Adjuvant Radiation Improves Recurrence-Free Survival and Overall Survival in Adrenocortical Carcinoma
Laila A. Gharzai,1 Michael D. Green,1 Kent A. Griffith,2 Tobias Else,3 Charles S. Mayo,1 Elizabeth Hesseltine,3 Daniel E. Spratt,1 Edgar Ben-Josef,4 Aaron Sabolch,5 Barbara S. Miller,6 Francis Worden,7 Thomas J. Giordano,8 Gary D. Hammer,3 and Shruti Jolly1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109; 2Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109; 3Department of Endocrinology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109; 4Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104; 5Department of Radiation Oncology, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon 97227; 6Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109; 7Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109; and 8Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Context: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy with high rates of recurrence and poor prognosis. The role of radiotherapy (RT) in localized ACC has been controversial, and RT is not routinely offered.
Objective: To evaluate the benefit of adjuvant RT on outcomes in ACC.
Design: This is a retrospective propensity-matched analysis.
Setting: All patients were seen through the University of Michigan’s Endocrine Oncology program, and all those who underwent RT were treated at the University of Michigan.
Participants: Of 424 patients with ACC, 78 were selected; 39 patients underwent adjuvant radiation. Intervention: Adjuvant RT to the tumor bed and adjacent lymph nodes.
Main Outcomes Measures: Time to local failure, distant failure, or death.
Results: Median follow-up time was 4.21 years (95% CI, 2.79 to 4.94). The median radiation dose was 55 Gy (range, 45 to 60). The 3-year overall survival estimate for patients improved from 48.6% for patients without RT (95% CI, 29.7 to 65.2) to 77.7% (95% CI, 56.3 to 89.5) with RT, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.59 (95% CI, 1.60 to 8.09; P = 0.002). RT improved local recurrence-free survival (RFS) from 34.2% (95% CI, 18.8 to 50.3) to 59.5% (95% CI, 39.0 to 75.0), with an HR of 2.67 (95% CI, 1.38 to 5.19; P = 0.0035). RT improved all RFS from 18.3% (95% CI, 6.7 to 34.3) to 46.7% (95% CI, 26.9 to 64.3), with an HR 2.59 (95% CI, 1.40 to 4.79; P = 0.0024).
Conclusions: In the largest single institution study to date, adjuvant RT after gross resection of ACC improved local RFS, all RFS, and overall survival in this propensity-matched analysis. Adjuvant RT should be considered a part of multidisciplinary management for patients with ACC. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 104: 3743-3750, 2019)
T he standard of care for localized adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is surgical resection (1). Prognoses are poor after gross total resection, and there is a high
failure rate with this treatment. Locoregional failures are a common component of this treatment, with esti- mated rates of local recurrence as high as 65% (1) with
Abbreviations: ACC, adrenocortical carcinoma; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; RFS, recurrence-free survival; RT, radiotherapy.
associated poor long-term survivorship (2). Distant failures are also quite high, with 2-year stage-by-stage rates of 27%, 46%, and 63% for stage I, II, and III, respectively (3). Therefore, there is a need for adjuvant therapy intensification to improve patient outcomes.
Adjuvant therapy, including mitotane, systemic che- motherapy, and radiotherapy (RT), have been explored, each being used in various settings (4). Due to the rarity of this disease (5), there is a paucity of prospective randomized studies to guide clinical practice in the use of these adjuvant therapies (6). The utility of adjuvant RT after gross resection in ACC is controversial due to a number of underpowered retrospective analyses with conflicting conclusions (7-9), and therefore it is in- frequently used as a treatment option in the United States, with only 10% to 14% of patients with ACC receiving radiation (10, 11).
The Endocrine Oncology Program at the University of Michigan is a major tertiary referral center for ACC. We had previously shown that adjuvant RT improved local control in a smaller group of patients (9). In this analysis, we updated our ACC database with patients who re- ceived adjuvant radiation with modern radiation tech- niques compared with those who were not treated adjuvantly with radiation after gross total resection.
Materials and Methods
Patients
Patients who received adjuvant radiation from 2003 to 2017 were retrospectively identified from an internal database within the radiation oncology department at the University of Mich- igan. We selected patients with stage I to III or oligometastatic stage IV who underwent definitive surgical resection (including oligo-metastectomy for those with stage IV); all patients were staged according to the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors staging system (12) followed by adjuvant RT. A minority of patients presented with local recurrence and underwent resection followed by adjuvant RT; for such pa- tients, treatment characteristics and follow-up were calculated from the time of the second surgery. Patients who have common contraindications for radiation were excluded, including but not limited to pregnancy, p53 mutations, and inflammatory bowel disease. Locoregional recurrence was defined as ab- dominal recurrence. Tumor grade was based on mitotic counts.
