Clinical Differences between Classic Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma and Variants

J. Park, Ji In Lee, A. H. Tan, H. W. Jang, H. Shin, Y. Oh, J. Shin, J. H. Kim, J. S. Kim, Y. Son, S. Kim, J. Chung
{"title":"Clinical Differences between Classic Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma and Variants","authors":"J. Park, Ji In Lee, A. H. Tan, H. W. Jang, H. Shin, Y. Oh, J. Shin, J. H. Kim, J. S. Kim, Y. Son, S. Kim, J. Chung","doi":"10.3803/JKES.2009.24.3.165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The outcomes of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) variants have been described in a limited number of studies. The purpose of this study was to compare patient outcomes of PTC variants with those of patients with classic PTC. Methods: A single-institution retrospective analysis was performed to review 2,366 patients with classic PTC and 159 patients with PTC variants diagnosed between 1994 and 2004. PTC variant patients were divided into two groups, favorable (n = 119, 119 follicular variants including 14 encapsulated follicular variants) and aggressive (n = 40, including 13 diffuse sclerosing, 11 tall cell, six solid, six oncocytic, and four columnar cell variants). Results: Compared with classic PTC, the favorable and aggressive variants had a significantly larger tumor size (P < 0.001). The favorable variants had significantly lower rates of bilaterality, multifocality, extrathyroidal invasion, cervical lymph node metastasis, stage III and IV disease, and greater male to female ratio (P < 0.05). In particular, the encapsulated follicular variant showed no bilaterality, multifocality, extrathyroidal invasion, lymph node metastasis, and distant metastasis. However, the disease-specific survival and recurrence-free survival of patients with favorable PTC were not different from the patients with classic PTC. The aggressive variants had significantly higher rates of bilaterality and cervical lymph node metastasis compared to the classic PTC (P < 0.05). They had significantly reduced disease-specific survival and recurrence-free survival rates (P < 0.01). Conclusions: Knowledge of the nature of PTC variants, especially aggressive types, is important in predicting patient outcome and providing appropriate treatment. Further study is needed to better understand PTC variants. (J Korean Endocr Soc 24:165~173, 2009) ꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏ","PeriodicalId":119859,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Endocrine Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Korean Endocrine Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3803/JKES.2009.24.3.165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: The outcomes of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) variants have been described in a limited number of studies. The purpose of this study was to compare patient outcomes of PTC variants with those of patients with classic PTC. Methods: A single-institution retrospective analysis was performed to review 2,366 patients with classic PTC and 159 patients with PTC variants diagnosed between 1994 and 2004. PTC variant patients were divided into two groups, favorable (n = 119, 119 follicular variants including 14 encapsulated follicular variants) and aggressive (n = 40, including 13 diffuse sclerosing, 11 tall cell, six solid, six oncocytic, and four columnar cell variants). Results: Compared with classic PTC, the favorable and aggressive variants had a significantly larger tumor size (P < 0.001). The favorable variants had significantly lower rates of bilaterality, multifocality, extrathyroidal invasion, cervical lymph node metastasis, stage III and IV disease, and greater male to female ratio (P < 0.05). In particular, the encapsulated follicular variant showed no bilaterality, multifocality, extrathyroidal invasion, lymph node metastasis, and distant metastasis. However, the disease-specific survival and recurrence-free survival of patients with favorable PTC were not different from the patients with classic PTC. The aggressive variants had significantly higher rates of bilaterality and cervical lymph node metastasis compared to the classic PTC (P < 0.05). They had significantly reduced disease-specific survival and recurrence-free survival rates (P < 0.01). Conclusions: Knowledge of the nature of PTC variants, especially aggressive types, is important in predicting patient outcome and providing appropriate treatment. Further study is needed to better understand PTC variants. (J Korean Endocr Soc 24:165~173, 2009) ꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏ
典型甲状腺乳头状癌与变异甲状腺乳头状癌的临床差异
背景:在有限的研究中描述了甲状腺乳头状癌(PTC)变异的结局。本研究的目的是比较PTC变异患者与典型PTC患者的预后。方法:对1994年至2004年间确诊的2366例典型PTC患者和159例PTC变异患者进行单机构回顾性分析。PTC变异体患者分为两组,有利型(119例,滤泡变异体119例,其中包膜性滤泡变异体14例)和侵袭型(40例,包括弥漫性硬化型13例,高细胞型11例,实型6例,嗜瘤型6例,柱状细胞型4例)。结果:与经典PTC相比,有利型和侵袭型PTC的肿瘤大小明显增大(P < 0.001)。有利变异在双侧、多灶性、甲状腺外侵犯、颈部淋巴结转移、III期和IV期疾病发生率均显著降低,且男女比例较大(P < 0.05)。特别的是,包膜的滤泡变异没有双侧、多灶性、甲状腺外浸润、淋巴结转移和远处转移。然而,良好PTC患者的疾病特异性生存和无复发生存与经典PTC患者没有差异。与经典PTC相比,侵袭性变异的双侧和颈部淋巴结转移率显著高于经典PTC (P < 0.05)。他们的疾病特异性生存率和无复发生存率显著降低(P < 0.01)。结论:了解PTC变异的性质,特别是侵袭型,对于预测患者预后和提供适当的治疗是重要的。需要进一步的研究来更好地理解PTC变异。(J韩国Endocr Soc 24:165 ~ 173, 2009)ꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏꠏ
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信