4.3 Article

Prognosis of Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma with Initial Distant Metastasis: A Multicenter Study in Korea

期刊

ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 287-295

出版社

KOREAN ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.3803/EnM.2018.33.2.287

关键词

Differentiated thyroid cancer; Neoplasm metastasis; Radioactive iodine; Prognosis

资金

  1. Korean Endocrine Society of EnM Research Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Most patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) have a favorable prognosis. However, patients with DTC and initial distant metastasis have not been commonly found, and their clinical characteristics have seldom been reported. In this study, we analyzed the clinical features and prognosis of patients with DTC and initial distant metastasis in Korea. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 242 patients with DTC and initial distant metastasis treated from 1994 to 2013, collected from five tertiary hospitals in Korea. Results: The patients' median age was 51 years, and 65% were women. They were followed for a median of 7 years. Lung was the most common site of distant metastasis: only lung 149 patients (62%), only bone 49 (20%), other single site one (pleura), and combined sites 43 (40 were lung and bone, two were bone and other site, and one was lung and other site). At the time of diagnosis, 50 patients (21%) had non-radioactive iodine (RAI) avidity. Five-year disease-specific survival (DSS) was 85% and 10-year DSS was 68%, which were better than those in previous studies. After multivariate analysis, old age, male sex, metastatic site, and histologic type (follicular type) were significant factors for poor prognosis. However, negative RAI avidity status was not a significant prognostic factor after adjusting for other variables. Conclusion: The prognosis of Korean patients with DTC and initial distant metastasis was better than in previous studies. Old age, male sex, metastasis site, and histologic type were significant prognostic factors.

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