4.7 Article

Defining a Valid Age Cutoff in Staging of Well-Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 410-415

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4762-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA008748] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCR NIH HHS [K08 DE024774] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Age 45 years is used as a cutoff in the staging of well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) as it represents the median age of most datasets. The aim of this study was to determine a statistically optimized age threshold using a large dataset of patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center. Overall, 1807 patients with a median follow-up of 109 months were included in the study. Recursive partitioning was used to determine which American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) variables were most predictive of disease-specific death, and whether a different cutoff for age would be found. From the resulting tree, a new age cutoff was picked and patients were restaged using this new cutoff. The 10-year disease-specific survival (DSS) by Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) stage was 99.6, 100, 96, and 81 % for stages I-IV, respectively. Using recursive partitioning, the presence of distant metastasis was the most powerful predictor of DSS. For M0 patients, age was the next most powerful predictor, with a cutoff of 56 years. For M1 patients, a cutoff at 54 years was most predictive. Having reviewed the analysis, age 55 years was selected as a more robust age cutoff than 45 years. The 10-year DSS by new stage (using age 55 years as the cutoff) was 99.2, 98, 100, and 74 % for stages I-IV, respectively. A change in age cutoff in the AJCC/UICC staging for WDTC to 55 years would improve the accuracy of the system and appropriately prevent low-risk patients being overstaged and overtreated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available