| Literature DB >> 25382196 |
Yu-Chuan Hu1, Lang Wu2, Lin-Feng Yan1, Wen Wang3, Shu-Mei Wang4, Bao-Ying Chen1, Gang-Feng Li1, Bei Zhang1, Guang-Bin Cui1.
Abstract
It is highly necessary to identify low versus high risk thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) before operation to guide optimal treatment strategies. Current CT diagnostic parameters could not effectively achieve this goal. We evaluated three parameters of CT scan in a cohort of 216 TETs patients. Parameters of contrast enhancement, risk of aggressiveness, and nodule with fibrous septum were evaluated in low (A, AB) versus high risk (B1, B2, B3 and thymic carcinoma) TETs. Grade of contrast enhancement showed predictive value in classifying low and high risk TETs well. A maximal contrast-enhanced range of 25.5 HU could produce 78.8% sensitivity and 68.5% specificity in determining low risk subtypes. Additionally, risk of aggressiveness parameter was demonstrated to be associated with TETs subtype (r = 0.801, P < 0.001) and may add confidence in determining low versus high risk subtypes. Furthermore, multiple nodule with fibrous septum could suggest subtype AB. Findings from this study support role of studied parameters of CT manifestations in predicting the low and high risk stages of TETs. These findings provide empirical evidence for incorporating these parameters in clinical practice for identifying TETs stage before operation, if validated in additional studies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25382196 PMCID: PMC4225535 DOI: 10.1038/srep06984
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Clinical and Demographic Characteristics of the Patients
| A (n = 11) | AB (n = 47) | B1 (n = 38) | B2 (n = 43) | B3 (n = 21) | Thymic carcinoma (n = 56) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient characteristics | | P-value | |||||
| 0.013 | |||||||
| Males | 6(55) | 25(53) | 17(45) | 23(53) | 16(76) | 43(77) | |
| Females | 5(45) | 22(47) | 21(55) | 20(47) | 5(24) | 13(23) | |
| Age | 0.466 | ||||||
| <45 years | 2(18) | 17(36) | 15(40) | 20(46) | 5(24) | 17(30) | |
| 45–55 years | 2(18) | 13(28) | 10(26) | 12(28) | 5(24) | 14(25) | |
| >55 years | 7(64) | 17(36) | 13(34) | 11(26) | 11(52) | 25(45) | |
| <0.001 | |||||||
| Yes | 5(45) | 21(45) | 22(58) | 27(63) | 3(14) | 1(2) | |
| No | 6(55) | 26(55) | 16(42) | 16(37) | 16(76) | 55(98) | |
| <0.001 | |||||||
| No symptom | 6(55) | 16(34) | 9(23) | 9(21) | 2(10) | 9(16) | |
| Myasthenia | 5(45) | 21(45) | 22(58) | 27(63) | 3(14) | 1(2) | |
| Chest pain | — | 1(2) | 3(8) | 1(2) | 7(33) | 25(45) | |
| Respiratory symptoms | — | 7(15) | 3(8) | 5(12) | 7(33) | 13(23) | |
| Others | — | 2(4) | 1(3) | 1(2) | 2(10) | 8(14) | |
*P-values were calculated by Monte Carlo Test.
