4.6 Article

Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: Older patients with fewer lymph node metastases

期刊

EJSO
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 1478-1482

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.07.002

关键词

Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma; Lymph node metastasis; High volume metastasis; Age; Risk factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is an important consideration in treatment strategy selection for papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC). The aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors for LNM and high-volume LNM (hvLNM, >5 metastatic lymph nodes). Methods: A consecutive series of 1226 PTMC (947 female, 279 male) patients was reviewed. All patients underwent at least central neck dissection. Clinical-pathological features were assessed. All patients were allocated into Group A (<= 39 yrs), Group B (40-59 yrs), or Group C (>= 60 yrs) for risk factor analysis. Results: Among all patients, 438 LNM and 73 hvLNM were detected. Older patients had significantly fewer LNM (A: 51.45% of 346, B: 30.15% of 786, and C: 24.47% of 94) and fewer hvLNM (A: 11.85%, B: 3.94%, and C: 1.06%). Male, multifocality, and tumor diameter >0.5 cm were also correlated with LNM and hvLNM. In multivariate analysis, older patients had lower risk of LNM (odds ratio [OR] 0.389 in B, 0.305 in C), and chronic thyroiditis was protective factor for LNM (OR 0.524). Male (OR 1.651), tumor diameter >0.5 cm (OR 1.850), and multifocality (OR 1.928) were risk factors for LNM. Similarly, older patients had lower risk of hvLNM (OR 0.313 in B, OR 0.085 in C). Male (OR 2.590), tumor diameter >0.5 cm (OR 2.180), and multifocality (OR 1.980) were also risk factors for hvLNM. Conclusion: Older PTMC patients may have fewer LNM and lower risk of hvLNM. For patients >= 60 years old, dynamic observation may be an option for clinical management. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to the Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

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