Management of adrenocortical carcinoma: are we making progress?
Barbara Kiesewetter D, Philipp Riss D, Christian Scheuba, Peter Mazal, Elisabeth Kretschmer-Chott, Alexander Haug and Markus Raderer D
Abstract: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy characterized by aggressive biology and potential endocrine activity. Surgery can offer cure for localized disease but more than half of patients relapse and primary unresectable or metastasized disease is frequent. Prognosis of metastatic ACC is still limited, with less than 15% of patients alive at 5 years. Recent advances in understanding the molecular profile of ACC underline the high complexity of this disease, which is characterized by limited drugable molecular targets as well as by a complex interplay between a yet scarcely understood microenvironment and potential endocrine activity. Particularly steroid-excess further complicates therapeutic concepts such as immunotherapy, which have markedly improved outcome in other disease entities. To date, mitotane remains the only approved drug for adjuvant and palliative care in ACC. Standard chemotherapy-based protocols with cisplatin, doxorubicin and etoposide offer only marginal improvement in long-term outcome and the number of clinical trials conducted is low due to the rarity of the disease. In the current review, we summarize principles of oncological management for ACC from localized to advanced disease and discuss novel therapeutic strategies, including targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antibodies, immunotherapy with a focus on checkpoint inhibitors, individualized treatment concepts based on molecular characterization by next generation sequencing methods, the role of theranostics and evolvement of adjuvant therapy.
Keywords: adrenocortical cancer, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors
Received: 22 May 2021; revised manuscript accepted: 22 July 2021.
Introduction
With an incidence of 0.5-2 cases per million per year, adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) represents a rare malignancy originating from the endocrine system.1 Due to its localization, aggressive biol- ogy and ability to present with hormone-excess syndromes, ACC requires an early multidiscipli- nary approach usually involving endocrine sur- geons, endocrinologists and medical oncologists. The only curative treatment is surgery for resect- able tumors but despite a trend towards more patients being diagnosed with localized disease in recent years, up to two-thirds already present with metastatic disease frequently involving liver, lung and bone.1-5 The prognosis of these patients is dismal with an estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) <15%. Standard chemotherapy-based
treatment has not evolved over the last decade and offers only limited palliation with an unsatis- factory overall outcome. In the current review, we provide an overview on oncological care from limited stage to advanced ACC. In this article, we want to focus on recent developments and poten- tial future systemic therapeutic strategies, includ- ing tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immunotherapy, theranostics and personalized therapy based on next generation sequencing (NGS) approaches.
Clinicopathological features of ACC
Clinical presentation ACC is diagnosed more frequently in women than in men (ratio 1.5:1) and while the peak
Ther Adv Med Oncol 2021, Vol. 13: 1-14 DOI: 10.1177/ 17588359211038409
@ The Author(s), 2021. Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals- permissions
Correspondence to: Barbara Kiesewetter Department of Medicine I, Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna, A-1090, Austria European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) Center of Excellence, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria barbara.kiesewettería meduniwien.ac.at
Philipp Riss Christian Scheuba Department of General Surgery, Division of Visceral Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) Center of Excellence, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Peter Mazal Department of Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) Center of Excellence, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Elisabeth Kretschmer- Chott Alexander Haug Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) Center of Excellence, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Markus Raderer Department of Medicine I, Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) Center of Excellence, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
CC
0
BY
NC
incidence is reported around the fourth to fifth decade, ACC may occur at any age.6 The initial diagnosis is often incidental, and every adrenal tumor detected upon imaging should be subject to structured hormonal and radiological assess- ment [computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with specific adrenal protocols to define lipid content, size and wash- out].1,7 The risk for an adrenal tumor to be ACC correlates with morphological presentation and size, and current guidelines recommend to con- sider surgical resection in adrenal tumors with malignant radiological features and/or a size of >4-6 cm. Surgery should also be considered in the case of tumor growth of greater than 5mm in 6-12 months in lesions with atypical characteris- tics.7 Preoperative biopsy (which requires defini- tive exclusion of pheochromocytoma) is advised only in the case of medical history suggesting sec- ondary spread from another primary, as there is a substantial risk of tumor cell seeding with only poor diagnostic yield in a high percentage.1 The majority of cases are considered sporadic but hereditary syndromes including Li-Fraumeni, multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) 1, congeni- tal adrenal hyperplasia or the Beckwith- Wiedemann syndrome may be associated with ACC. A total of 60% of patients display endo- crine activity, which is associated with an inferior prognosis.3 Cushing’s syndrome is the most com- mon hormone-excess, while overproduction of the sexual hormone axis or hyperaldosteronism are less frequent.
From pathology to molecular targeted treatment
The pathological diagnosis of ACC remains chal- lenging; typical differential diagnoses include cor- tical adenoma, pheochromocytoma, metastases (e.g. kidney, lung, liver, bladder, colorectal, mela- noma) and sarcomas. Regarding cortical ade- noma and ACC, there are still no satisfying clear-cut criteria for solid differentiation between the different entities of adrenal masses.8 Basic immunohistochemical stainings include melan A, inhibin, calretinin and synaptophysin and allow for differentiation between cortical and medullary lesions.8,9 In addition, immunohistochemical markers for differential diagnosis of adrenal metastases, including cytokeratins, and markers specific for steroid-producing cells, can be assessed. Steroidogenic factor 1 (SF-1), expressed ubiquitously by adrenocortical cells, has been defined as a powerful marker for diagnostic and
prognostic purposes, as it is correlated with infe- rior outcome.10,11 As immunohistochemical results can be variable in cases of ACC, a panel approach is recommended. So far, differentiation between adenoma and carcinoma is mainly based on various composed risk scores, including tradi- tional conventional histomorphologic scores, invented by Hough et al.,12 van Slooten et al.13 and Weiss et al.,14 with the Weiss score being the most commonly applied. The Weiss score was first presented in the late 1980s and includes nine easily identifiable pathological criteria, that is, nuclear grade, number of mitoses, presence of atypical mitoses, percentage of clear cells, diffuse architecture, confluent necrosis, and capsular, venous and/or sinusoidal invasion, which have not been essentially changed despite evolvement of novel technologies and molecular markers. 14,15 Aubert modified the classical Weiss score in 2002, reducing the original nine factors to five (number of mitoses, presence of atypical mitoses, percent- age of clear cells, necrosis and capsular inva- sion).16 For categorization of oncocytic ACC and oncocytic adenomas, the Lin-Weiss-Bisceglia criteria were introduced in 2004.17 The Wieneke classification should be applied to pediatric ACC, as the Weiss classification cannot be used in these tumors. 18 For adult ACC the original Weiss score has been used by most pathologists, though some discussion is ongoing about its universal applica- tion. However, combining the Weiss score with some of the aforementioned scoring systems can be useful for borderline tumors, as some cases can pose a major diagnostic challenge. A defined cut- off for ACC is a Weiss score ≥3 and the prognos- tic significance of this cut-off was confirmed in larger ACC series including also investigation of novel markers such as MDM2 overexpression, a known negative regulator of TP53.19 Despite recent efforts to streamline assessments, a high inter-observer variability has been reported and histological (re)assessment by a reference pathol- ogist is recommended.11,20 Another score more recently developed is the European Helsinki Score, focusing on mitotic count, Ki67 and pres- ence of necrosis, which allowed prediction of the metastatic potential of ACC.21,22 In general, there is increasing value of Ki67% assessment for meas- urement of proliferation; guidelines present strict cut-offs for guiding adjuvant therapy based on studies underlining the high prognostic impact of the Ki67-index following complete surgical resec- tion.1 For example, outcome differed significantly for a Ki67 <10% versus 10-19% versus ≥20% in 319 patients with complete resection from the
