4.3 Article

Clinical characteristics, treatment, and long-term outcome of patients with brain metastases from thyroid cancer

期刊

CLINICAL & EXPERIMENTAL METASTASIS
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 217-226

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10585-023-10208-8

关键词

Papillary; Follicular; Medullary; Anaplastic thyroid cancer; Brain metastases; Real world data

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, brain metastases (BM) in patients with thyroid cancer (TC) were found to be rare, with follicular and papillary thyroid carcinomas being the most common types. Most of the patients presented with symptomatic single lesions, and some patients were able to achieve long-term survival with local therapy.
Brain metastases (BM) in patients with thyroid cancer (TC) are rare with an incidence of 1% for papillary and follicular, 3% for medullary and up to 10% for anaplastic TC (PTC, FTC, MTC and ATC). Little is known about the characteristics and management of BM from TC. Thus, we retrospectively analyzed patients with histologically verified TC and radiologically verified BM identified from the Vienna Brain Metastasis Registry. A total of 20/6074 patients included in the database since 1986 had BM from TC and 13/20 were female. Ten patients had FTC, 8 PTC, one MTC and one ATC. The median age at diagnosis of BM was 68 years. All but one had symptomatic BM and 13/20 patients had a singular BM. Synchronous BM at primary diagnosis were found in 6 patients, while the median time to BM diagnosis was 13 years for PTC (range 1.9-24), 4 years for FTC (range 2.1-41) and 22 years for the MTC patient. The overall survival from diagnosis of BM was 13 months for PTC (range 1.8-57), 26 months for FTC (range 3.9-188), 12 years for the MTC and 3 months for the ATC patient. In conclusion, development of BM from TC is exceedingly rare and the most common presentation is a symptomatic single lesion. While BM generally constitute a poor prognostic factor, individual patients experience long-term survival following local therapy.

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

4.3
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