4.7 Article

Surgical Curability of Medullary Thyroid Cancer in Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia 2B A Changing Perspective

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 259, 期 4, 页码 800-806

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a6f43a

关键词

cancer-specific survival; intestinal ganglioneuromatosis; MEN 2B; medullary thyroid carcinoma; tearless crying

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This investigation aimed at exploring the suitability of nonendocrine manifestations preceding medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) for early diagnosis of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B (MEN 2B). Background: MEN 2B patients, running a high risk of metastatic MTC, must be diagnosed early for biochemical cure. Methods: Forty-four MEN 2B patients carrying inherited (3 patients) and de novo (41 patients) M918T RET mutations were examined for signs and symptoms prompting MEN 2B. Results: All 3 patients with inherited mutations were diagnosed before the age of 1 year and cured of their C-cell disease. Among 41 patients with de novo mutations, MEN 2B was diagnosed in 12 patients after recognition of nonendocrine manifestations [intestinal ganglioneuromatosis (6 patients), oral symptoms (5 patients), ocular (tearless crying) (4 patients), and skeletal stigmata (1 patient) alone or concomitantly]. In the remaining 29 patients with de novo mutations, the diagnosis of MEN 2B was triggered by symptomatic MTC (28 patients) or pheochromocytoma (1 patient). The former patients, being significantly (P < 0.001) younger (means of 5.3 vs 17.6 years) and having lower calcitonin levels (means of 115 vs 25,519 pg/mL), smaller tumors (67% vs 0% were 10 mm) and less often extrathyroidal extension (0% vs 81%), lymph node (42% vs 100%), and distant metastases (8% vs 79%), were biochemically cured more often (58% vs 0%). Conclusions: MTC is curable in patients with de novo mutations when nonendocrine MEN 2B components are quickly appreciated and surgical intervention is performed before patients turn 4 years old.

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

4.7
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