Our institutional practice is to offer adjuvant radiation after gross total resection for adverse risk factors, including high- grade disease, nodal involvement, positive surgical margins, large tumors where pathologic sampling may not be complete, and after laparoscopic resections [which is associated with higher rates of recurrence (13)]. All patients are reviewed in a multidisciplinary Endocrine Oncology Tumor Board, and recommendations are made with input from endocrinology, endocrine surgery, radiation oncology, and medical oncology.
All radiation was delivered at the University of Michigan. Treatment was preceded by CT simulation. Beginning in 2008, four-dimensional motion assessment of the tumor bed
(consisting of CT performed throughout the breathing cycle) was used in all patients. Patients with tumor bed motion of >5 to 10 mm were treated with a breath-hold technique if tolerated. The primary clinical target volume was defined as the tumor bed, which was constructed using a combination of presurgical imaging, operative reports, and surgical clips placed at the time of resection. These volumes are reviewed with the surgeon to ensure adequate coverage of the tumor bed. The adjacent para- aortic lymph node basin was contoured as a secondary clinical target volume because up to 62% of patients have positive lymph nodes at time of diagnosis (12). Doses to the primary target ranged from 45 to 60 Gy (median, 55 Gy).
Patients who received adjuvant RT were then matched to control subjects who received surgery with curative intent but without adjuvant RT. Control subjects were selected from an internal database of 424 patients with ACC seen by the En- docrine Oncology Program at the University of Michigan and were selected by propensity matching methods, matching the patient’s sex, age at diagnosis, stage at diagnosis, tumor grade, and surgical margin status. Scores were calculated using logistic regression models to estimate the probability of receiving ad- juvant RT. Control subjects were limited to those who un- derwent resection after 2003 up to 2017 to better match the time frame in which adjuvant RT was administered. Cases were matched iteratively using nearest neighbors. All study subjects were matched.
Statistical analysis
Overall, recurrence-free, and local recurrence-free survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method. Distributions were compared between study subjects and control subjects using the log-rank test statistic. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to es- timate the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event endpoints. The median follow-up time was estimated by the product-limit method of Kaplan-Meier using the reverse-censoring method. For all statistical tests, P values <5% were considered statis- tically significant.
Three sensitivity analyses were performed. First, a second matching step was performed in which two control patients were selected for each case, using a nearest neighbor and caliper metric where possible. Control patients needed to have pro- pensity scores within 0.1 of the study subjects to be selected. Thirty-eight of the 39 study subjects had at least one control subjects using this method, and two control subjects could be selected for 36 study subjects. The average difference between case and control propensity adjuvant RT was 0.008 (range, 0.00003 to 0.095).
A second sensitivity analysis was performed to guard against immortal time bias. To mitigate the possibility of this effect, study subjects known not to have undergone adjuvant RT have been screened for suitable follow-up without a recurrence (local or regional recurrence, metastatic failure, and/or death) to ensure that if adjuvant RT had been prescribed as part of the multi- modality treatment regimen, it would have been initiated. A period of 3 months was selected as the mandatory follow-up time. One-to-one matching was carried out, and all 39 study subjects were matched to control subjects. A third sensitivity analysis was performed to account for stage migration seen in control subjects who presented to the University of Michigan with more ad- vanced disease. Patients who underwent adjuvant radiation were matched one to one with control subjects who did not
receive adjuvant radiation and who had the same stage at di- agnosis as compared with stage at University of Michigan presentation.
Results
A total of 424 patients were available to assess from the institutional database. Of these, 39 patients underwent postoperative adjuvant RT at the University of Michigan. These were matched one to one to patients who did not undergo adjuvant RT using propensity matching. Pa- tients underwent resection between 2003 and 2017. All patients had localized or oligometastatic disease and underwent surgery with curative intent. Three patients in the RT cohort had adjuvant radiation after resection with curative intent of an isolated local recurrence that followed a prior surgery. Median follow-up time was 4.21 years (95% CI, 2.79 to 4.95).
