Predictors of outcome for patients with differentiated and aggressive thyroid carcinoma.

Maurizio Marchesi, Marco Biffoni, Fausto Biancari, Alberto Berni, Francesco Paolo Campana
{"title":"Predictors of outcome for patients with differentiated and aggressive thyroid carcinoma.","authors":"Maurizio Marchesi,&nbsp;Marco Biffoni,&nbsp;Fausto Biancari,&nbsp;Alberto Berni,&nbsp;Francesco Paolo Campana","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify the risk factors affecting the outcome of operations for differentiated and aggressive thyroid carcinoma which may indicate the need for a more aggressive surgical treatment.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>University hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients and interventions: </strong>143 patients underwent total thyroidectomy with or without central neck lymphadenectomy or modified neck dissection. There were 85 papillary, 34 follicular, 6 widely-invasive follicular, 6 insular, five oxyphilic, five tall cell, and two diffuse sclerosing papillary carcinomas.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>Disease-related survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 12-years, the survival was 96%, being 98% among patients with differentiated and 83% among those with aggressive carcinoma (p = 0.0006). Insular and oxyphilic carcinomas had the worst prognosis (at 10 years, 67% and 60%, respectively, p < 0.0001). The high-risk age, metastases, and extent score (AMES) group had worse survival than the low-risk group (12 years, 84% compared with 98%, p = 0.001). Among patients with differentiated carcinoma, the low-risk AMES group had also better outcome than those in the high-risk AMES group (at 12 years, 100% compared with 86%, p < 0.0001), but there was no such difference among patients with aggressive disease. Multivariate analysis showed that women (RR 14.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 180.28), patients with tumours > or = 5 cm in size (RR 9.60, 95%CI 1.01 to 91.43) and AMES high-risk patients (RR 30.17, 95% CI 1.57 to 577.48) had the worst outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma, total thyroidectomy and, if the AMES score indicates a high risk, central neck lymphadenectomy with or without modified neck dissection, is associated with a favourable outcome. Poorer outcome is expected if the carcinoma is aggressive, and an aggressive surgical approach is advocated as a routine.</p>","PeriodicalId":77418,"journal":{"name":"The European journal of surgery. Supplement. : = Acta chirurgica. Supplement","volume":" 588","pages":"46-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European journal of surgery. Supplement. : = Acta chirurgica. Supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To identify the risk factors affecting the outcome of operations for differentiated and aggressive thyroid carcinoma which may indicate the need for a more aggressive surgical treatment.

Design: Retrospective study.

Setting: University hospital.

Patients and interventions: 143 patients underwent total thyroidectomy with or without central neck lymphadenectomy or modified neck dissection. There were 85 papillary, 34 follicular, 6 widely-invasive follicular, 6 insular, five oxyphilic, five tall cell, and two diffuse sclerosing papillary carcinomas.

Main outcome measure: Disease-related survival.

Results: At 12-years, the survival was 96%, being 98% among patients with differentiated and 83% among those with aggressive carcinoma (p = 0.0006). Insular and oxyphilic carcinomas had the worst prognosis (at 10 years, 67% and 60%, respectively, p < 0.0001). The high-risk age, metastases, and extent score (AMES) group had worse survival than the low-risk group (12 years, 84% compared with 98%, p = 0.001). Among patients with differentiated carcinoma, the low-risk AMES group had also better outcome than those in the high-risk AMES group (at 12 years, 100% compared with 86%, p < 0.0001), but there was no such difference among patients with aggressive disease. Multivariate analysis showed that women (RR 14.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 180.28), patients with tumours > or = 5 cm in size (RR 9.60, 95%CI 1.01 to 91.43) and AMES high-risk patients (RR 30.17, 95% CI 1.57 to 577.48) had the worst outcome.

Conclusion: In patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma, total thyroidectomy and, if the AMES score indicates a high risk, central neck lymphadenectomy with or without modified neck dissection, is associated with a favourable outcome. Poorer outcome is expected if the carcinoma is aggressive, and an aggressive surgical approach is advocated as a routine.

分化性和侵袭性甲状腺癌患者预后的预测因素。
目的:探讨影响分化性和侵袭性甲状腺癌手术预后的危险因素,提示是否需要更积极的手术治疗。设计:回顾性研究。单位:大学医院。患者和干预措施:143例患者行甲状腺全切除术伴或不伴中央颈部淋巴结切除术或改良颈部清扫术。乳头状癌85例,滤泡癌34例,广泛浸润滤泡癌6例,岛状癌6例,嗜氧性癌5例,高细胞癌5例,弥漫性硬化性乳头状癌2例。主要结局指标:疾病相关生存率。结果:12年生存率为96%,分化癌为98%,侵袭性癌为83% (p = 0.0006)。岛状癌和亲氧性癌预后最差(10年时分别为67%和60%,p < 0.0001)。高危年龄、转移和程度评分(AMES)组生存率低于低危组(12年,84%比98%,p = 0.001)。在分化癌患者中,低危AMES组的预后也优于高危AMES组(12年时,100%比86%,p < 0.0001),但在侵袭性癌患者中无此差异。多因素分析显示,女性(RR 14.28, 95%可信区间(CI) 1.13 ~ 180.28)、肿瘤大小>或= 5 cm的患者(RR 9.60, 95%CI 1.01 ~ 91.43)和AMES高危患者(RR 30.17, 95%CI 1.57 ~ 577.48)预后最差。结论:分化型甲状腺癌患者行全甲状腺切除术,如果AMES评分提示高危,行中央颈部淋巴结切除术伴或不伴改良颈部清扫,均可获得良好的预后。如果肿瘤是侵袭性的,预期预后较差,因此建议将侵袭性手术作为常规方法。
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