| Literature DB >> 31959758 |
Lie-Hao Jiang1, Ke-Xin Yin2, Qing-Liang Wen3, Chao Chen3, Ming-Hua Ge4, Zhuo Tan5.
Abstract
There are about half of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) patients with the experience of central lymph node metastasis (CLNM), while the model to predict high-risk groups of CLNM from PTC patients is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate candidate risk factors of CLNM and identify risk factors of recurrence to guide the postoperative therapeutic decision and follow-up for physicians and patients.A total of 4107 patients(4884 lesions) who underwent lymph node dissection in two hospitals from 2005 to 2014 were evaluated. CLNM risk was stratified and a risk-scoring model was developed on the basis of the identified independent risk factors for CLNM. Cox's proportional hazards regression model was used to investigate the risk factors for recurrence.CLNM was proved in 37.96% (1559/4107) of patients and 33.96% (1659/4884) of lesions. In the multivariate analysis, Male, Age ≤35 years, Tumor size >0.5 cm,Lobe dissemination (+), Psammoma body (+), Multifocality and Capsule invasion (+) were independent risk predictors of CLNM (P < 0.01). A 14-point risk-scoring model was built to predict the stratified CLNM in PTC patients and the area under receiver operating characteristic curve of the model for the prediction of CLNM was 0.672 (95% CI: 0.656-0.688) (P < 0.01). COX regression model showed that Tumor size >0.5 cm, Lobe dissemination (+), Multifocality and CLNM were significant risk factors associated with poor outcomes. The research suggested that prophylactic CLN dissection could be performed in patients with total score ≥4 according to the risk-scoring model, and more aggressive treatment and more frequent follow-up should be considered for patients with Tumor size >0.5 cm, Lobe dissemination (+), Multifocality and CLNM.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31959758 PMCID: PMC6971227 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-55991-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Correlation between Clinical Factors and Central Lymph Node Metastasis(CLNM).
| Central Lymph Node Metastasis in CN0 patients | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| − | + | Case number | Positive rate | ||
| Gender | 0.000 | ||||
| Male | 463 | 446 | 909 | 49.06% | |
| Female | 2085 | 1113 | 3198 | 34.80% | |
| Age (years) | 0.000 | ||||
| ≤25 | 50 | 110 | 160 | 68.75% | 0.000* |
| 25–35 | 322 | 339 | 661 | 51.29% | |
| 35–45 | 785 | 472 | 1257 | 37.55% | |
| 45–55 | 880 | 425 | 1305 | 32.57% | |
| 55–65 | 415 | 165 | 580 | 28.45% | |
| >65 | 96 | 48 | 144 | 33.33% | |
| Tumor size (cm) | 0.000 | ||||
| ≤0.5 | 1570 | 322 | 1892 | 17.02% | 0.000** |
| 0.5–1.0 | 1094 | 634 | 1728 | 36.69% | |
| 1.0–1.5 | 316 | 306 | 622 | 49.20% | |
| 1.5–2.0 | 113 | 168 | 281 | 59.79% | |
| >2.0 | 132 | 229 | 361 | 63.43% | |
| Lobe dissemination | 0.000 | ||||
| − | 3124 | 1448 | 4572 | 31.67% | |
| + | 101 | 211 | 312 | 67.63% | |
| Psammoma body | 0.000 | ||||
| − | 3198 | 1593 | 4791 | 33.25% | |
| + | 27 | 66 | 93 | 70.97% | |
| Tumor number | |||||
| solitary | 2597 | 1229 | 3826 | 32.12% | 0.000 |
| Multifocality | 628 | 430 | 1058 | 40.64% | |
| Bilateral | 0.598 | ||||
| − | 2207 | 1123 | 3330 | 33.72% | |
| + | 1018 | 536 | 1554 | 34.49% | |
| Capsule invasion | 0.000 | ||||
| − | 1988 | 691 | 2679 | 25.79% | |
| + | 1237 | 968 | 2205 | 43.90% | |
*Age ≤35 years versus age >35 years.
** Φ ≤ 0.5 cm versus Φ > 0.5 cm.
Multivariate logistic regression for central lymph node metastasis.
| SEb | Sig.c | Exp(B)d | 95.0% CIe Exp(B)d | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| down | up | |||||
| Gender(male | 0.534 | 0.076 | 0.000 | 1.706 | 1.469 | 1.981 |
| Age(≤35 years | 0.796 | 0.081 | 0.000 | 2.217 | 1.893 | 2.597 |
| Tumor size (Φ > 0.5 cm | 1.149 | 0.078 | 0.000 | 3.154 | 2.706 | 3.676 |
| Lobe dissemination (positive | 1.108 | 0.133 | 0.000 | 3.027 | 2.333 | 3.928 |
| Psammoma bady (positive | 1.150 | 0.248 | 0.000 | 3.158 | 1.943 | 5.132 |
| Capsule invasion (positive | 0.411 | 0.069 | 0.000 | 1.508 | 1.316 | 1.728 |
| Bilateral (positive vs. negative) | 0.073 | 0.072 | 0.312 | 1.076 | 0.933 | 1.240 |
| Tumor number (Multifocality | 0.433 | 0.079 | 0.000 | 1.542 | 1.321 | 1.800 |
| Constant | −1.354 | 0.096 | 0.000 | 0.258 | ||
aB: regression coefficient.
bSE: Standard Error.
cSig: significance.
dExp(B): odds ratio.
eCI: confidence interval.
Figure 1(A) ROC curve of the ability of tumor size to predict the likelihood of metastasis to central lymph nodes. (B) ROC curve of the ability of risk-scoring model to predict the likelihood of metastasis to central lymph nodes.
Development of an 14-point risk-scoring model to predict cervical lymph node metastasis in papillary thyroid carcinoma patients.
| Sig. | Beta coefficient | Point | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Female | |||
| Male | 0.000 | 0.534 | 1.000 |
| Age | |||
| >35 years | |||
| ≤35 years | 0.000 | 0.796 | 2.000 |
| Tumor size | |||
| Φ ≤ 0.5 cm | |||
| Φ > 0.5 cm | 0.000 | 1.149 | 3.000 |
| Lobe dissemination | |||
| negative | |||
| positive | 0.000 | 1.108 | 3.000 |
| Psammoma bady | |||
| negative | |||
| positive | 0.000 | 1.150 | 3.000 |
| Capsule invasion | |||
| negative | |||
| positive | 0.001 | 0.411 | 1.000 |
| Tumor number | |||
| solitary | |||
| multifocality | 0.000 | 0.433 | 1.000 |
Risk scores and percentage of positive central lymph node metastasis in papillary thyroid carcinoma patients.
| Risk score | Negative | Positive | Total | Positive rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 104 | 20 | 124 | 16.13% |
| 1 | 70 | 25 | 95 | 26.32% |
| 2 | 744 | 108 | 852 | 12.68% |
| 3 | 569 | 168 | 737 | 22.80% |
| 4 | 230 | 193 | 423 | 45.63% |
| 5 | 404 | 219 | 623 | 35.15% |
| 6 | 760 | 436 | 1196 | 36.45% |
| 7 | 244 | 276 | 520 | 53.08% |
| 8 | 41 | 84 | 125 | 67.20% |
| 9 | 32 | 64 | 96 | 66.67% |
| 10 | 24 | 49 | 73 | 67.12% |
| 11 | 3 | 11 | 14 | 78.57% |
| 12 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 100.00% |
| 13 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 100.00% |
Log-rank test and Cox’s proportional hazards regression model for recurrence.
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sig.a | DFS rate(%) | Sig.a | Exp(B)b | 95.0% CIc | |
| Gender (male vs female) | 0.054 | 96.7% vs 97.8% | 0.183 | 1.340 | 0.871–2.061 |
| Age (≤35 years vs > 35 years) | 0.658 | 97.7% vs 97.4% | 0.444 | 1.171 | 0.782–1.754 |
| Tumor size (Φ > 0.5 cm vs Φ ≤ 0.5 cm) | 0.000 | 96.7% vs 99.2% | 0.003 | 2.601 | 1.382–4.896 |
| Lobe dissemination (positive vs. negative) | 0.000 | 91.2% vs 98.0% | 0.000 | 2.649 | 1.630–4.305 |
| Psammoma bady (positive vs. negative) | 0.006 | 93.1% vs 97.7% | 0.121 | 1.943 | 0.839–4.497 |
| Capsule invasion (positive vs. negative) | 0.019 | 97.1% vs 98.0% | 0.548 | 0.879 | 0.578–1.338 |
| Bilateral (positive vs. negative) | 0.002 | 96.2% vs 97.9% | 0.128 | 0.677 | 0.410–1.118 |
| Tumor number (Multifocality vs. Solitary) | 0.000 | 94.9% vs 95.8% | 0.000 | 3.070 | 1.973–4.778 |
| CLNM (positive vs. negative) | 0.000 | 95.5% vs 99.1% | 0.000 | 2.914 | 1.728–4.912 |
aSig: significance.
bExp(B): odds ratio.
cCI: confidence interval.
Figure 2DFS rate in 4-factors group was significantly lower than other groups (P < 0.01).