4.6 Article

Presentation and outcome of subsequent thyroid cancer among childhood cancer survivors compared to sporadic thyroid cancer: a matched national study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 183, 期 2, 页码 169-180

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-20-0153

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at increased risk to develop differentiated thyroid cancer predominantly after radiotherapy (subsequent DTC). It is insufficiently known whether subsequent DTC in CCS has a different presentation or outcome than sporadic DTC. Methods: Patients with subsequent DTC (n = 31) were matched to patients with sporadic DTC (n = 93) on gender, age and year of diagnosis to compare presentation and DTC outcomes. Clinical data were collected retrospectively. Results: Among the CCS with subsequent DTC, all but one had received chemotherapy for their childhood cancer, 19 (61.3%) had received radiotherapy including the thyroid region, 3 (9.7%)I-131-MIBG and 8 (25.8%) had received treatment with chemotherapy only. Subsequent DTC was detected by surveillance through neck palpation (46.2%), as a self-identified mass (34.6%), or by chance. Among sporadic DTC patients, self detection predominated (68.8%). CCS with subsequent DTC tended to have on average smaller tumors (1.9 vs 2.4 cm, respectively, (P = 0.051), and more often bilateral (5/25 (60.0%) vs 28/92 (30.4%), P = 0.024). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of surgical complications, recurrence rate or disease-related death. Conclusion: When compared to patients with sporadic DTC, CCS with subsequent DTC seem to present with smaller tumors and more frequent bilateral tumors. Treatment outcome seems to be similar. The finding that one-third of subsequent DTC cases had been treated with chemotherapy only needs further investigation. These results are important for the development of surveillance programs for CCS at risk for DTC and for treatment guidelines of subsequent DTC.

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