Literature DB >> 24050927

Are prognostic scoring systems of value in patients with follicular thyroid carcinoma?

A Ríos1, J M Rodríguez, B Ferri, E Matínez-Barba, B Febrero, P Parrilla.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Most prognostic systems for differentiated carcinoma have been designed for papillary carcinoma.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the value of the existing prognostic systems for evaluating follicular carcinoma and to determine whether any of them have a better predictive effect.
METHODS: A total of 66 follicular carcinomas were analyzed. The following prognostic systems were studied: EORTC, AGES, AMES, MACIS, TNM, and NTCTCS.
RESULTS: The AGES and AMES systems did not demonstrate a good prognostic correlation. In the EORTC system, the rate of disease-free patients was 89% in group 1, 75% in group 2, 69% in group 3, and 0% in group 4. The MACIS system showed 83, 60, 67, and 0% of disease-free patients respectively. The TNM system showed 81, 71, 50, and 0% of disease-free patients respectively. Finally, the NTCTCS system demonstrated 100, 84, 53, and 0% of disease-free patients respectively. Cox's regression analysis was used to calculate the proportion of variation in survival time explained (PVE). The prognostic classification system with the greatest survival prediction was EORTC at 67.64% of PVE, followed by TNM at 62.5% of PVE, and MACIS at 57.82% of PVE.
CONCLUSIONS: MACIS and TNM are good prognostic systems for evaluating follicular thyroid carcinoma, although the one with the most prognostic value was the EORTC system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24050927     DOI: 10.1530/EJE-13-0372

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Endocrinol        ISSN: 0804-4643            Impact factor:   6.664


  6 in total

1.  Locally invasive thyroid cancer: options for a treatment.

Authors:  Nicola Avenia; Jacopo Vannucci; Massimo Monacelli; Andrea Polistena; Francesco Puma
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2017-04-13

2.  Comparison of prognostic scoring systems in follicular thyroid cancer.

Authors:  K W Teo; N K Yuan; W B Tan; R Parameswaran
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  Ultrasonographic risk factors of malignancy in thyroid nodules.

Authors:  A Rios; B Torregrosa; J M Rodríguez; D Rodríguez; A Cepero; M D Abellán; N M Torregrosa; A M Hernández; P Parrilla
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 3.445

4.  Follicular thyroid carcinoma: differences in clinical relevance between minimally invasive and widely invasive tumors.

Authors:  Mauro Podda; Alessandra Saba; Federica Porru; Isabella Reccia; Adolfo Pisanu
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 2.754

5.  Impact of the change from the seventh to eighth edition of the AJCC TNM classification of malignant tumours and comparison with the MACIS prognostic scoring system in non-medullary thyroid cancer.

Authors:  S Dwamena; N Patel; R Egan; M Stechman; D Scott-Coombes
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2019-06-28

6.  Clinicopathological and Survival Outcomes of Well-Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma Undergoing Dedifferentiation: A Retrospective Study from FUSCC.

Authors:  Ben Ma; Weibo Xu; Wenjun Wei; Duo Wen; Zhongwu Lu; Shuwen Yang; Tongzhen Chen; Yulong Wang; Yu Wang; Qinghai Ji
Journal:  Int J Endocrinol       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 3.257

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.