4.5 Article

One-step nucleic acid amplification analysis of sentinel lymph nodes in papillary thyroid cancer patients

期刊

ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 1416-1426

出版社

TERMEDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD
DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2017.65466

关键词

papillary thyroid cancer; one-step nucleic acid amplification; lymph nodes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: It is essential to look for methods to define the need for central lymphadenectomy for papillary thyroid cancer patients. The aim is to determine the efficacy of one-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA) and sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in the intraoperative detection of nodal involvement. Material and methods: This prospective, experimental study enrolled 49 patients with clinically negative lymph nodes. Intraoperatively, 1% Patent Blue dye was injected intratumorally. Lymph nodes that stained blue were defined as SLNs. They were directly cut into blocks at 2-mm intervals. Non-adjacent blocks were subjected to either the OSNA assay or histological examination. Results: Sixty-five SLNs were found in 43 (87.8%) patients. There were 20 (30.8%) histopathologically positive SLNs. According to the OSNA, 22 (33.8%) SLNs were positive. The OSNA results were different from histopathology in 8 (12.3%) SLNs. The OSNA gave a positive result in 5 (7.7%) SLNs, while they were not involved according to the histopathology. However, OSNA upstaged N status from N0 to N1 only in 2 (3.1%) patients. Inverse results (histopathology +, OSNA-) were obtained in 3 (4.6%) SLNs. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) for OSNA were 0.77 and 0.93, respectively. The concordance rate between examinations was 85.5%. Conclusions: In some patients with clinically negative lymph nodes, OSNA and SLN biopsy may prevent unnecessary central lymphadenectomy. On the other hand, the sentinel lymph node biopsy may reveal the presence of potentially involved sentinel lymph nodes outside the central compartment. These SLNs can also be assessed by means of OSNA.

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