4.6 Article

Prognostic Value of Genetic Mutations in Thyroid Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

THYROID
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 63-70

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2014.0241

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1D1A1A01060977] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Genetic mutations have been found to be associated with thyroid cancer. Previous studies have been focused on the relation between genetic mutations and thyroid cancer. We sought to evaluate the prognostic value of the three most common genetic mutations (BRAF, RAS, and RET) in patients with thyroid cancer. Methods: Sources from MEDLINE (inception to December 2013) and EMBASE (inception to December 2013) were searched. Studies of thyroid cancer with results of genetic mutations and studies that reported survival data were included and two authors performed the data extraction independently. Any discrepancies were resolved by a consensus. Results: Fourteen studies assessing BRAF mutations, 6 RAS mutations, 4 RET mutations, and 1 with analysis of both BRAF and RAS mutations were included in this meta-analysis. Patients with papillary thyroid cancer with BRAF mutations showed a 1.59-fold higher risk of events or a 2.66-fold higher risk of death than patients with papillary thyroid cancer without a BRAF mutation. Also, patients with RAS mutations showed a 2.90-fold higher risk of death by thyroid cancer than patients without a RAS mutation. In addition, patients with medullary thyroid cancer with RET mutations showed a 5.82-fold higher risk of death by the disease than without a RET mutation. Conclusions: Genetic mutations should be considered as a poor prognostic marker in thyroid cancer and may lead to better management of individual patients. However, the use of genetic mutations as prognostic markers should not be generalized, but individualized in the specific clinic setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据