German ACC registry (relapse-free survival 53.2months versus 31.6months versus 9.4months, p<0.001).23
For a deeper understanding of pathogenesis, molecular characterization of ACC to allow future development of novel therapies is of increasing interest. Somatic mutations resulting in loss of TP53 and/or overexpression of the insu- lin-like growth factor II (IGF-2), with the latter being caused by (epi)genetic changes in the imprinted region of the gene at 11p15, are the most commonly reported alterations detected in up to 90% of patients.24 In line with other tumor entities, TP53 mutations are associated with worse prognosis.25 Furthermore, activation of the B-catenin pathway and less frequently EGFR, BRAF and oncogenic RAS mutations are involved in tumorigenesis and might be of potential thera- peutic interest.11,24,26 Integrated genomic charac- terization series using exome sequencing and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays confirm frequent driver genes to be CTNNB1, TP53, CDKN2A, RB1 and MEN1.27 A further extensive molecular profiling on 90 patients including exome sequencing, SNP arrays, DNA methylation profiling and reverse phase protein arrays has suggested also PRKAR1A, RPL22, TERF2, CCNE1 and NF1 as potential driver genes for ACC.28 The authors have also discussed the impact of whole genome doubling on aggres- siveness of ACC and defined three distinct clini- cal and molecular subtypes. However, it has to be clearly stated that so far no hallmark mutation has been detected for localized or advanced ACC,24 and the impact of standard NGS panels for assess- ment of somatic mutations is not yet of routine therapeutic relevance, as discussed below.
Surgical management of ACC
Surgery is the only potentially curative therapy for patients with ACC and all patients with adrenal tumors suspect of malignancy. Therefore, patients without evidence of distant metastases and with tumors judged resectable should be offered sur- gery.1,29 For planning of surgery, tumor extension should be assessed by MRI of the abdomen, while distant metastases can be excluded by CT scan of the thorax or (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/CT (if available) and bone scintigraphy (in selected cases). As brain involvement is exceedingly rare at diagno- sis, no dedicated imaging of the brain is routinely recommended in such patients.30 Parallel to
imaging, a biochemical work-up has to be per- formed, including assessment of a 1-mg dexa- methasone-suppression test, plasma or urine metanephrines, sexual hormones and steroid pre- cursors. In hypertensive and/or hypokalemic patients, evaluation of the aldosterone/renin ratio is mandatory.7,29 There is a strong consensus that ACC patients should be treated in centers with more than 10 adrenalectomies per year and a high expertise in surgical visceral oncology.29 In the case of ACC, it is of utmost importance not to injure the capsule of the tumor to avoid local spreading.7,29 Thus, open surgery is preferable to minimal invasive methods in these patients. In the rare cases of ACC being smaller than 6 cm and/or in lesions with no pre-operative suspicion of ACC, minimal invasive methods will be chosen by most surgeons. If the tumor does not infiltrate other structures, surgery can be completed as planned if it is possible to keep the capsule of the tumor intact. With this approach, equal results to open surgery can be achieved.31,32 In a recent review on the (dis)advantages of minimally inva- sive surgery for lesions susceptive for ACC,33 lower intra-operative blood loss and shorter hos- pitalization durations were suggested for mini- mally invasive surgery, while open surgery was uniformly recommended as standard of care for stage III and IV ACC. In their analysis of reports, the authors nevertheless also conclude that open surgery still should be the method of choice also for localized stages in the case of suspected ACC. In the case of preoperatively proven extra-adrenal tumor spread without distant metastases and where resection is still feasible, an open en-bloc resection is recommended.7,29 Local involvement of the liver may require wedge resections for R0-surgery and in the case of a tumor thrombus in the vena cava, a venovenous bypass or a cardio- pulmonary bypass can be necessary to remove the thrombus. If a radical resection is not feasible, palliative surgery may be considered in patients with functional tumors. In the case of recurrent disease and low tumor burden, surgery can be effective in improving survival if an R0 resection is achievable and the time to first recurrence was >12 months.6
Adjuvant therapy of ACC
Up to 50% of patients undergoing curative sur- gery for ACC relapse, and a high number of cases present with distant metastases at first progres- sion, which underlines the (yet unmet) need for effective adjuvant strategies. 1,34 The only approved
drug for the systemic treatment of ACC in both adjuvant and palliative setting is mitotane, a selec- tive inhibitor of steroidogenesis that also displays direct cytostatic and (adreno)lytic effects to nor- mal adrenocortical cells.34 Current clinical prac- tice guidelines provide specific recommendations for adjuvant mitotane treatment. In Europe, the European Society for Endocrinology (ESE) and European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors guideline, which is endorsed by the recently published European Society for Medical Oncology guideline, suggest mitotane for patients presenting with at least one risk factor of (1) stage III disease, (2) R1-Rx resection and (3) Ki67>10%.1,2 In patients without these features, adjuvant therapy should be evaluated on an indi- vidual basis. While these recommendations appear straightforward, the underlying data are contro- versial. In detail, two meta-analyses and several retrospective series have suggested a reduced relapse risk +/- OS benefit for adjuvant mitotane but all these data are of retrospective nature.1,2,35 A meta-analysis published by Tang et al.35 included a total of five trials comprising 1249 patients. This analysis showed a prolonged relapse-free survival (RFS) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42- 0.94, p<0.05] and a significant increase in OS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.88, p<0.05) for the overall population. A comparable study published within the ESE guideline reported a pooled HR for OS of 0.7 (95% CI 0.5-0.9).7 Not yet included in these series is a recent Italian study (152 patients, 66% received mitotane) that suggested more narrow criteria and highlighted an OS ben- efit for Ki67>10% (p=0.005) and stage III dis- ease (p=0.02).36 In contrast to these results, in a US analysis of 207 patients and 13 centers, mito- tane did not result in benefit for RFS/OS.37 However, there was a high number of patients with stage IV, with a substantial percentage of patients being given mitotane along with chemo- therapy, and while in fact an adverse trend was shown with inferior RFS for the mitotane group, OS appeared partly positively influenced. The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines provide a less apodictic rec- ommendation for adjuvant mitotane compared with the European ones, without strict criteria regarding stage and Ki67 but only suggesting eval- uation for mitotane in patients with a high risk for recurrence, such as a ruptured capsule, large size or high-grade histology.38 The NCCN guidelines also clearly state that the evidence level for this recommendation remains low. However, recently
an analysis of the National Cancer Database reported that survival of US patients receiving adjuvant therapy has improved since 2007 (5-year OS 41% versus 25%, p=0.02).4
The only way to really make progress regarding the question of adjuvant mitotane in the near future will be to learn from clinical trials, such as the ADIUVO study (NCT00777244). In ADIUVO, a randomized phase III, patients with fully resected ACC are randomized to observa- tion versus mitotane and results have been referred forward to basically every meeting in the last dec- ade discussing this issue. However, ADIUVO- included patients do only partly meet the current recommendation criteria as only patients with a Ki67<10% are randomized. According to ClinicalTrials.gov the study had reached primary completion at the end of 2018 and results are being awaited.
