4.4 Article

Implications of oncocytic change in papillary thyroid cancer

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 85, 期 5, 页码 797-804

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cen.13115

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chungnam National University Hospital Research Fund
  2. Chungnam National University [2014-2142-01]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [2012M3A9B2027958]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveAlthough the presence of oncocytic change in less than 75% of a tumour is not considered to indicate oncocytic variants of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), we frequently observe partial oncocytic change, especially in obese PTC patients. Thus, we sought to investigate the relationship between the presence of oncocytic change of PTC and its prognosis. Design, setting and participantsWe retrospectively studied 142 patients with PTC who had undergone surgery between 2000 and 2005, and re-evaluated their PTC slides to record the proportion of oncocytic change in 10% increments from 0% to 100%. Major outcome measureWe analysed the relationship between the proportion of oncocytic change and clinicopathological prognostic factors. ResultsOncocytic change was found in 458% (65/142) of PTC patients. The proportion of patients with oncocytic change was higher in obese patients than in lean patients and showed a significant correlation with the BMI (r = 0195, P = 0020). The PTC patients with oncocytic change showed a higher recurrence rate than PTC patients without oncocytic change (308% vs 117%, respectively; P = 0005). The presence of oncocytic change in PTC patients was associated with a shorter disease-free survival in a Kaplan-Meier analysis after a mean follow-up of 89 years. ConclusionThe patients with PTC with oncocytic change presented with a higher recurrence rate and were more likely to be obese. These findings suggest that presence of oncocytic change is a poor prognostic factor in PTC patients, even if the oncocytic change involves less than 75% of a tumour.

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

4.4
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