PURPOSE: To investigate the prognostic value of the BRAF V600E mutation and the recently identified TERT promoter mutation chr5:1,295,228C>T (C228T), individually and in their coexistence, in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of the relationship of BRAF and TERT C228T mutations with clinicopathologic outcomes of PTC in 507 patients (365 women and 142 men) age 45.9 ± 14.0 years (mean ± SD) with a median follow-up of 24 months (interquartile range, 8 to 78 months). RESULTS: Coexisting BRAF V600E and TERT C228T mutations were more commonly associated with high-risk clinicopathologic characteristics of PTC than they were individually. Tumor recurrence rates were 25.8% (50 of 194;77.60 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 58.81 to 102.38) versus 9.6% (30 of 313; 22.88 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 16.00 to 32.72) in BRAF mutation-positive versus -negative patients (hazard ratio [HR], 3.22; 95% CI, 2.05 to 5.07) and 47.5% (29 of 61; 108.55 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 75.43 to 156.20) versus 11.4% (51 of 446; 30.21 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 22.96 to 39.74) in TERT mutation-positive versus -negative patients (HR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.19 to 5.45). Recurrence rates were 68.6% (24 of 35; 211.76 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 141.94 to 315.94) versus 8.7% (25 of 287; 21.60 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 14.59 to 31.97) in patients harboring both mutations versus patients harboring neither mutation (HR, 8.51; 95% CI, 4.84 to 14.97), which remained significant after clinicopathologic cofactor adjustments. Disease-free patient survival curves displayed a moderate decline with BRAF V600E or TERT C228T alone but a sharp decline with two coexisting mutations. CONCLUSION: Coexisting BRAF V600E and TERT C228T mutations form a novel genetic background that defines PTC with the worst clinicopathologic outcomes, providing unique prognostic and therapeutic implications.
PURPOSE: To investigate the prognostic value of the BRAFV600E mutation and the recently identified TERT promoter mutation chr5:1,295,228C>T (C228T), individually and in their coexistence, in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of the relationship of BRAF and TERTC228T mutations with clinicopathologic outcomes of PTC in 507 patients (365 women and 142 men) age 45.9 ± 14.0 years (mean ± SD) with a median follow-up of 24 months (interquartile range, 8 to 78 months). RESULTS: Coexisting BRAFV600E and TERTC228T mutations were more commonly associated with high-risk clinicopathologic characteristics of PTC than they were individually. Tumor recurrence rates were 25.8% (50 of 194;77.60 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 58.81 to 102.38) versus 9.6% (30 of 313; 22.88 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 16.00 to 32.72) in BRAF mutation-positive versus -negative patients (hazard ratio [HR], 3.22; 95% CI, 2.05 to 5.07) and 47.5% (29 of 61; 108.55 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 75.43 to 156.20) versus 11.4% (51 of 446; 30.21 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 22.96 to 39.74) in TERT mutation-positive versus -negative patients (HR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.19 to 5.45). Recurrence rates were 68.6% (24 of 35; 211.76 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 141.94 to 315.94) versus 8.7% (25 of 287; 21.60 recurrences per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 14.59 to 31.97) in patients harboring both mutations versus patients harboring neither mutation (HR, 8.51; 95% CI, 4.84 to 14.97), which remained significant after clinicopathologic cofactor adjustments. Disease-free patient survival curves displayed a moderate decline with BRAFV600E or TERTC228T alone but a sharp decline with two coexisting mutations. CONCLUSION: Coexisting BRAFV600E and TERTC228T mutations form a novel genetic background that defines PTC with the worst clinicopathologic outcomes, providing unique prognostic and therapeutic implications.
Authors: R Michael Tuttle; Douglas W Ball; David Byrd; Raza A Dilawari; Gerard M Doherty; Quan-Yang Duh; Hormoz Ehya; William B Farrar; Robert I Haddad; Fouad Kandeel; Richard T Kloos; Peter Kopp; Dominick M Lamonica; Thom R Loree; William M Lydiatt; Judith C McCaffrey; John A Olson; Lee Parks; John A Ridge; Jatin P Shah; Steven I Sherman; Cord Sturgeon; Steven G Waguespack; Thomas N Wang; Lori J Wirth Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Tae Hyuk Kim; Young Joo Park; Jung Ah Lim; Hwa Young Ahn; Eun Kyung Lee; You Jin Lee; Kyung Won Kim; Seo Kyung Hahn; Yeo Kyu Youn; Kwang Hyun Kim; Bo Youn Cho; Do Joon Park Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Isaac Kinde; Enrico Munari; Sheila F Faraj; Ralph H Hruban; Mark Schoenberg; Trinity Bivalacqua; Mohamad Allaf; Simeon Springer; Yuxuan Wang; Luis A Diaz; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Nickolas Papadopoulos; George J Netto Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Jonathan R George; Ying C Henderson; Michelle D Williams; Dianna B Roberts; Hu Hei; Stephen Y Lai; Gary L Clayman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Mahkam Tavallaee; David F Steiner; James L Zehnder; Ann K Folkins; Amer K Karam Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Armita Bahrami; Seungjae Lee; Inga-Marie Schaefer; Jennifer M Boland; Kurt T Patton; Stanley Pounds; Christopher D Fletcher Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 7.842