management of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) suggest adjuvant mitotane for patients at high risk of recurrence following radical surgery. This indication has a limited evidence base, lacking results from randomized controlled trials. No suggestion for or against adjuvant mitotane in low-risk patients was given, since studies did not stratify patients for prognosis. The randomized controlled study ADIUVO compared the efficacy of adjuvant mitotane treatment vs. observation in prolonging recurrence-free survival (RFS) in ACC patients at low-intermediate risk of recurrence. Methods: The main inclusion criteria were: stage I-III ACC, R0 surgery, and Ki-67 ≤10%. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to adjuvant mitotane (MIT) or observation (OBS). The primary endpoint of the study was RFS. Patients who refused randomization were offered inclusion in the ADIUVO OBSERVATIONAL study. In this prospective, observational study, patients were managed as in the ADIUVO study. A total of 91 patients were enrolled in ADIUVO, 45 in the MIT and 46 in the OBS arm. Baseline characteristics of patients were perfectly matched between the 2 arms: median age, 51 vs. 50.5 years; female, 73% vs. 67%; stage I, 20% vs. 26%; stage II, 67% vs. 63%, stage III, 13% vs. 11%; ACC secretion 44% vs. 36%; Weiss 5 vs. 5; respectively. In ADIUVO OBSERVATIONAL, 42 patients were treated with mitotane and 53 were untreated. Baseline characteristics of patients were matched between the 2 groups and with MIT and OBS groups in ADIUVO. Thus, the ADIUVO OBSERVATIONAL cohorts could be analyzed in parallel to those of ADIUVO. Results: In the ADIUVO study, recurrences were 8 in the MIT and 11 in the OBS arm, while deaths were 2 and 5, respectively. RFS and overall survival (OS) did not significantly differ between the 2 arms. Tumor size was a predictor of RFS in multivariable analysis. In the OBS arm, the HR for recurrence was 1.321 (95%CI, 0.55–3.32, p=0.54) and HR for death 2.171 (95%CI, 0.52–12.12, p=0.29). The survival analysis in the ADIUVO OBSERVATIONAL study confirmed the findings of ADIUVO. Given the outcome of both studies, the NNT is 55. Conclusions: ACC patients at low-intermediate risk of recurrence after surgery are a minority; however, they show a far better prognosis than expected (5-year RFS is about 75%) and do not benefit significantly from adjuvant mitotane. The results of the ADIUVO study do not support routine use of adjuvant mitotane in this subset of patients, who may thus avoid a potentially toxic treatment. This is an important step toward personalization of ACC care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it