PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and hormonal features of patients with incidentally discovered adrenal adenomas in relation to corticotropin releasing hormone (CRH) testing and the clinical outcome of adrenalectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three consecutive patients with incidentally detected adrenal adenomas were included in this retrospective study. All the patients underwent abdominal computed tomography scans and hormonal assays, including assessment of circadian rhythms of plasma cortisol and corticotropin (adrenocorticotropic hormone, ACTH), a corticotropin stimulation test, and low-dose and high-dose dexamethasone tests. The patients were reevaluated at regular intervals (6, 12, and 24 months) for a median period of 24 months. Subclinical Cushing's syndrome (SCS) was diagnosed in patients with subtle hypercortisolism who did not present clinical signs of Cushing's syndrome. RESULTS: We calculated the responsive index (peak value of ACTH in CRH test/baseline value of ACTH in CRH test). Of 23 patients, 6 had Cushing's syndrome, 8 had SCS, and 9 had a non-functioning tumor. All patients underwent laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Several patients (5 of 6 with Cushing's syndrome and 2 of 8 with SCS) required cortisol replacement therapy after surgery. The remaining patients required no hormonal replacement after surgery. Those who required hormone replacement had a responsive index of less than 1.2. Those who did not need hormone replacement therapy had a responsive index of more than 2.0. CONCLUSIONS: In our limited experience, the responsive index of the CRH test might be a valuable tool for predicting the need for cortisol replacement after surgery in patients with SCS.
Adenoma ; Adrenalectomy ; Adrenocorticotropic Hormone ; Circadian Rhythm ; Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone ; Cushing Syndrome ; Dexamethasone ; Hormone Replacement Therapy ; Humans ; Hydrocortisone ; Plasma ; Retrospective Studies

Objectives: This review aims to introduce preoperative scoring systems to predict lymph node metastasis (LNM) and ongoing clinical trials to investigate the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Methods: We summarized previous reports on the preoperative prediction models for LNM and evaluated their validity to omit lymphadenectomy in our recent cohorts. Next, we compared characteristics of two ongoing lymphadenectomy trials (JCOG1412, ECLAT) to examine the survival benefit of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer, and described the details of JCOG1412. Results: Lymphadenectomy has been omitted for 64 endometrial cancer patients who met lowrisk criteria to omit lymphadenectomy using our scoring system (LNM score) and no lymphatic failure has been observed. Other two models also produced comparable results. Two randomized phase III trials to evaluate survival benefit of lymphadenectomy are ongoing for endometrial cancer. JCOG1412 compares pelvic lymphadenectomy alone with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy to evaluate the therapeutic role of para-aortic lymphadenectomy for patients at risk of LNM. For quality assurance of lymphadenectomy, we defined several regulations, including lower limit of the number of resected nodes, and submission of photos of dissected area to evaluate thoroughness of lymphadenectomy in the protocol. The latest monitoring report showed that the quality of lymphadenectomy has been well-controlled in JCOG1412. Conclusion Our strategy seems reasonable to omit lymphadenectomy and could be generalized in clinical practice. JCOG1412 is a high-quality lymphadenectomy trial in terms of the quality of surgical procedures, which would draw the bona-fide conclusions regarding the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer.