| Literature DB >> 30233240 |
Wen-Xu Jin1,2, Dan-Rong Ye2, Yi-Han Sun2, Xiao-Fen Zhou2, Ou-Chen Wang2, Xiao-Hua Zhang2, Ye-Feng Cai2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative diagnosis of central lymph node metastasis (CLNM) poses to be a challenge in clinical node-negative papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC). This research work aims at investigating the association existing between BRAF mutation, clinicopathological factors, ultrasound characteristics, and CLNM, in addition to establishing a predictive model for CLNM in PTMC.Entities:
Keywords: central lymph node; papillary thyroid microcarcinoma; predictive factor; support vector machine
Year: 2018 PMID: 30233240 PMCID: PMC6130265 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S169741
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Baseline characteristics of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma patients stratified by the status of metastatic central lymph nodes
| Characteristics | The status of metastatic central lymph nodes
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | ||
| Total | 281 (41.8%) | 392 (58.2%) | |
| 7.11±1.90 | 6.44±1.81 | <0.001 | |
| ≤5 (n, %) | 68 (24.2%) | 123 (31.4%) | 0.042 |
| >5 (n, %) | 213 (75.8%) | 269 (68.6%) | |
| 46.37±10.44 | 47.58±10.44 | 0.14 | |
| <45 (n, %) | 121 (43.1%) | 152 (38.8%) | 0.264 |
| ≥45 (n, %) | 160 (56.9%) | 240 (61.2%) | |
| 0.13 | |||
| Male (n, %) | 82 (29.2%) | 94 (24.0%) | |
| Female (n, %) | 199 (70.8%) | 298 (76.0%) | |
| <0.001 | |||
| Yes (n, %) | 243 (86.5%) | 294 (75.0%) | |
| No (n, %) | 38 (13.5%) | 98 (25.0%) | |
| <0.001 | |||
| Lower (n, %) | 78 (27.8%) | 61 (15.6%) | |
| Upper/middle/isthmus (n, %) | 203 (72.2%) | 331 (84.4%) | |
| 0.002 | |||
| Well defined (n, %) | 167 (59.4%) | 278 (70.9%) | |
| Not well defined (n, %) | 114 (40.6%) | 114 (29.1%) | |
| <0.001 | |||
| Yes (n, %) | 159 (56.6%) | 55 (15.2%) | |
| No (n, %) | 122 (43.4%) | 337 (84.8%) | |
| <0.001 | |||
| Present (n, %) | 157 (55.9%) | 127 (32.4%) | |
| Absent (n, %) | 124 (44.1%) | 265 (67.6%) | |
| 0.117 | |||
| Single (n, %) | 221 (78.6%) | 327 (83.4%) | |
| Multiple (n, %) | 60 (21.4%) | 65 (16.6%) | |
| 0.262 | |||
| Yes (n, %) | 57 (20.3%) | 95 (24.2%) | |
| No (n, %) | 224 (79.7%) | 297 (75.8%) | |
| 0.001 | |||
| Present (n, %) | 175 (62.2%) | 194 (49.5%) | |
| Absent (n, %) | 106 (37.8%) | 198 (50.5%) | |
| 0.659 | |||
| Regular (n, %) | 239 (85.1%) | 337 (86.0%) | |
| Irregular (n, %) | 42 (14.9%) | 55 (14.0%) | |
| 0.480 | |||
| Yes (n, %) | 152 (54.1%) | 223 (56.9%) | |
| No (n, %) | 129 (45.9%) | 169 (43.1%) | |
| 0.793 | |||
| Solid (n, %) | 274 (97.5%) | 384 (98.0%) | |
| Cystic or mixed (n, %) | 7 (2.5%) | 8 (2.0%) | |
| 0.506 | |||
| Present (n, %) | 14 (5.0%) | 25 (6.4%) | |
| Absent (n, %) | 267 (95.0%) | 367 (93.6%) | |
Multivariate analysis between the clinicopathologic factors and CLNM
| Characteristic | OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor size (mm) | 1.164 | 1.048–1.294 | 0.005 |
| Tumor location | 1.912 | 1.206–3.034 | 0.006 |
| Margin | 1.695 | 1.136–2.530 | 0.010 |
| Display of enlarged lymph nodes | 5.865 | 3.786–9.087 | <0.001 |
| BRAF mutation | 2.290 | 1.404–3.734 | 0.001 |
| Contact of >25% with the adjacent capsule | 13.833 | 8.696–22.007 | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: CLNM, central lymph node metastasis; OR, odds ratio.
The predictive model and pathological diagnosis of CLNM
| Pathological diagnosis | Predictive model
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Total | |
| Positive | 239 | 42 | 281 |
| Negative | 95 | 297 | 392 |
| Total | 334 | 339 | 673 |
Abbreviation: CLNM, central lymph node metastasis.
The predictive value for the model and independent predictors
| Independent predictors | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size | 75.8 | 31.9 | 79.8 | 64.8 |
| Location | 27.8 | 84.4 | 56.1 | 62.0 |
| Margin | 40.6 | 70.9 | 50.0 | 62.5 |
| Display of enlarged lymph nodes | 55.9 | 67.6 | 55.3 | 68.1 |
| BRAF mutation | 86.5 | 25.0 | 45.3 | 72.1 |
| Contact of >25% with the adjacent capsule | 56.6 | 86.0 | 74.3 | 73.4 |
| The model | 85.1 | 75.8 | 71.6 | 87.6 |
Abbreviations: NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.