Table 1 summarizes the baseline characteristics of patients by treatment group. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to sex, age, stage, receipt of mitotane, tumor grade, tumor size, hormone production, or surgical margin status. The control subjects tended to present to the University of
Michigan at higher stage than initial presentation to an outside facility, with 59% of patients at a higher stage than initially diagnosed (time from initial diagnosis calculated for analysis), whereas all patients treated with adjuvant RT were staged based on the surgical procedure that preceded radiation. The two study subjects with ENSAT stage I disease had a local recurrence treated with curative resection. The majority of patients treated with adjuvant RT were treated after 2012 (72.4%). There was an average of 64 days from the date of surgery to initiation of RT (range, 25 to 147 days). Five patients had >100 days between surgery and initiation of RT. Nearly all patients were treated with intensity-modulated RT (92.3%); only three patients were treated with three- dimensional conformal RT.
The overall survival (OS) distributions for case sub- jects and control subjects were significantly different (log- rank P = 0.0009) (Fig. 1). A total of 32 (41%) patients [eight (20.5%) treated with adjuvant RT and 24 (61.5%) treated without adjuvant RT] are known to have died. Overall survival estimates at 3 and 5 years were 77.7% (95% CI, 56.3 to 89.5) and 72.1% (95% CI, 49.2 to 86.0) in the adjuvant RT group vs 48.6% (95% CI, 29.7
| No Radiation Therapy (n = 39) | Radiation Therapy (n = 39) | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, n (%) | |||
| Male | 18 (46.2) | 18 (46.2) | 1ª,c |
| Female | 21 (53.9) | 21 (53.9) | |
| Mean age, y (range) | 44.9 (18-69) | 47.1 (13-74) | 0.260b,c |
| Disease stage | |||
| I | 3 (7.7) | 2 (5.7) | 0.970b,c |
| II | 16 (41.0) | 16 (41.0) | |
| III | 17 (43.6) | 18 (44.9) | |
| IV | 3 (7.7) | 3 (7.7) | |
| Mitotane use | |||
| Yes | 30 (76.9) | 30 (76.9) | 0.622b |
| No | 9 (23.1) | 9 (23.1) | |
| Tumor grade | |||
| Low | 11 (28.2) | 10 (25.6) | 0.564b,c |
| High | 28 (71.8) | 29 (74.4) | |
| Mean tumor size, cm (range) | 11.7 (4.1-23.0) | 10.4 (0.6-22.5) | 0.176ª |
| Hormone production | |||
| No | 18 (46.2) | 15 (38.5) | 0.172b |
| Yes | 21 (53.8) | 19 (48.7) | |
| Not reported | 0 | 5 (12.8) | |
| Cortisol production | |||
| No | 22 (56.4) | 21 (53.9) | 0.149b |
| Yes | 17 (43.6) | 13 (33.3) | |
| Not reported | 0 | 5 (12.8) | |
| Surgical margins | |||
| Negative | 32 (82.1) | 30 (76.9) | 0.801b,c |
| Positive | 3 (7.7) | 5 (12.8) | |
| Not reported | 4 (10.3) | 4 (10.3) |
ªPaired t test.
bMcNemar test of dependent proportion or Bowker test of symmetry.
“Accounted for in the model calculating the propensity weights for adjuvant RT.
Product-Limit Overall Survival Estimates With Number of Subjects at Risk
1.0
+ Censored
Logrank p=0.0009
0.8
Overall Survival Probability
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
With
39
30
23
14
10
8
5
5
5
4
1
1
1
0
Without
39
30
21
12
8
5
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Year
Radiotherapy
With
Without
to 65.2) and 29.5% (95% CI, 13.1 to 48.0), respectively, with an adjusted HR of 3.59 (95% CI, 1.60 to 8.09; P = 0.002).
Locoregional recurrences occurred in 41 (52.7%) patients [13 (33.3%) patients treated with RT and 28 (71.8%) treated with resection alone]. Locoregional recurrence-free survival (RFS) was significantly higher for patients who received adjuvant RT (log-rank P = 0.0024)
(Fig. 2). Locoregional RFS estimates at 3 and 5 years were 59.5% (95% CI, 39.0 to 75.0) and 53.5% (95% CI, 32.2 to 70.8) vs 34.2% (95% CI, 18.8 to 50.3) and 20.0% (95% CI, 7.4 to 37.2), respectively, with an adjusted HR of 2.67 (95% CI, 1.38 to 5.19; P = 0.0035).