Relationship between CT findings and WHO histologic subtypes
| Variable | A (n = 11) | AB (n = 47) | B1(n = 38) | B2(n = 43) | B3(n = 21) | Thymic Carcinoma (n = 56) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum diameter - no.(%) | 0.000 | ||||||
| <4 | 4(36) | 15(32) | 20(53) | 24(56) | 8(38) | 11(20) | |
| 4–8 | 6(55) | 18(38) | 15(40) | 15(35) | 8(38) | 19(34) | |
| >8 | 1(9) | 14(30) | 3(8) | 4(9) | 5(24) | 26(46) | |
| Mean diameter(mean ± sd; cm) | 3.97 ± 2.37 | 5.52 ± 2.47 | 4.36 ± 1.78 | 3.95 ± 1.73 | 5.27 ± 2.68 | 6.00 ± 2.31 | 0.000 |
| 0.206 | |||||||
| Round | 6(55) | 20(42) | 14(37) | 16(37) | 9(43) | 22(39) | |
| Oval | 5(45) | 23(49) | 16(42) | 18(42) | 5(24) | 18(32) | |
| Irregular | — | 4(9) | 8(21) | 9(21) | 7(33) | 16(29) | |
| 0.000 | |||||||
| Smooth | 8(73) | 12(25) | 9(24) | — | — | — | |
| Lobulated | 3(27) | 30(64) | 19(50) | 29(67) | 4(19) | 8(14) | |
| Irregular | — | 5(11) | 10(26) | 14(33) | 17(81) | 48(86) | |
| 0.000 | |||||||
| Almost complete | 11(100) | 31(66) | 13(34) | 8(19) | — | 1(2) | |
| Partial | — | 16(34) | 25(66) | 35(81) | 21(100) | 55(98) | |
| 0.002 | |||||||
| Homogeneous | 9(82) | 24(51) | 15(40) | 23(53) | 7(33) | 14(25) | |
| Heterogeneous | 2(18) | 23(49) | 23(61) | 20(47) | 14(67) | 42(75) | |
| 0.000 | |||||||
| Yes | 2(18) | 36(77) | 5(13) | 2(5) | 1(5) | — | |
| No | 9(82) | 11(23) | 33(87) | 41(95) | 20(95) | 56(100) | |
| 0.474 | |||||||
| Yes | 1(9) | 12(26) | 13(34) | 11(26) | 8(38) | 19(34) | |
| No | 10(91) | 35(74) | 25(66) | 32(74) | 13(62) | 37(66) | |
| 0.000 | |||||||
| Yes | 1(9) | 14(30) | 16(42) | 15(35) | 10(48) | 39(70) | |
| No | 10(91) | 33(70) | 22(58) | 28(65) | 11(52) | 17(30) | |
| 0.000 | |||||||
| Yes | — | 1(2) | 4(11) | 12(28) | 12(57) | 49(88) | |
| No | 11(100) | 46(98) | 34(89) | 31(72) | 9(43) | 7(12) | |
| 0.000 | |||||||
| Yes | — | — | — | 2(5) | 1(5) | 21(37) | |
| No | 11(100) | 47(100) | 38(100) | 41(95) | 20(95) | 35(63) | |
| 0.000 | |||||||
| Yes | — | — | 6(16) | 15(35) | 19(90) | 55(98) | |
| No | 11(100) | 47(100) | 32(84) | 28(65) | 2(10) | 1(2) | |
| Grade I | 11(100) | 31(66) | 13(34) | 8(19) | — | — | |
| Grade II | — | 15(32) | 19(50) | 20(46) | 2(10) | 1(2) | |
| Grade III | — | 1(2) | 2(5) | 4(9) | 7(33) | 7(12) | |
| Grade IV | — | — | 4(11) | 11(26) | 12(57) | 48(86) |
*P-values were calculated by ANOVA;
†P-values were calculated by Monte Carlo Test.
Relationship between patterns of contrast-enhancement and WHO histologic subtypes
| Variable | A (n = 7) | AB (n = 26) | B1 (n = 22) | B2 (n = 24) | B3 (n = 15) | Thymic Carcinoma (n = 47) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEmax | |||||||
| Mean ± sd(HU) | 41.1 ± 15.8a | 33.0 ± 9.6b | 23.0 ± 8.7c | 22.0 ± 8.2c | 20.9 ± 9.5c | 23.6 ± 9.1c | 0.000 |
| Pattern of CE - no.(%) | 0.000 | ||||||
| Mild | — | 2(8) | 10(45.5) | 14(58) | 8(53) | 16(34) | |
| Moderate | 3(43) | 15(57) | 10(45.5) | 9(38) | 6(40) | 29(62) | |
| Strong | 4(57) | 9(35) | 2(9) | 1(4) | 1(7) | 2(4) |
*P-values were calculated by one-way ANOVA; the different alphabet represented a significant difference between the two groups;
†P-values were calculated by Monte Carlo Test.
CEmax: maximal contrast-enhanced range; CE: contrast enhancement.
Figure 1The relationship between mean CEmax value (HU) and the WHO pathological classification of thymic epithelial tumors.
Figure 2The receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve describing the diagnostic performance of the maximal contrast-enhanced range (CEmax) to identify the low risk (A, AB) from high risk (B1, B2, B3 and thymic carcinoma) subtypes of TETs.
Figure 3The relationship between mean grade of aggressive risk and the WHO pathological classification of thymic epithelial tumors.