While the European guidelines are valuable rec- ommendations for our routine clinical approach, the lack of prospective data and the impact of mitotane treatment on the patient’s quality of life, including potentially life-threatening complica- tions caused by adrenocortical hormone-depriva- tion, are caveats that should be kept in mind. In view of this, the decision about adjuvant therapy should be made on an individual patient basis and following highly informed consent. The ADIUVO trial also collected patient reported outcomes, which will be of interest in this context. If mito- tane is used for adjuvant therapy, drug levels need to be monitored closely as patients with mitotane levels >14mg/L were more likely to have a pro- longed benefit in RFS (HR 0.418, 0.22-0.79, p=0.007).39 In addition, a recent publication underlined that mitotane concentrations are strongly affected by gender as female patients treated with adjuvant mitotane showed signifi- cantly lower levels (7.6mg/L versus 11.0mg/L, p=0.007) but were also more likely to experience toxic concentrations (8% versus 5%), which should be considered in the dosing process.40 As current recommendations for adjuvant therapy are not fully satisfactory, assessment of potential biomarkers is of interest. The epithelial-mesen- chymal transition related genes FSCN1 and FOXM1 were both strong independent negative prognostic factors if overexpressed in localized or advanced ACC and were suggested to be used as predictive tools.41,42 However, there is no current consensus on the relevance of molecular markers in ACC. Prospective trials, ideally of randomized
nature, are clearly warranted, as little progress in tailoring adjuvant treatment has been achieved in the last decade.
The use of classical cytotoxic chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting appears reasonable in patients with extremely high risk of relapse given the results of the FIRM-ACT trial.43 In patients with a Ki67≥30% or a large tumor thrombus in the vena cava, cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus mitotane is suggested as an adjuvant option by expert-based consensus, but nevertheless lacks sound scientific evidence.44 Respective trials are ongoing (Table 1).
Recently, a discussion on the role of adjuvant radiotherapy has been ongoing and is the scope of reviews and meta-analyses.46,47 Its role is still not exactly clear according to available data, and a recent analysis using the SEER database has shown that 10.5% of 865 patients eligible for analysis were given radiation.46 According to this analysis patients given radiation for stage III node negative ACC had an OS benefit and, also, another analysis (featuring 75 patients) showed that not only loco regional recurrence-free sur- vival, but also that OS might be positively influ- enced by adjuvant radiotherapy.47
Systemic treatment - are we making progress?
Mitotane in advanced disease
Mitotane constitutes the cornerstone of systemic therapy for ACC not only in the adjuvant, but also in the palliative setting. However, mitotane monotherapy resulted in less than 20% overall response rates (ORR) in most series and is thus nowadays usually combined with conventional cytotoxic treatment if the performance status of the patient allows high intensity therapy.1,48 In the largest publication on mitotane monotherapy including 179 patients with advanced ACC, 26/179 (20.5%) had an objective response, including three cases of complete response, resulting in a median PFS of 4.1 months.49 The benefit appeared to be more pronounced in patients with low tumor burden and in late onset relapse (i.e. >360 days after initial diagnosis). Again, the target level of 14ng/ml appeared cru- cial and resulted in a significantly longer OS for patients above the threshold. Thus, mitotane monotherapy still presents a valid option for patients with low tumor burden not fit for
chemotherapy and in the case of predominantly hormone-related symptoms with need for prompt symptomatic treatment. Importantly, mitotane is a strong inducer of CYP3A4,50 which is of impor- tance for potential combination regimens, espe- cially with novel compounds such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immunotherapy. An important question is whether to continue mito- tane beyond progression, as no prospective data on this issue are available. In an analysis including 57 long term survivors, defined as >24 months, with slow growing ACC treated with mitotane alone, responses were seen within 12 months, so the authors suggested discontinuation after 12 months if growth of ACC was still observed in this select subgroup of patients.51 Nevertheless, the common practice in many centers is to keep patients on mitotane as long as tolerance allows, which is also due to the fact that usually no full re-gain of function of the (other) adrenal gland can be expected after discontinuation. However, given novel treatment strategies discussed below, stopping mitotane in terms of interactions and efficacy of subsequent therapies will probably be increasingly applied.