Any recurrence, including distant failures or death, occurred in 45 (57.7%) patients [16 (41.0%) treated with RT and 29 (74.4%) treated with resection alone]. The
Product-Limit Local Recurrence-Free Survival Estimates With Number of Subjects at Risk
1.0
+ Censored
Local Recurrence-Free Survival Probability
Logrank p=0.0024
0.8
0.6
++
0.4
0.2
0.0
With
39
26
17
10
7
5
3
3
3
3
0
Without
39
22
14
9
5
3
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Year
Radiotherapy
With
Without
RFS was significantly higher for patients who received adjuvant RT than for those who underwent resection only (log-rank P value 0.0016) (Fig. 3). RFS estimates at 3 and 5 years were 46.7% (95% CI, 26.9 to 64.3) and 46.7% (95% CI, 26.9 to 64.3) vs 18.3% (95% CI, 6.7 to 34.3) and 12.2% (95% CI, 2.8 to 29.1), respectively, with an adjusted HR of 2.59 (95% CI, 1.40 to 4.79; P = 0.0024).
Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results. Matching with multiple control subjects produced results similar to those found in single-matched analyses (14). Analyses to adjust for immortal time bias were performed, ex- cluding failures within 3 months of surgery. Patients were well matched, and again a benefit of adju- vant RT was seen in all outcomes (14). Finally, stage migration sensitivity analyses were performed (14). All three sensitivity analyses confirmed the results and maintained the advantage noted with adju- vant RT.
Discussion
This retrospective study represents the largest single- institution study to date analyzing the benefit of adjuvant RT for ACC. We have found that adju- vant RT significantly improves locoregional control and OS.
Assessing the role of adjuvant therapy in this rare disease site has been challenging. The use of mitotane, an
adrenolytic agent, as systemic therapy in ACC is largely based on retrospective data (5). Varying che- motherapy regimens have been examined as well. The poor prognosis of ACC has driven the search for ef- fective therapies. Analysis of the German ACC registry in 2006 suggested an improvement in local control with adjuvant RT (7). A subsequent retrospective analysis in 2013 did not show any benefit in local control (8), but there was no central evaluation of RT plan quality in this study, and patients were treated at low-volume sites. Prior work by our group (9) showed a local control benefit with adjuvant RT. This has prompted investigations into the role of adjuvant RT in ACC.
Registry analyses using National Cancer Database and the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Ep- idemiology, and End Results database have resulted in conflicting conclusions to the benefit of adjuvant ra- diation (10, 11, 15). However, these studies are limited by the lack of granular data; heterogeneous treatment quality; and a mixture of adjuvant, salvage, and palliative treatment intent. More detailed examina- tions of the role of adjuvant radiation have been hampered by small numbers of patients who received this therapy [e.g., 10 (16), 14 (7), 16 (8), and 20 (9) patients].
A recent population-based publication on the role of adjuvant RT for ACC used the National Cancer Data- base and included 171 patients who received adjuvant RT (11). Only 14.4% of patients received adjuvant
Product-Limit Recurrence-Free Survival Estimates With Number of Subjects at Risk
1.0
+ Censored
Logrank p=0.0016
Recurrence-Free Survival Probability
0.8
0.6
+
0.4
0.2
0.0
With
39
24
15
9
6
4
2
2
2
2
0
Without
39
18
10
4
1
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Year
Radiotherapy
With
Without
radiation from a cohort of 1184 patients; patients who received adjuvant RT were more likely to be higher-risk patients who had positive surgical margins and who had received chemotherapy as part of the treatment regimen. Adjuvant radiation improved overall survival with a 40% decreased risk of death but only in patients with positive margins. A lack of stage, grade, and recurrence information limited the scope of this finding.
Single-institution analyses provide a source of ho- mogenous patient populations treated uniformly with rigorous treatment evaluations. All patients at the Uni- versity of Michigan are treated with guidance from a tumor board in a large tertiary referral center specializing in endocrine malignancies, allowing for homogenous recommendations and improved treatment quality. The use of modern RT techniques (including breath-hold, daily image guidance, and intensity modulation) allows for delivery of high-quality radiation plans that show a distinct improvement as compared with older radiation techniques in terms of toxicity (17) and accuracy of delivery (18, 19) in other disease sites. Additionally, direct surgeon guidance in outlining high-risk areas to aid in volume delineation allows precise and consistent coverage of the areas most likely to fail. Previous studies assessing the benefit of adjuvant RT in ACC have limited quality assurance.
