4.4 Article

Prognostic value of the BRAF V600E mutation in papillary thyroid carcinoma

Journal

ONCOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 439-443

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2013.1713

Keywords

BRAF V600E; prognostic value; papillary thyroid carcinoma

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Sichuan Province, Science and Technology Support Program [2011SZ0147]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of the BRAF V600E mutation in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) and to determine the correlation between this mutation and indicators of poor prognosis and outcome in patients with PTC. The BRAF V600E mutation status was analyzed in 187 tumor samples using the multiplex allele-specific PCR method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the association of the BRAF V600E mutation with clinical features and patient outcome. The sensitivity of the multiplex allele-specific PCR combined with denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography reached similar to 1%. The BRAF V600E mutation was observed in 63.6% (119/187) of tumor tissues, predominantly in PTC specimens, and no BRAF mutation was identified in other benign-type thyroid diseases. The univariate analysis indicated that the BRAF V600E mutation was associated with age, tumor stage and prognosis (P<0.05). In addition, the frequency of the BRAF V600E mutation was significantly different in the central (75.3%) and lateral neck (49.3%) lymph nodes of patients with lymph node metastasis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the BRAF V600E mutation (HR, 2.471; 95% CI, 1.149-5.312) and lymph node metastasis (HR, 3.003; 95% CI, 1.027-8.771) are independent factors that predict tumor prognosis. Thus, the BRAF V600E mutation is an independent risk factor that may be used to predict thyroid cancer persistence/recurrence.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available