4.5 Article

LOWER RATES OF RESIDUAL/RECURRENT DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH INCIDENTALLY DISCOVERED THYROID CARCINOMA

期刊

ENDOCRINE PRACTICE
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 163-169

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4158/EP161497.OR

关键词

-

资金

  1. Duncan Scholars Fund
  2. Cullen Scholars Fund
  3. Houston Methodist Hospital
  4. U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Incidentally discovered thyroid cancers (IDTCs) have contributed to the rapid rise in thyroid cancer incidence over the past 20 years. Since death rates from thyroid cancer are not increasing, we hypothesized that IDTCs are less aggressive compared to clinically apparent thyroid cancer (CATC). Methods: A retrospective study of patients and tumor characteristics of IDTCs and their rates of residual/recurrent (R/R) disease were determined at a median follow-up of 27 months in the setting of a large academic medical center. Patient analysis groups (IDTC [n = 46] and CATC [n = 126]) were based upon how the cancer was initially discovered. Patients were followed clinically and by biochemical testing and ultrasonography. We also compared time to progression between these groups. Results: Patients in the two groups had similar demographic and tumor characteristics. At the close of the study, R/R status in the IDTC group was 6.7%, compared to 20.8% in the CATC group (P =.04). Of the 28 individuals in our overall cohort who had R/R disease, 3 were from the IDTC group and 25 were from the CATC group (P =.04). All three of the IDTC recurrences occurred within the first 6 months of follow-up. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was a nonsignificant trend for longer progressionfree survival in the IDTC group (P =.08). Conclusion: Compared to CATC patients, IDTC patients have a significantly less aggressive course and a trend toward longer progression-free survival. If confirmed by further studies, it may be reasonable to subject them to less intense surveillance and more conservative therapeutic approaches.

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