BACKGROUND: Although hereditary nonmedullary thyroid cancer is recognized as a distinct and isolated familial syndrome, the precise prevalence and genetic basis are poorly understood. Moreover, whether familial nonmedullary thyroid cancer (FNMTC) has a more aggressive clinical behavior is controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of FNMTC, and compare the extent of disease and tumor somatic genetic alteration in patients with familial and sporadic papillary thyroid cancer. METHODS: The main study entry criterion was patients who had a thyroid nodule that required a clinical evaluation with fine-needle aspiration biopsy and or thyroidectomy. A family history questionnaire was used to determine the presence of familial and sporadic thyroid cancer. Thyroid nodule fine-needle aspiration biopsy samples and tumor tissue at the time of thyroidectomy were used to test for somatic genetic mutations (BRAF V600E, NRAS, KRAS, NTRK1, RET/PTC1, and RET/PTC3). RESULTS: There were 402 patients with 509 thyroid nodules enrolled in the study. The prevalence of FNMTC was 8.8% in all patients with thyroid cancer and 9.4% in patients with only papillary thyroid cancer. None of the patients with FNMTC had another familial cancer syndrome. There was no significant difference in gender, tumor size, lymph node metastasis, and overall stage between sporadic and familial cases of thyroid cancer. Patients with FNMTC were younger at diagnosis than patients with sporadic papillary thyroid cancer (p < 0.002). Seventy-nine of the 504 thyroid nodules had somatic genetic mutations (29 BRAF V600E, 29 NRAS, 8 KRAS, 1 NTRK1, 4 RET/PTC1, and 8 RET/PTC3). There was no significant difference in the number or type of somatic mutations between sporadic and hereditary cases of papillary thyroid cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We found a higher prevalence of FNMTC in patients with papillary thyroid cancer than previously reported. Patients with FNMTC present at a younger age. Somatic mutations and extent of disease are similar in sporadic and FNMTC cases.
BACKGROUND: Although hereditary nonmedullary thyroid cancer is recognized as a distinct and isolated familial syndrome, the precise prevalence and genetic basis are poorly understood. Moreover, whether familial nonmedullary thyroid cancer (FNMTC) has a more aggressive clinical behavior is controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of FNMTC, and compare the extent of disease and tumor somatic genetic alteration in patients with familial and sporadic papillary thyroid cancer. METHODS: The main study entry criterion was patients who had a thyroid nodule that required a clinical evaluation with fine-needle aspiration biopsy and or thyroidectomy. A family history questionnaire was used to determine the presence of familial and sporadic thyroid cancer. Thyroid nodule fine-needle aspiration biopsy samples and tumor tissue at the time of thyroidectomy were used to test for somatic genetic mutations (BRAF V600E, NRAS, KRAS, NTRK1, RET/PTC1, and RET/PTC3). RESULTS: There were 402 patients with 509 thyroid nodules enrolled in the study. The prevalence of FNMTC was 8.8% in all patients with thyroid cancer and 9.4% in patients with only papillary thyroid cancer. None of the patients with FNMTC had another familial cancer syndrome. There was no significant difference in gender, tumor size, lymph node metastasis, and overall stage between sporadic and familial cases of thyroid cancer. Patients with FNMTC were younger at diagnosis than patients with sporadic papillary thyroid cancer (p < 0.002). Seventy-nine of the 504 thyroid nodules had somatic genetic mutations (29 BRAF V600E, 29 NRAS, 8 KRAS, 1 NTRK1, 4 RET/PTC1, and 8 RET/PTC3). There was no significant difference in the number or type of somatic mutations between sporadic and hereditary cases of papillary thyroid cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We found a higher prevalence of FNMTC in patients with papillary thyroid cancer than previously reported. Patients with FNMTC present at a younger age. Somatic mutations and extent of disease are similar in sporadic and FNMTC cases.
Authors: G Lupoli; G Vitale; M Caraglia; M R Fittipaldi; A Abbruzzese; P Tagliaferri; A R Bianco Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-02-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: F Leprat; F Bonichon; M Guyot; H Trouette; M Trojani; V Vergnot; M Longy; G Belleannée; A de Mascarel; P Roger Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: T Pal; F D Vogl; P O Chappuis; R Tsang; J Brierley; H Renard; K Sanders; T Kantemiroff; S Bagha; D E Goldgar; S A Narod; W D Foulkes Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Young Joo Park; Hwa Young Ahn; Hoon Sung Choi; Kyung Won Kim; Do Joon Park; Bo Youn Cho Journal: Thyroid Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Gary L Francis; Steven G Waguespack; Andrew J Bauer; Peter Angelos; Salvatore Benvenga; Janete M Cerutti; Catherine A Dinauer; Jill Hamilton; Ian D Hay; Markus Luster; Marguerite T Parisi; Marianna Rachmiel; Geoffrey B Thompson; Shunichi Yamashita Journal: Thyroid Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Bryan R Haugen; Erik K Alexander; Keith C Bible; Gerard M Doherty; Susan J Mandel; Yuri E Nikiforov; Furio Pacini; Gregory W Randolph; Anna M Sawka; Martin Schlumberger; Kathryn G Schuff; Steven I Sherman; Julie Ann Sosa; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle; Leonard Wartofsky Journal: Thyroid Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: I J Nixon; C Suárez; R Simo; A Sanabria; P Angelos; A Rinaldo; J P Rodrigo; L P Kowalski; D M Hartl; M L Hinni; J P Shah; A Ferlito Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Sudheer Kumar Gara; Li Jia; Maria J Merino; Sunita K Agarwal; Lisa Zhang; Maggie Cam; Dhaval Patel; Electron Kebebew Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 91.245