In our experience, patients tend to tolerate RT well. Side effects of RT include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, potential kidney/liver damage, and obstruction. The side effects of mitotane include nausea, fatigue, anorexia, and diarrhea. Given the overlap of these side effect profiles, patients may experience nausea and diarrhea while un- dergoing RT. This review precluded comparison of ad- verse events due to the lack of prospective gathering of data.
Our study had weaknesses typical of retrospective designs for rare disease types. There are a limited number of study subjects. This cohort consisted mostly of adult
patients, and results are not generalizable to the unique pediatric population of patients with ACC, ~80% of whom harbor pathogenic germline variants. Sensitivity analyses have suggested the results are robust. Pro- spective confirmation of the data presented here would be ideal; given the rarity of this disease, completion of a prospective trial with sufficient accrual would be chal- lenging, and retrospective reviews currently offer the best guidance available for treatment decisions.
In summary, the evolution of literature on adjuvant radiation in ACC has shown a clear arc in the efficacy of treatment with RT as radiation techniques have improved. There have been nearly a dozen retrospective single-institution studies examining local control since the 1970s with at least 130 patients. Studies prior to the 2000s did not show a local control benefit to RT, with local control ranging from 0% to 60%; however, since 2006, there have been several publications reporting local control rates from 56% to 100% (Table 2). Im- provements in local control with RT have translated to improvements in OS in other cancer types [breast cancer (20), rectal cancer (21), head and neck cancers (22)], although studies typically required large patient pop- ulations to show this advantage. The current study highlights that a survival benefit with improved locore- gional control may also be seen in ACC in the modern treatment era.
Our findings demonstrate that adjuvant RT is im- portant for local tumor control for patients with ACC. Current recommendations for adjuvant RT in ACC suggest consideration of RT in high-risk patients, in- cluding R0 with large size (8, 23), incomplete/R1 re- section (24), or stage III disease (25). Our data suggest that adjuvant RT provides substantial improvements in locoregional control regardless of margin status. Therefore, in the absence of randomized trials, resection followed by adjuvant RT should be considered for all patients with ACC.
| Study | Year | No. of Cases | Radiation Dose (Gy) | Chemotherapy or Mitotane, n (%) | Local Control, n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percarpio (26) | 1976 | 4 | 28-40 | NR | 1/4 (25) |
| Henley (27) | 1983 | 10 | NR | NR | 1/10 (10) |
| Markoe (28) | 1991 | 5 | 42-60 | 2/5 (40) | 3/5 (60) |
| Pommier (29) | 1992 | 3 | 39-45 | NR | 0/3 (0) |
| Fassnacht (7) | 2006 | 14 | 40-54 | 5/14 (36) | 12/14 (86) |
| Hermsen (30) | 2010 | 3 | NR | NR | 3/3 (100) |
| Habra (8) | 2013 | 16 | 36-59.4 | 4/16 (25) | 9/16 (56) |
| Sabolch (9) | 2015 | 20 | 45-60 | 15/20 (75) | 19/20 (95) |
| Atallah (31) | 2017 | 6 | NR | 2/6 (33) | 5/6 (83) |
| Srougi (16) | 2017 | 10 | 45-54 | NR | 6/10 (60) |
| Gharzai | Present study | 39 | 45-60 | 30/39 (77) | 26/39 (67) |
Abbreviation: NR, not reported.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions: L.A.G. and M.D.G. collected, ana- lyzed, and interpreted the data; prepared the initial draft of manuscript; and critically reviewed manuscript. K.A.G. analyzed and interpreted the data, analyzed the statistics, and critically reviewed the manuscript. T.E. designed the study, collected and interpreted the data, and critically reviewed the manuscript. C.S.M. collected the data and critically reviewed the manuscript. E.S., D.E.S., E.B.J., A.S., B.S.M., F.W., T.G., and G.D.H. interpreted the data and critically reviewed the manuscript. S.J. designed the study, interpreted the data, critically reviewed the manuscript, and supervised the study. S.J. has full access to all the data in the study and final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Correspondence and Reprint Requests: Shruti Jolly, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, UH B2 C490 SPC 5010, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108. E-mail: shrutij@med.umich.edu.
Disclosure Summary: The authors have nothing to disclose.
