4.5 Article

THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TUMOR TISSUE CALCIFICATION, OBESITY, AND THYROID CANCER INVASIVENESS IN A COHORT STUDY

期刊

ENDOCRINE PRACTICE
卷 26, 期 8, 页码 830-839

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.4158/EP-2020-0057

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We examined the relationships between tumor tissue calcifications of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), body mass index (BMI), and tumor invasiveness. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 13,995 patients with PTC. Comparisons were made between the clinical and pathologic features of the tumor tissue calcifications group and non-tumor tissue calcifications group. Odds ratios (ORs) of tumor tissue calcifications, BMI, and tumor invasiveness features were calculated using a binary logistic regression model. We analyzed the relationship between tumor tissue calcifications and certain characteristics of thyroid cancer based on the pathologic findings. Results: BMI was positively correlated with tumor tissue calcifications in patients with PTC (OR, 1.015; P =.011), and obesity increased the risk of tumor tissue calcifications (OR, 1.374; P =.038). Calcifications were positively correlated with T-size (OR, 1.899; P<.001), multifocality (OR, 1.217; P<.001), extrathyroidal extension (ETE) (OR, 1.287; P<.001), high T-stage (OR, 1.765; P<.001), N+ (OR, 1.763; P<.001), and a higher number of lymph node metastases (OR, 1.985; P<.001). Compared with normal-weight patients with tumor tissue calcifications, obese patients with tumor tissue calcifications had an increased risk of ETE (ORobesity, 1.765 vs. ORnormal, 1.300) and N+ (ORobesity, 1.992 vs. ORnormal, 1.784). Conclusion: Tumor tissue calcifications are positively correlated with the invasiveness of PTC. Obesity further promotes the risk of tumor invasiveness in PTC combined with tumor tissue calcifications. These findings suggest that more comprehensive evaluations by trained pathologists may help physicians identify the optimal therapeutic regimens in the postoperative period.

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

4.5
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