4.6 Article

Impact of extent of resection for thyroid cancer invading the aerodigestive tract on surgical morbidity, local recurrence, and cancer-specific survival

期刊

SURGERY
卷 148, 期 6, 页码 1257-1266

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2010.09.011

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The appropriate resection for thyroid cancer invading the aerodigestive tract remains controversial. Methods. A total of 174 patients underwent resections for aerodigestive tract invasion from differentiated thyroid cancer (103 patients), medullary thyroid cancer (40 patients), and undifferentiated thyroid cancers/unusual thyroid neoplasms (31 patients). In all 82 patients submitted to transmural resections (window resection, sleeve resection, or cervical evisceration), 65 patients underwent nontransmural resections (shaving or extramucosal esophageal resections), and 27 patients had grossly incomplete resections. The measures of outcome included surgical morbidity, locoregional recurrence, and disease-specific survival. Results. Surgical morbidity was 38 % after transmural and 25 % after nontransmural resection (P = .02). On histapathologic examination, surgical margins were microscopically involved in, 9% of patients after transmural and 23% of patients after nontransmural resection (P = .014). At a mean follow-up of 35.3 months, locoregional recurrence developed in 10 (46 %) of 22 patients with microscopically incomplete and 18 (15%) of 121 patients with microscopically complete resection (P = .001). After grossly complete resection, the mean disease-specific survival was 101.2, 69.8, and 25.5 months for differentiated thyroid cancel; medullary thyroid cancel; and undifferentiated thyroid cancer/unusual neoplasms, respectively (P < .001). This outcome was independent of the type of resection. Conclusion. The type of cancer and resection are key determinants of outcome among thyroid cancer patients with aerodigestive tract invasion. (Surgery 2010;148:1257-66.)

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