AbdulRahman Y Hammad1, Salem I Noureldine1, Tian Hu1, Yasin Ibrahim1, Hammad M Masoodi1, Emad Kandil1. 1. 1 Dvision of Endocrine and Oncologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA ; 2 Division of Head and Neck Endocrine Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA ; 3 Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Tulane University School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor size is recognized as an important predictor of malignancy in many types of cancers. However, there is no clear line of characterization when it comes to the association between thyroid nodule size and malignancy risk prediction; and the current data remains inconsistent across different studies. The aim of our study is to examine the association between nodule size and malignancy using meta-analysis of the current literature. METHODS: Data sources were gathered through systemic search of PubMed, Embase and other scientific databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and June 1, 2013. A reference group with nodule sizes <3 cm was set as a control group. Two other nodule size categories were established and these included nodules from 3-5.9 cm and nodules ≥6 cm in size. Primary outcome was a histologically proven malignancy per nodule size category. The effect sizes of clinicopathologic parameters, which are the quantitative measures of association strength between two variables, were calculated by the means of odds ratios (OR). The effect sizes were then combined using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria with 10,817 thyroid nodules evaluated. Malignancy was identified in 2,206 (20.4%) nodules. After adjusting for patient age and gender, nodules that measured 3-5.9 cm had a 26% greater malignancy risk compared to those measuring <3 cm [OR, 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.39]. However, nodules 6 cm or larger had a 16% lower risk of malignancy compared to those measuring <3 cm (OR, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.73-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Thyroid nodule size predicts cancer risk. However, a threshold effect of thyroid nodule size 6 cm or greater is significantly associated with a more benign disease.
BACKGROUND: Tumor size is recognized as an important predictor of malignancy in many types of cancers. However, there is no clear line of characterization when it comes to the association between thyroid nodule size and malignancy risk prediction; and the current data remains inconsistent across different studies. The aim of our study is to examine the association between nodule size and malignancy using meta-analysis of the current literature. METHODS: Data sources were gathered through systemic search of PubMed, Embase and other scientific databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and June 1, 2013. A reference group with nodule sizes <3 cm was set as a control group. Two other nodule size categories were established and these included nodules from 3-5.9 cm and nodules ≥6 cm in size. Primary outcome was a histologically proven malignancy per nodule size category. The effect sizes of clinicopathologic parameters, which are the quantitative measures of association strength between two variables, were calculated by the means of odds ratios (OR). The effect sizes were then combined using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria with 10,817 thyroid nodules evaluated. Malignancy was identified in 2,206 (20.4%) nodules. After adjusting for patient age and gender, nodules that measured 3-5.9 cm had a 26% greater malignancy risk compared to those measuring <3 cm [OR, 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.39]. However, nodules 6 cm or larger had a 16% lower risk of malignancy compared to those measuring <3 cm (OR, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.73-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Thyroid nodule size predicts cancer risk. However, a threshold effect of thyroid nodule size 6 cm or greater is significantly associated with a more benign disease.
Authors: William Méndez; Steven E Rodgers; John I Lew; Raquel Montano; Carmen C Solórzano Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Zubair W Baloch; Virginia A LiVolsi; Syl L Asa; Juan Rosai; Maria J Merino; Gregory Randolph; Philippe Vielh; Richard M DeMay; Mary K Sidawy; William J Frable Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: M Salih Deveci; Güzin Deveci; Virginia A LiVolsi; Prabodh K Gupta; Zubair W Baloch Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: Michelle D Williams; James W Suliburk; Gregg A Staerkel; Naifa L Busaidy; Gary L Clayman; Douglas B Evans; Nancy D Perrier Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Konstantinos D Papapostolou; Catherine C Evangelopoulou; Ioannis A Ioannidis; Georgia N Kassi; Konstantinos S Morfas; Nikolaos I Karaminas; Helen J Karga Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: M Jinih; F Faisal; K Abdalla; M Majeed; A A Achakzai; C Heffron; J McCarthy; H P Redmond Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: María Molina-Vega; Carlos Antonio Rodríguez-Pérez; Ana Isabel Álvarez-Mancha; Gloria Baena-Nieto; María Riestra; Victoria Alcázar; Ana Reyes Romero-Lluch; Juan C Galofré; José C Fernández-García Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Eun Ju Ha; Sae Rom Chung; Dong Gyu Na; Hye Shin Ahn; Jin Chung; Ji Ye Lee; Jeong Seon Park; Roh-Eul Yoo; Jung Hwan Baek; Sun Mi Baek; Seong Whi Cho; Yoon Jung Choi; Soo Yeon Hahn; So Lyung Jung; Ji-Hoon Kim; Seul Kee Kim; Soo Jin Kim; Chang Yoon Lee; Ho Kyu Lee; Jeong Hyun Lee; Young Hen Lee; Hyun Kyung Lim; Jung Hee Shin; Jung Suk Sim; Jin Young Sung; Jung Hyun Yoon; Miyoung Choi Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 3.500