Conventional chemotherapy
Early data on single agent chemotherapy with the anthraycyline doxorubicin resulted in less than 20% ORR, and efficacy of cytostatic monother- apy was only marginally increased if combined with mitotane.48,52,53 Further single agents tested in combination with mitotane included cisplatin (ORR 30%) and streptozotocin (ORR 36%).54,55 While cisplatin plus etoposide again showed only modest activity (ORR 11%), the first regimen considered actually effective was the combination of mitotane, cisplatin, etoposide and doxorubicin that was evaluated in an Italian multicenter trial including 28 patients.56,57 The ORR was promis- ing at 53.5% (95% CI 35-72) and time to pro- gression in responders exceeded 24 months. Based on these findings, the FIRM-ACT study was conceptualized and its results to date are the only positive randomized data for the treatment of advanced ACC.43 In this investigator-initiated trial, patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease were randomized to receive either mito- tane plus streptozotocin (SZ-M) every three weeks, which was considered standard treatment in many centers, or the combination of etoposide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin plus mitotane (EDP- M) every four weeks in the experimental arm. According to protocol, mitotane was started at
| Drug/intervention | Study title | Setting | Endpoint | Trial design | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cabazitaxel | Cabazitaxel Activity in Patients With Advanced Adrenocortical-Carcinoma Progressing After Previous Chemotherapy Lines | Relapsed/refractory advanced or metastatic ACC (mitotane stopped 1 month prior to inclusion) | Clinical benefit at 4 months | Single arm phase II | 25 |
| Cabozantinib | Cabozantinib in Advanced Adrenocortical Carcinoma | Relapsed/refractory advanced or metastatic ACC (mitotane discontinued, serum concentration <2 mg/L) | PFS at 4 months | Single arm Phase II | 37 |
| Cabozantinib | Cabozantinib in Treating Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Unresectable Adrenocortical Carcinoma | Locally advanced of metastatic ACC (mitotane stopped for 1 month, serum concentration <2 mg/L) | PFS at 4 months | Single arm phase II | 18 |
| Relacorilant/ pembrolizumab | Study of Relacorilant in Combination With Pembrolizumab for Patients With Adrenocortical Carcinoma With Excess Glucocorticoid Production | Locally advanced or metastatic ACC with glucocorticoid excess (mitotane level ≤4 mg/L) | ORR, dose-limiting toxicities | Phase Ib | 20 |
| Therapeutic vaccine (EO2401)/nivolumab | A Novel Therapeutic Vaccine [E02401) in Metastatic Adrenocortical Carcinoma, or Malignant Pheochromocytoma/Paraganglioma | ACC locally advanced or metastatic (also including pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma) | Safety | Phase I/II | 60 |
| Nivolumab/ipilimumab | Nivolumab Combined With Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced Rare Genitourinary Tumors | Locally advanced or metastatic ACC (mitotane allowed for control or endocrine symptoms) and other rare genitourinary tumors | ORR | Single arm phase II | 100* |
| Nivolumab/ipilimumab | Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Treating Patients With Rare Tumors | Relapsed/refractory advanced or metastatic ACC or other rare tumors | ORR | Single arm, phase II | 818* |
| Pembrolizumab | Pembrolizumab in Treating Patients With Rare Tumors That Cannot Be Removed by Surgery or Are Metastatic | Relapsed/refractory advanced or metastatic ACC or other rare tumors | Non-progression at 27 weeks, adverse events | Single arm phase II | 225* |
| HIPEC (cisplatin and sodium thiosulfate), cytoreductive surgery | Surgery and Heated Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Adrenocortical Carcinoma | ACC with the majority of disease confined to the peritoneal cavity and resectable or amenable to radiofrequency ablation | PFS | Single arm phase II | 30 |
| Cisplatin/etoposide +/- mitotane versus observations or mitotane | Adjuvant Chemotherapy versus Observation/ Mitotane After Primary Surgical Resection of Localized Adrenocortical Carcinoma | Adjuvant setting following complete resection for ACC with Ki67≥10% | RFS | Open-label, randomized phase III | 240 |
| Cisplatin/ etoposide + mitotane versus mitotane | Mitotane With or Without Cisplatin and Etoposide After Surgery in Treating Patients With Stage I-III Adrenocortical Cancer With High Risk of Recurrence | Adjuvant setting following complete resection for ACC with Ki67>10% | RFS | Open-label, randomized phase III | 240 |
*These numbers include also other tumor entities.
Date of website access 19 May 2021; search terms included “adrenocortical carcinoma” & “adrenal cancer” & “recruiting” (excluding registry studies, observational studies and pediatric studies).
ACC, adrenocortical carcinoma; ORR, overall response rate; PFS, progression-free survival; Pts, patients; RFS, relapse-free survival.
least 7 days before cytotoxics, aiming for 14- 20 mg/L blood level during therapy; the median measured level, however, was only around 5 mg/L in both groups. Patients were randomized 1:1 with 151 patients in the EDP-M arm and 153 in the SZ-M-arm. The primary endpoint was OS, secondary endpoints were response rate and pro- gression free survival (PFS). The ORR was supe- rior for EDP-M with 23.2% versus 9.2% for SZ-M (p<0.001), which was much lower than in initial phase II trials on SZ-M. The median PFS of 5 months for EDP-M was significantly prolonged versus 2.1 months for SZ-M, while the actual 1-year PFS of 26.1% versus 7.2% is still disillu- sioning. In addition, the OS did not reach statisti- cal significance with 14.8 versus 12 months (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61-1.02), but there was a crosso- ver integrated in the protocol, so a total of 101 patients received second line therapy with EDP- M, resulting in a similar outcome to first line of 5.6 months PFS. The FIRM-ACT protocol is therefore the current standard of care for advanced ACC. However, the medians PFS of <6 months and the OS of roughly 1 year clearly indicate a high unmet need for improvement, as in fact no recent chemotherapy-based trials have suggested positive trends. Second line or salvage chemo- therapy regimens show only marginal efficacy, and include gemcitabine plus capecitabine (either conventional or with metronomic dosing), which is most commonly used in our personal practice, and single agents such as thalidomide or trofosfa- mide, which were both evaluated in German centers but again resulted in stabilization rates of only <15%.58-61 In addition, combinations of gemcitabine with erlotinib or bevacizumab and capecitabine were evaluated but were considered not of clinical relevance. 62,63
TKIs and other targeted therapies
TKIs targeting one or more tyrosine kinases involved in proliferation of tumor cells and other small molecule therapies have been effectively established as standard in several (neuro) endo- crine cancers, including sunitinib and everolimus for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and cabo- zantinib, vandetanib, sorafenib and lenvatinib for different subtypes of thyroid cancer.64,65 However, while various pathways and growth factors, for example, IGF-II, VEGF, FGF II and TGF-a./-B, have been attributed preclinical relevance in ACC growth,66 no mono-therapeutic small molecule inhibitor has shown convincing activity so far. Among others, sunitinib, gefitinib, erlotinib,
sorafenib and temsirolimus were evaluated in small series but resulted in only modest response rates.67 One potential reason discussed is an altered metabolism due to mitotane-induced CYP3A4 activity for some compounds. CYP3A4 induction and interaction in TKIs was inciden- tally observed in sunitinib treated patients, where concomitant mitotane negatively impacted out- come due to lower serum levels of active metabo- lites, and is now understood as an important bias to consider in all clinical trials;50,68 particularly as even after stopping mitotane it still can influence pharmacokinetics due its long-half life with often residual activity beyond termination. Interestingly, concomitant mitotane did not lead to alteration of toxicities in the sunitinib trial but also this needs to be considered.68 Contemporary clinical trials provide strict in-/exclusion criteria regard- ing concomitant use of mitotane.
