4.6 Article

Clinical impact of BRAF mutation on the diagnosis and prognosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 146-157

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eci.12577

关键词

BRAF; diagnosis; meta-analysis; papillary thyroid carcinoma; prognosis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81360370]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe possible role of BRAF(V600E) mutation in the diagnosis and prognosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) remains controversial. A systematic review to investigate the diagnostic and prognostic role of BRAF(V600E) mutation in patients with PTC is urgently needed. MethodsA systematic review of relevant literatures was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL. The incremental accuracy (IA) of fine needle aspiration biopsy plus BRAF(V600E) mutation analysis over fine needle aspiration biopsy alone, and the statistical data about the association of BRAF(V600E) mutation and the prognosis of PTC (risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, standard mean differences for continuous data and hazard ratios (HRs) for disease-free survival (DFS) were pooled. Subgroup analysis was performed to explain the heterogeneities. ResultsA total of 67 studies were included. The pooled IA was 2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 05-4%). The pooled RR for gender, multifocality, lymph node metastasis, extrathyroidal invasion and pathological stage was 111 (95% CI: 098-125), 117 (95% CI: 109-124), 136 (95% CI: 120-153), 160 (95% CI: 141-182), and 149 (95% CI: 133-168), respectively. The pooled standard mean differences for age and tumour size were 014 (95% CI: 004-023) and 021 (95% CI: 01-032), respectively. The pooled HR for DFS was 196 (95% CI: 162-237). Subgroup analysis showed that these statistical results were affected by the geographical background of patients, study design and detection methods. ConclusionsBRAF(V600E) mutation analysis can not only be used in the diagnosis of PTC, but can also predict its prognosis.

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