References and Notes
1. Kendrick ML, Lloyd R, Erickson L, Farley DR, Grant CS, Thompson GB, Rowland C, Young WF, Jr, van Heerden JA. Adrenocortical carcinoma: surgical progress or status quo? Arch Surg. 2001;136(5):543-549.
2. Tran TB, Postlewait LM, Maithel SK, Prescott JD, Wang TS, Glenn J, Phay JE, Keplinger K, Fields RC, Jin LX, Weber SM, Salem A, Sicklick JK, Gad S, Yopp AC, Mansour JC, Duh QY, Seiser N, Solorzano CC, Kiernan CM, Votanopoulos KI, Levine EA, Hatzaras I, Shenoy R, Pawlik TM, Norton JA, Poultsides GA. Actual 10-year survivors following resection of adrenocortical carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114(8):971-976.
3. Abiven G, Coste J, Groussin L, Anract P, Tissier F, Legmann P, Dousset B, Bertagna X, Bertherat J. Clinical and biological features in the prognosis of adrenocortical cancer: poor outcome of cortisol- secreting tumors in a series of 202 consecutive patients. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(7):2650-2655.
4. Else T, Kim AC, Sabolch A, Raymond VM, Kandathil A, Caoili EM, Jolly S, Miller BS, Giordano TJ, Hammer GD. Adrenocortical carcinoma. Endocr Rev. 2014;35(2):282-326.
5. 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):3130-3136.
6. Fassnacht M, Terzolo M, Allolio B, Baudin E, Haak H, Berruti A, Welin S, Schade-Brittinger C, Lacroix A, Jarzab B, Sorbye H, Torpy DJ, Stepan V, Schteingart DE, Arlt W, Kroiss M, Leboulleux S, Sperone P, Sundin A, Hermsen I, Hahner S, Willenberg HS, Tabarin A, Quinkler M, de la Fouchardière C, Schlumberger M, Mantero F, Weismann D, Beuschlein F, Gelderblom H, Wilmink H, Sender M, Edgerly M, Kenn W, Fojo T, Müller HH, Skogseid B; FIRM-ACT Study Group. Combination chemotherapy in advanced adrenocor- tical carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(23):2189-2197.
7. Fassnacht M, Hahner S, Polat B, Koschker AC, Kenn W, Flentje M, Allolio B. Efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy of the tumor bed on local recurrence of adrenocortical carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(11):4501-4504.
8. Habra MA, Ejaz S, Feng L, Das P, Deniz F, Grubbs EG, Phan A, Waguespack SG, Ayala-Ramirez M, Jimenez C, Perrier ND, Lee JE, Vassilopoulou-Sellin R. A retrospective cohort analysis of the ef- ficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy after primary surgical resection in
patients with adrenocortical carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(1):192-197.
9. Sabolch A, Else T, Griffith KA, Ben-Josef E, Williams A, Miller BS, Worden F, Hammer GD, Jolly S. Adjuvant radiation therapy improves local control after surgical resection in patients with localized adrenocortical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;92(2):252-259.
10. Luo Y, Chen SS, Zheng XG, Luo L, Wang S. The efficacy of ra- diation therapy in adrenocortical carcinoma: a propensity score analysis of a population-based study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(17):e6741.
11. Nelson DW, Chang SC, Bandera BC, Fischer TD, Wollman R, Goldfarb M. Adjuvant radiation is associated with improved survival for select patients with non-metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(7):2060-2066.
12. Fassnacht M, Johanssen S, Quinkler M, Bucsky P, Willenberg HS, Beuschlein F, Terzolo M, Mueller HH, Hahner S, Allolio BGerman Adrenocortical Carcinoma Registry GroupEuropean Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors. Limited prognostic value of the 2004 International Union Against Cancer staging classification for ad- renocortical carcinoma: proposal for a Revised TNM Classifica- tion. Cancer. 2009;115(2):243-250.
13. Miller BS, Gauger PG, Hammer GD, Doherty GM. Resection of adrenocortical carcinoma is less complete and local recur- rence occurs sooner and more often after laparoscopic adre- nalectomy than after open adrenalectomy. Surgery. 2012;152(6): 1150-1157.
14. Gharzai LA, Green MD, Griffith KA, Else T, Mayo CS, Hesseltine E, Spratt DE, Ben-Josef E, Sabolch A, Miller BS, Worden F, Giordano TJ, Hammer GD, Jolly S. Data from: Adjuvant radiation improves recurrence-free survival and overall survival in adreno- cortical carcinoma. Deep Blue Data Repository at University of Michigan. Deposited 2 January 2019. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/ data/concern/data_sets/gx41mj832?locale=en.