One potential promising strategy was targeting the IGF-2-axis, which is considered the most com- monly overexpressed molecule in ACC and is involved in proliferation, migration and develop- ment of metastases.69 Based on preclinical data, IGF-2 expression results in IGF-1R and insulin receptor activation and phase I studies involving inhibitors of IGF-R1 showed promising results in terms of potential antitumor activity. Linsitinib, a specific inhibitor of IGF-R1 and the insulin recep- tor, was evaluated with great efforts in an interna- tional randomized phase III study enrolling a total of 139 patients who had progressed on standard chemotherapy. Severe adverse events were rare with fatigue, nausea and hyperglycemia reported in <5% as grade 3+ events. The trial was, how- ever, unblinded early due to failure of endpoints, with no difference in PFS or OS observed (OS median 323 days for linsitinib and 356 days for placebo, HR 0.94). While mitotane levels had no influence on the pharmacokinetics of linsitinib in this study, the author hypothesized that more spe- cific knowledge on the distinct patients’ genetic profiles might allow tailored use of such inhibi- tors. In addition, combination partners such as mTOR inhibitors appear attractive and recent in vitro data support this concept as an additive effect of mTOR inhibitors to linsitinib was observed.70 A phase I expansion cohort study investigated IGF- R1 antibody cixutumumab plus temsirolimus in 26 patients, resulting in disease stabilization for more than six months in 42%.71 Cixutumumab combined with mitotane was assessed as upfront treatment in patients with unresectable recurrent or metastatic disease.72 Disease control was
achieved in 8/20 patients but median PFS was 6 weeks only and a planned randomized expansion phase was not started owing to slow accrual and limited efficacy. Furthermore, monotherapy with mTOR inhibitors including everolimus, sirolimus and temsirolimus was evaluated based on the fact that the mTOR pathway is a known regulator of insulin like growth factors, but so far available results include only cell culture data or small clini- cal series.73,74 Another TKI that deserves attention is cabozantinib, an inhibitor of VEGFR2, MET and RET approved for several tumor entities including positive phase III results in medullary thyroid cancer.75 In a recently published retro- spective series, a total of 16 patients following pre- vious mitotane and further systemic therapies were treated with cabozantinib.76 ORR was 19% with a disease control rate of 50% and, impor- tantly, mitotane was out of relevant plasma levels in all patients (discontinued prior treatment in all patients, >12 months in 6/16). Corresponding phase II studies are recruiting, and again mitotane discontinuation is an important prerequisite to prevent potential interactions (Table 1). EGFR and VEGFR inhibition in combination with TKIs or classical cytostatic therapy has also been evalu- ated, but did not relevantly improve outcomes. 44,77 In summary, multiple targeted therapies including also further TKIs (e.g. sorafenib, lenvatinib, axi- tinib, nilotinib) and targeted antibodies (e.g. figu- tumumab), alone or in combination (e.g. with immunotherapy), have been evaluated for ACC.49,78-82 Targets and pathways still open for clinical exploration include the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathways; SF-1, as commonly over regu- lated transcription factor; ACAT1, an enzyme involved in the cholesterol metabolism and ini- tially investigated for cardiovascular disease but displaying significant adrenal toxicities; the estro- gen pathway, as well as FGR inhibitors.67,77 Some experts have suggested that in view of the low effi- cacy of EDP-M, upfront targeted therapy should be discussed if a new drug or target is available, followed by EDP-M in the case of progression only.44
Immunotherapy
Tumors of endocrine organs in general and ACC in particular are considered immunologically cold with PD-L1 expression reported in 10% of ACC, low to intermediate levels of tumor mutational burden in most patients and <5% microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) patient proportions.83 However, while the first larger immunotherapy
study investigating avelumab in a phase Ib expan- sion cohort of 50 patients with advanced ACC was rated negative due to an ORR of 6% only and a median PFS of 2.6 months, a recent phase II study on pembrolizumab has shown a first posi- tive sign for checkpoint inhibitor activities in ACC.84,85 In this phase II trial, 39 patients with advanced ACC were treated with pembrolizumab at a standard dose of 200 mg every 21 days.85 The reported ORR of 23% (95% CI 11-39) and the disease control rate of 52% (95% CI 33-69) appear clearly higher than in the avelumab trial. While the median PFS was again low at 2.1 months (95% CI 2-10.7), the median duration of response with a lower CI of 4.1 months (to not reached) and the OS of 24.9 months (95% CI 4.2 months to not reached) suggested durable activity in some patients. Interestingly, response did not correlate with PD-L1 expression or microsatellite instability/mismatch repair defi- ciency status. Further evidence regarding pem- brolizumab derived from a pre-specified cohort of a phase II from the MD Anderson Cancer Center, where 16 progressive ACC patients were treated with pembrolizumab.86 The primary endpoint of non-progression at 27 weeks was achieved in 36% (95% CI 13-65); the disease control rate in this study was 56% and the authors assessed tumor- infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), which again did not correlate with response. Nivolumab showed only modest activity in 10 patients (multicenter phase II) with a median PFS<2months.87 It must be considered that mitotane protocols were different, with concomitant therapy allowed in the avelumab study, but not in the pembroli- zumab trials. 84-86 Furthermore, endocrine activity may have an impact as particularly hypercorti- solims can complicate immune response and detection of adverse effects in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors.83,88 Also, CTNNB1/ beta-catenin overexpression, which is frequently found in ACC, is potentially relevant as CTNNB1 activity was associated with immune exclusion (and increased cortisol production).89 Additionally targeting CTNNB1 might be a potential way to increase checkpoint inhibitor efficacy.
To date, the situation of immunotherapy for ACC remains unclear. Clinical response rates still lack major breakthrough success and the tumor microenvironment, which is of importance for response and resistance patterns to this kind of therapy, appears particularly complex. One key point is the impact of corticosteroid-induced immune cell depletion, causing lower numbers of
circulating lymphocytes, and a high load of T-cell suppressive CD276 (B7-H3), in addition to low levels of classical biomarkers for immunotherapy including PD-L1, tumor mutational burden (TMB), TILs and MSI-H.83,90 Other factors discussed as mechanisms of resistance to immu- notherapy in ACC are alterations in the WNT- beta-catenin pathway that cause changes to the CD8+ population in the tumor microenviron- ment and alter the specific immune response.90 Furthermore, TP53 inactivation can decrease production of cytokines necessary for immune effector cell invasion. However, based on the given data, immunotherapy may be applied in selected patients if available - not least due to the sobering results of chemotherapy-based salvage regimens. The best evidence currently available is probably for pembrolizumab at standard dosing of 200 mg every three weeks. This is also high- lighted in a recent review summarizing efficacy and toxicity for a total of 115 ACC patients treated in prospective trials with immunother- apy.91 The combination of nivolumab plus ipili- mumab might be interesting and a trial is ongoing (Table 1). Novel immunotherapeutic approaches not yet extensively assessed include autologous dendritic cell vaccinations or targeting further immune checkpoints such as CD276 (B7-H3).83
Personalized treatment concepts
A series assessing drugable molecular alterations in 107 patients using NGS reported that at least one target of interest was found in 60% of patients (n=64). The most frequent finding was copy number variations of CDK4 genes in 43% of patients that can be targeted by CDK4/6 inhibi- tors.92 Moreover, alterations in NOTCH1, NF1 and MDM2 were suggested as potential targets. A comparable study found relevant targets in only 16% of patients, if Food and Drug Administration approved drugs were assessed and corresponding compounds again included CDK 4/6 inhibitors, but also PARP inhibitors, MEK or ERK inhibi- tors and PI3K/Akt/mTOR inhibitors.25 As an interesting co-finding, profiles of primary tumors and metastases were compared and were not reported to be substantially different. Given the increasing availability and simplicity of NGS on archived FFPE tissues, precision medicine approaches appear of interest and will potentially allow to more specifically tailor treatment of selected ACC patients in the near future. A restriction to this might be the time needed for NGS data to be completed. At our own center, in
a preliminary series of 10 patients no relevant tar- gets were detected by use of a broad NGS panel.93
Is there a role for image guided therapy and theranostics?
