4.7 Article

Central cervical nodal metastasis from papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: Pattern and factors predictive of nodal metastasis

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 2482-2486

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-008-0044-6

关键词

papillary thyroid microcarcinoma; cervical metastasis; neck dissection; node metastatic pattern; predictive factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although several factors are thought to predict the occurrence of lymph node metastases from papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), the pattern of nodal metastasis has been rarely studied. We evaluated the pattern and factors predictive of central cervical metastasis from PTMC. Methods: Seventy-two patients with PTMC underwent total thyroidectomy and central neck dissection, including three who underwent therapeutic modified radical neck dissection. Lymph node involvement was analyzed by neck subsite, and clinicopathologic variables predictive of nodal metastasis were determined. Results: Central and lateral nodal metastases were found in 29 (40.3%) and 3 (4.2%) patients, respectively, and ipsilateral paratracheal, pretracheal, superior mediastinal, and contralateral paratracheal lymph node metastases in 27 (37.5%), 8 (11.1%), 4 (5.6%), and 1 (1.4%), respectively. Sex, age, tumor size, multifocality, bilaterality, extracapsular invasion, lymphovascular invasion, and MACIS (metastases, age, completeness of resection, invasion, size) for central node metastasis were not predictive of metastasis (P > .1). Temporary and permanent hypocalcemia was observed in 17 (23.6%) and 1 (1.4%) patients, respectively, and transient vocal fold paralysis in 1 (1.4%). Conclusion: Despite the absence of palpable neck nodes, PTMC is associated with a high rate of central lymph node metastasis to ipsilateral and pretracheal subsites. No clinicopathologic factor predicted nodal metastasis. In patients with PTMC involving one lobe and positive nodes, neck dissection may exclude the contralateral side.

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