15. Wang S, Chen SS, Gao WC, Bai L, Luo L, Zheng XG, Luo Y. Prognostic factors of adrenocortical carcinoma: an analysis of the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017;18(10):2817-2823.
16. Srougi V, de Bessa J, Jr., Tanno FY, Ferreira AM, Hoff AO, Bezerra JE, Almeida CM, Almeida MQ, Mendonça BB, Nahas WC, Chambô JL, Srougi M, Fragoso MCBV. Adjuvant radiotherapy for the primary treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma: are we offering the best? Int Braz J Urol. 2017;43:841-848.
17. Klopp AH, Yeung AR, Deshmukh S, Gil KM, Wenzel L, Westin SN, Gifford K, Gaffney DK, Small W, Jr, Thompson S, Doncals DE, Cantuaria GHC, Yaremko BP, Chang A, Kundapur V, Mohan DS, Haas ML, Kim YB, Ferguson CL, Pugh SL, Kachnic LA, Bruner DW. Patient-reported toxicity during pelvic intensity-modulated radiation therapy: NRG oncology-RTOG 1203. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(24):2538-2544.
18. Gupta T, Narayan CA. Image-guided radiation therapy: physi- cian’s perspectives. J Med Phys. 2012;37(4):174-182.
19. Kilburn JM, Soike MH, Lucas JT, Ayala-Peacock D, Blackstock W, Isom S, Kearns WT, Hinson WH, Miller AA, Petty WJ, Munley MT, Urbanic JJ. Image guided radiation therapy may result in improved local control in locally advanced lung cancer patients. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6(3):e73-e80.
20. Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, Taylor C, Arriagada R, Clarke M, Cutter D, Davies C, Ewertz M, Godwin J, Gray R, Pierce L, Whelan T, Wang Y, Peto R; Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378(9804):1707-1716.
21. Folkesson J, Birgisson H, Pahlman L, Cedermark B, Glimelius B, Gunnarsson U. Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial: long lasting benefits from radiotherapy on survival and local recurrence rate. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(24):5644-5650.
22. Wadsley JC, Bentzen SM. Investigation of relationship between change in locoregional control and change in overall survival in randomized controlled trials of modified radiotherapy in head- and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60(5): 1405-1409.
23. Polat B, Fassnacht M, Pfreundner L, Guckenberger M, Bratengeier K, Johanssen S, Kenn W, Hahner S, Allolio B, Flentje M. Radiotherapy in adrenocortical carcinoma. Cancer. 2009;115(13):2816-2823.
24. Berruti A, Baudin E, Gelderblom H, Haak HR, Porpiglia F, Fassnacht M, Pentheroudakis G; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Adrenal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(Suppl 7):vii131-vii138.
25. Fassnacht M, Dekkers OM, Else T, Baudin E, Berruti A, de Krijger R, Haak HR, Mihai R, Assie G, Terzolo M. 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 Endocrinol. 2018;179(4):G1-G46.
26. Percarpio B, Knowlton AH. Radiation therapy of adrenal cortical carcinoma. Acta Radiol Ther Phys Biol. 1976;15(4):288-292.
27. Henley DJ, van Heerden JA, Grant CS, Carney JA, Carpenter PC. Adrenal cortical carcinoma: a continuing challenge. Surgery. 1983; 94(6):926-931.
28. Markoe AM, Serber W, Micaily B, Brady LW. Radiation therapy for adjunctive treatment of adrenal cortical carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol. 1991;14(2):170-174.
29. Pommier RF, Brennan MF. An eleven-year experience with adre- nocortical carcinoma. Surgery. 1992;112(6):963-970, discussion 970-971.
30. Hermsen IG, Groenen YE, Dercksen MW, Theuws J, Haak HR. Response to radiation therapy in adrenocortical carcinoma. J Endocrinol Invest. 2010;33(10):712-714.
31. Atallah S, Al-Assaf H, Xu Y, El-Sayed S. Adrenocortical carcinoma: patterns of care and role of adjuvant radiation therapy: a population-based study and review of the literature. Curr Oncol. 2017;24(4):e316-e322.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/104/9/3743/5433625 by WT Cox Information Services user on 04 April 2026