Chemokine receptor expression has been sug- gested as a relevant target for diagnostic and ther- apeutic purpose in a variety of tumor entities and both CXCR4 and CXCR7 were detected at rele- vant levels in ACC patients with localized or advanced disease, potentially offering options for CXCR4-directed treatment.94,95 In addition, antagonizing CXCR4 was able to block immune escape mechanisms to immunotherapy in other solid tumors. Very recently, also the role of soma- tostatin receptor (SSR) expression was assessed, and strong uptake suggesting eligibility for yttrium-90/lutetium-177 DOTATOC peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) was found in a small proportion of patients (2/19).96 In these two patients, PRRT was performed and resulted in durable responses. Given the high evidence regarding safety and efficacy in other SSR- expressing tumors of neuroendocrine origin, this concept appears of interest for further assess- ment. Another concept is the use of [123I]meto- midate for targeted radionuclide therapy in ACC.97 However, only small case series have been published so far for both tracers.
Conclusion
Prognosis of advanced ACC is still limited. Chemotherapy following the FIRM-ACT protocol constitutes standard of care and while TKIs and other targeted therapies suggest potential activity, there is a clear need for novel therapeutic concepts and clinical trials. Recent advances in understand- ing the molecular profile of ACC underline the high complexity of this disease, which is - apart from limited drugable molecular targets - charac- terized by a complex interplay of a yet scarcely understood microenvironment and potential endo- crine activity. Particularly steroid-excess further complicates therapeutic concepts such as immu- notherapy, which have markedly improved out- come in other disease entities. In Table 1, we display clinical trials listed as currently recruiting on ClinicalTrials.gov and we strongly encourage inclusion in trials whenever possible, as only this will allow for true progress in handling ACC. Given the rarity of this disease, this also asks for active international collaborations and optimal inter-disciplinary communication.
Author contributions
Concept: BK and MR. Writing and final approval of the manuscript: BK, PR, CR, EKS, AH, MR.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not- for-profit sectors.
ORCID iDs
Barbara Kiesewetter İD https:/orcid.org/0000- 0002-5490-2371
Philipp Riss
İD https://orcid.org/0000-0003- 1472-6606
Markus Raderer İD https://orcid.org/0000-0002- 3248-5802
References
1. Fassnacht M, Assie G, Baudin E, et al. Adrenocortical carcinomas and malignant phaeochromocytomas: ESMO-EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2020; 31: 1476-1490.
2. 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 } Endocrinol 2018; 179: G1-G46.
3. LaFemina J and Brennan MF. Adrenocortical carcinoma: past, present, and future. J Surg Oncol 2012; 106: 586-594.
4. Tierney JF, Chivukula SV, Poirier J, et al. National treatment practice for adrenocortical carcinoma: have they changed and have we made any progress? J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2019; 104: 5948-5956.
5. Wang S, Chen SS, Gao WC, et al. Prognostic factors of adrenocortical carcinoma: an analysis of the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2017; 18: 2817-2823.
6. Berruti A, Baudin E, Gelderblom H, et al. Adrenal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2012; 23(Suppl. 7): vii131-vii138.
7. Fassnacht M, Arlt W, Bancos I, et al. Management of adrenal incidentalomas: European Society of Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline in collaboration with the European network for the study of adrenal tumors. Eur } Endocrinol 2016; 175: G1-G34.
8. Lam AK. Adrenocortical carcinoma: updates of clinical and pathological features after renewed World Health Organisation classification and pathology staging. Biomedicines 2021; 9: 175.
9. Zhang PJ, Genega EM, Tomaszewski JE, et al. The role of calretinin, inhibin, melan-A, BCL- 2, and C-kit in differentiating adrenal cortical and medullary tumors: an immunohistochemical study. Mod Pathol 2003; 16: 591-597.
10. Duregon E, Volante M, Giorcelli J, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic role of steroidogenic factor 1 in adrenocortical carcinoma: a validation study focusing on clinical and pathologic correlates. Hum Pathol 2013; 44: 822-828.
11. Libé R. Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC): diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Front Cell Dev Biol 2015; 3: 45.
12. Hough AJ, Hollifield JW, Page DL, et al. Prognostic factors in adrenal cortical tumors. A mathematical analysis of clinical and morphologic data. Am J Clin Pathol 1979; 72: 390-399.
13. van Slooten H, Schaberg A, Smeenk D, et al. Morphologic characteristics of benign and malignant adrenocortical tumors. Cancer 1985; 55: 766-773.
14. Weiss LM, Medeiros LJ and Vickery AL Jr. Pathologic features of prognostic significance in adrenocortical carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1989; 13: 202-206.
15. Papotti M, Libè R, Duregon E, et al. The Weiss score and beyond-histopathology for adrenocortical carcinoma. Horm Cancer 2011; 2: 333-340.
16. Aubert S, Wacrenier A, Leroy X, et al. Weiss system revisited: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 49 adrenocortical tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26: 1612-1619.
17. Bisceglia M, Ludovico O, Di Mattia A, et al. Adrenocortical oncocytic tumors: report of 10 cases and review of the literature. Int J Surg Pathol 2004; 12: 231-243.
18. Wieneke JA, Thompson LD and Heffess CS. Adrenal cortical neoplasms in the pediatric population: a clinicopathologic and immunophenotypic analysis of 83 patients. Am } Surg Pathol 2003; 27: 867-881.
19. Stojadinovic A, Ghossein RA, Hoos A, et al. Adrenocortical carcinoma: clinical, morphologic,
and molecular characterization. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 941-950.
20. Tissier F, Aubert S, Leteurtre E, et al. Adrenocortical tumors: improving the practice of the Weiss system through virtual microscopy: a National Program of the French Network INCa-COMETE. Am J Surg Pathol 2012; 36: 1194-1201.
21. Duregon E, Cappellesso R, Maffeis V, et al. Validation of the prognostic role of the “Helsinki Score” in 225 cases of adrenocortical carcinoma. Hum Pathol 2017; 62: 1-7.
