Prognostic factors in stage III-IV adrenocortical carcinomas (ACC): an European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumor (ENSAT) study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of advanced adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is heterogeneous. Our study aimed primarily to refine and make headway in the prognostic stratification of advanced ACC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ENSAT ACC (stage III or stage IV) at diagnosis registered between 2000 and 2009 in the ENSAT database were enrolled. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Parameters of potential prognostic relevance were selected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out: model 1 'before surgery'; model 2 'post-surgery'. RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-four patients with advanced ENSAT ACC (stage III: 210; stage IV: 234) were analyzed. After a median follow-up of 55.2 months, the median OS was 24 months. A modified ENSAT (mENSAT) classification was validated: stage III (invasion of surrounding tissues/organs or the vena renalis/cava) and stage IVa, IVb, IVc (2, 3 or >3 metastatic organs, including N, respectively). Two- or 5-year OS was 73%, 46%, 26% and 15% or 50%, 15%, 14% and 2% for stages III, IVa, IVb and IVc, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, mENSAT stages (stages IVa, IVb, or IVc, respectively) were significantly correlated with OS (P 6 and/or Ki67 ≥20%, P = 0.06) in model 2. CONCLUSION: The mENSAT classification and GRAS parameters (Grade, R status, Age and Symptoms) were found to best stratify the prognosis of patients with advanced ACC

Aesthetic Breast Augmentation Mastopexy Followed by Post-surgical Pyoderma Gangrenosum (PSPG): Clinic, Treatment, and Review of the Literature.

INTRODUCTION: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare autoinflammatory neutrophilic ulcerative skin disease, often developing after a trauma or surgical wounds. In the literature there are several reports of post-surgical PG (PSPG) of the breast. The authors of this article experienced an impressive case of PSPG after an aesthetic breast augmentation mastopexy. PSPG is a rare but severe complication in this elective aesthetic surgical procedure. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed, focusing on PSPG after aesthetic breast surgery (augmentation mammoplasty/mastopexy). The online databases Pubmed, Medline, and Cochrane were used and additionally a Google© search was conducted. We compared the data obtained from a systematic literature review to an index case of PSPG after esthetic augmentation mammoplasty. RESULTS: The literature search identified seven articles describing eight cases of PSPG after aesthetic breast surgery. In four of these cases augmentation mammoplasty had been carried out, in two cases mastopexy and in two cases augmentation mammoplasty and mastopexy (augmentation mastopexy). The patient we treated and describe in this paper underwent an augmentation mastopexy outside our clinic. Eight patients suffered from local disease, at the site of surgical wounds, one patient had disseminated disease. Leukocytosis was present in five cases (out of nine). Eight patients had received corticosteroid treatment, one patient refused such treatment. The duration of corticosteroid treatment was on average for 41 days (range 21-60 days). In all cases, the areola had been spared. Complete healing of PSPG was observed on average after 5 months (range 1.5 months-1 year). DISCUSSION: PSPG of the breast after aesthetic breast surgery is rare, but every plastic surgeon should consider this possibility, especially if skin disease develops post-surgery, mimicking wound infection that does not respond to broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSION: Although the literature does not recommend this step, implant removal is recommended by the authors because bacterial wound infection normally cannot be ruled out definitely in the early stages of disease. Additional surgical intervention should be limited to the absolute necessary and performed only under adequate systemic immunosuppressive therapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266