22. Pennanen M, Heiskanen I, Sane T, et al. Helsinki score-a novel model for prediction of metastases in adrenocortical carcinomas. Hum Pathol 2015; 46: 404-410.
23. Beuschlein F, Weigel J, Saeger W, et al. Major prognostic role of Ki67 in localized adrenocortical carcinoma after complete resection. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015; 100: 841-849.
24. Bertherat J and Bertagna X. Pathogenesis of adrenocortical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009; 23: 261-271.
25. Darabi S, Braxton DR, Eisenberg BL, et al. Molecular genomic profiling of adrenocortical cancers in clinical practice. Surgery 2021; 169: 138-144.
26. Kotoula V, Sozopoulos E, Litsiou H, et al. Mutational analysis of the BRAF, RAS and EGFR genes in human adrenocortical carcinomas. Endocr Relat Cancer 2009; 16: 565-572.
27. Assié G, Letouzé E, Fassnacht M, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of adrenocortical carcinoma. Nat Genet 2014; 46: 607-612.
28. Zheng S, Cherniack AD, Dewal N, et al. Comprehensive pan-genomic characterization of adrenocortical carcinoma. Cancer Cell 2016; 29: 723-736.
29. Lorenz K, Langer P, Niederle B, et al. Surgical therapy of adrenal tumors: guidelines from the German Association of Endocrine Surgeons (CAEK). Langenbecks Arch Surg 2019; 404: 385-401.
30. Burotto M, Tageja N, Rosenberg A, et al. Brain metastasis in patients with adrenocortical carcinoma: a clinical series. } Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015; 100: 331-336.
31. Fiori C, Checcucci E, Amparore D, et al. Adrenal tumours: open surgery versus minimally invasive surgery. Curr Opin Oncol 2020; 32: 27-34.
32. Asari R, Koperek O and Niederle B. Endoscopic adrenalectomy in large adrenal tumors. Surgery 2012; 152: 41-49.
33. Buller DM, Hennessey AM and Ristau BT. Open versus minimally invasive surgery for suspected adrenocortical carcinoma. Transl Androl Urol 2020; 10: 2246-2263.
34. Puglisi S, Calabrese A, Basile V, et al. New perspectives for mitotane treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Meta 2020; 34: 101415.
35. Tang Y, Liu Z, Zou Z, et al. Benefits of adjuvant mitotane after resection of adrenocortical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018: 9362108.
36. Calabrese A, Basile V, Puglisi S, et al. Adjuvant mitotane therapy is beneficial in non-metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma at high risk of recurrence. Eur } Endocrinol 2019; 180: 387-396.
37. Postlewait LM, Ethun CG, Tran TB, et al. Outcomes of adjuvant mitotane after resection of adrenocortical carcinoma: a 13-institution study by the US Adrenocortical Carcinoma Group. J Am Coll Surg 2016; 222: 480-490.
38. Kreissl MC, Bastholt L, Elisei R, et al. Efficacy and safety of vandetanib in progressive and symptomatic medullary thyroid cancer: post hoc analysis from the ZETA trial. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38: 2773-2781.
39. Terzolo M, Baudin AE, Ardito A, et al. Mitotane levels predict the outcome of patients with adrenocortical carcinoma treated adjuvantly following radical resection. Eur } Endocrinol 2013; 169: 263-270.
40. Allegra S, Puglisi S, Brescia I, et al. Sex differences on mitotane concentration and treatment outcome in patients with adrenocortical carcinoma. Life (Basel) 2021; 11: 266.
41. Liang J, Liu Z, Wei X, et al. Expression of FSCN1 and FOXM1 are associated with poor prognosis of adrenocortical carcinoma patients. BMC Cancer 2019; 19: 1165.
42. Poli G, Ruggiero C, Cantini G, et al. Fascin-1 is a novel prognostic biomarker associated with tumor invasiveness in adrenocortical carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2019; 104: 1712-1724.
43. Fassnacht M, Terzolo M, Allolio B, et al. Combination chemotherapy in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2189-2197.
44. Fassnacht M, Kroiss M and Allolio B. Update in adrenocortical carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013; 98: 4551-4564.
45. ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (accessed 19 May 2021).
46. Thomas JJ and Tward JD. Stage presentation, care patterns, treatment outcomes, and impact of radiotherapy on overall survival for adrenocortical carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer. Epub ahead of print 19 March 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j. clgc.2021.03.009.
47. Zhu J, Zheng Z, Shen J, et al. Efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy for treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma: a retrospective study and an updated meta-analysis. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15: 118.
48. Fay AP, Elfiky A, Teló GH, et al. Adrenocortical carcinoma: the management of metastatic disease. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2014; 92: 123-132.
49. Megerle F, Herrmann W, Schloetelburg W, et al. Mitotane monotherapy in patients with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2018; 103: 1686-1695.
50. Kroiss M, Quinkler M, Lutz WK, et al. Drug interactions with mitotane by induction of CYP3A4 metabolism in the clinical management of adrenocortical carcinoma. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2011; 75: 585-591.
51. Vezzosi D, Do Cao C, Hescot S, et al. Time until partial response in metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma long-term survivors. Horm Cancer 2018; 9: 62-69.
52. Haq MM, Legha SS, Samaan NA, et al. Cytotoxic chemotherapy in adrenal cortical carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rep 1980; 64: 909-913.
53. Decker RA, Elson P, Hogan TF, et al. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study 1879: mitotane and adriamycin in patients with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. Surgery 1991; 110: 1006-1013.
54. Bukowski RM, Wolfe M, Levine HS, et al. Phase II trial of mitotane and cisplatin in patients with adrenal carcinoma: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 161-165.
55. Khan TS, Imam H, Juhlin C, et al. Streptozocin and o,p’DDD in the treatment of adrenocortical cancer patients: long-term survival in its adjuvant use. Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 1281-1287.
56. Williamson SK, Lew D, Miller GJ, et al. Phase II evaluation of cisplatin and etoposide followed by mitotane at disease progression in patients with locally advanced or metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. Cancer 2000; 88: 1159-1165.
57. Berruti A, Terzolo M, Pia A, et al. Mitotane associated with etoposide, doxorubicin,
and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. Italian Group for the Study of Adrenal Cancer. Cancer 1998; 83: 2194-2200.
58. Sperone P, Ferrero A, Daffara F, et al. Gemcitabine plus metronomic 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine as a second-/third-line chemotherapy in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma: a multicenter phase II study. Endocr Relat Cancer 2010; 17: 445-453.
59. Henning JEK, Deutschbein T, Altieri B, et al. Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in adrenocortical carcinoma: a multicenter study of efficacy and predictive factors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017; 102: 4323-4332.
60. Kroiss M, Deutschbein T, Schlötelburg W, et al. Treatment of refractory adrenocortical carcinoma with thalidomide: analysis of 27 patients from the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumours Registry. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2019; 127: 578-584.
61. Kroiss M, Deutschbein T, Schlötelburg W, et al. Salvage treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma with trofosfamide. Horm Cancer 2016; 7: 211-218.
62. Wortmann S, Quinkler M, Ritter C, et al. Bevacizumab plus capecitabine as a salvage therapy in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. Eur } Endocrinol 2010; 162: 349-356.
63. Quinkler M, Hahner S, Wortmann S, et al. Treatment of advanced adrenocortical carcinoma with erlotinib plus gemcitabine. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008; 93: 2057-2062.
64. Pavel M, Öberg K, Falconi M, et al. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2020; 31: 844-860.
65. Filetti S, Durante C, Hartl D, et al. Thyroid cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2019; 30: 1856-1883.
66. Libè R, Fratticci A and Bertherat J. Adrenocortical cancer: pathophysiology and clinical management. Endocr Relat Cancer 2007; 14: 13-28.
67. Konda B and Kirschner LS. Novel targeted therapies in adrenocortical carcinoma. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2016; 23: 233-241.
68. Kroiss M, Quinkler M, Johanssen S, et al. Sunitinib in refractory adrenocortical carcinoma: a phase II, single-arm, open-label trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012; 97: 3495-3503.
69. Fassnacht M, Berruti A, Baudin E, et al. Linsitinib (OSI-906) versus placebo for patients with locally advanced or metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 426-435.
70. De Martino MC, van Koetsveld PM, Feelders RA, et al. IGF and mTOR pathway expression and in vitro effects of linsitinib and mTOR inhibitors in adrenocortical cancer. Endocrine 2019; 64: 673-684.
71. Naing A, Lorusso P, Fu S, et al. Insulin growth factor receptor (IGF-1R) antibody cixutumumab combined with the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma. Br } Cancer 2013; 108: 826-830.
72. Lerario AM, Worden FP, Ramm CA, et al. The combination of insulin-like growth factor receptor 1 (IGF1R) antibody cixutumumab and mitotane as a first-line therapy for patients with recurrent/ metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: a multi- institutional NCI-sponsored trial. Horm Cancer 2014; 5: 232-239.
73. De Martino MC, Feelders RA, Pivonello C, et al. The role of mTOR pathway as target for treatment in adrenocortical cancer. Endocr Connect 2019; 8: R144-R156.
74. Fraenkel M, Gueorguiev M, Barak D, et al. Everolimus therapy for progressive adrenocortical cancer. Endocrine 2013; 44: 187-192.
75. Elisei R, Schlumberger MJ, Müller SP, et al. Cabozantinib in progressive medullary thyroid cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 3639-3646.
76. Kroiss M, Megerle F, Kurlbaum M, et al. Objective response and prolonged disease control of advanced adrenocortical carcinoma with cabozantinib. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020; 105: 1461-1468.
77. Stigliano A, Cerquetti L, Lardo P, et al. New insights and future perspectives in the therapeutic strategy of adrenocortical carcinoma (Review). Oncol Rep 2017; 37: 1301-1311.
78. Altieri B, Ronchi CL, Kroiss M, et al. Next- generation therapies for adrenocortical carcinoma. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020; 34: 101434.
79. Ardolino L, Hansen A, Ackland S, et al. Advanced Adrenocortical Carcinoma (ACC): a review with focus on second-line therapies. Horm Cancer 2020; 11: 155-169.
80. Paragliola RM, Corsello A, Locantore P, et al. Medical approaches in adrenocortical carcinoma. Biomedicines 2020; 8: 551.
81. Pegna GJ, Roper N, Kaplan RN, et al. The immunotherapy landscape in adrenocortical cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13: 2660.
82. Alyateem G and Nilubol N. Current status and future targeted therapy in adrenocortical cancer. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2021; 12: 613248.
83. Georgantzoglou N, Kokkali S, Tsourouflis G, et al. Tumor microenvironment in adrenocortical carcinoma: barrier to immunotherapy success? Cancers 2021; 13: 1798.
84. Le Tourneau C, Hoimes C, Zarwan C, et al. Avelumab in patients with previously treated metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: phase 1b results from the JAVELIN solid tumor trial. J Immunother Cancer 2018; 6: 111.
85. Raj N, Zheng Y, Kelly V, et al. PD-1 Blockade in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38: 71-80.
86. Habra MA, Stephen B, Campbell M, et al. Phase II clinical trial of pembrolizumab efficacy and safety in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. J Immunother Cancer 2019; 7: 253.
87. Carneiro BA, Konda B, Costa RB, et al. Nivolumab in metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: results of a phase 2 trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2019; 104: 6193-6200.
88. Casey RT, Giger O, Seetho I, et al. Rapid disease progression in a patient with mismatch repair- deficient and cortisol secreting adrenocortical carcinoma treated with pembrolizumab. Semin Oncol 2018; 45: 151-155.
89. Liu S, Ding G, Zhou Z, et al. ß-Catenin-driven adrenocortical carcinoma is characterized with immune exclusion. Onco Targets Ther 2018; 11: 2029-2036.
90. Araujo-Castro M, Pascual-Corrales E, Molina- Cerrillo J, et al. Immunotherapy in adrenocortical carcinoma: predictors of response, efficacy, safety, and mechanisms of resistance. Biomedicines 2021; 9: 304.
91. Brabo EP, Moraes AB and Neto LV. The role of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma revisited: review of literature. } Endocrinol Invest 2020; 43: 1531-1542.
92. Lippert J, Appenzeller S, Liang R, et al. Targeted molecular analysis in adrenocortical carcinomas: a strategy toward improved personalized prognostication. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2018; 103: 4511-4523.
93. Kieler M, Müllauer L, Koperek O, et al. Analysis of 10 adrenocortical carcinoma patients in the cohort of the precision medicine platform MONDTI. Oncology 2018; 94: 306-310.
Visit SAGE journals online journals.sagepub.com/ home/tam $SAGE journals
94. Bluemel C, Hahner S, Heinze B, et al. Investigating the chemokine receptor 4 as potential theranostic target in adrenocortical cancer patients. Clin Nucl Med 2017; 42: e29-e34.
95. Chifu I, Heinze B, Fuss CT, et al. Impact of the chemokine receptors CXCR4 and CXCR7 on clinical outcome in adrenocortical carcinoma. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2020; 11: 597878.
96. Grisanti S, Filice A, Basile V, et al. Treatment with 90Y/177Lu-DOTATOC in patients with metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma expressing somatostatin receptors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020; 105: dgz091.
97. Hahner S, Kreissl MC, Fassnacht M, et al. [13]]] Iodometomidate for targeted radionuclide therapy of advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012; 97: 914-922.