| Literature DB >> 33868164 |
Jinxiao Sun1,2, Qi Jiang2,3, Xian Wang2, Wenhua Liu2, Xin Wang1,2.
Abstract
Objective: Accurate preoperative identification of cervical lymph node metastasis (CLNM) is essential for clinical management and established of different surgical protocol for patients with papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC). Herein, we aimed to develop an ultrasound (US) features and clinical characteristics-based nomogram for preoperative diagnosis of CLNM for PTMC. Method: Our study included 552 patients who were pathologically diagnosed with PTMC between January 2015 and June 2019. All patients underwent total thyroidectomy or lobectomy and divided into two groups: CLNM and non-CLNM. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to examine risk factors associated with CLNM. A nomogram comprising the prognostic model to predict the CLNM was established, and internal validation in the cohort was performed.Entities:
Keywords: lymphatic metastasis; microcarcinoma; nomograms; thyroid cancer; ultrasound
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33868164 PMCID: PMC8044509 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.613974
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Figure 1(A) A patient’s thyroid ultrasound showed punctated hyperecho in the nodule, indicating the presence of microcalcification. (B) A representative patient with ETE showed echogenic capsule line loss at the contact site of the lesion (red arrow) and microcalcification in the nodule.
Clinicopathological characteristics and US features associated with CLNM in PTMC patients.
| Variables | CLNM(−) | CLNM(+) | P值 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 0.009 | ||
| Male | 65 | 60 | |
| Female | 271 | 156 | |
| Age | 51.0 ± 11.0 | 43.6 ± 11.1 | <0.001 |
| <45 | 252 | 105 | <0.001 |
| ≥45~ | 84 | 111 | |
| Location | 0.657 | ||
| Isthmus | 12 | 5 | |
| Upper | 72 | 56 | |
| Middle | 162 | 109 | |
| Lower | 90 | 46 | |
| HT | 0.701 | ||
| Negative | 264 | 162 | |
| Positive | 72 | 54 | |
| US-reported CLN status | <0.001 | ||
| Negative | 284 | 127 | |
| Positive | 52 | 89 | |
| Multifocality | 0.008 | ||
| Negative | 291 | 150 | |
| Positive | 45 | 66 | |
| Bilaterality | 0.002 | ||
| Negative | 306 | 193 | |
| Positive | 30 | 23 | |
| Tumor size(cm) | 0.025 | ||
| <0.6 | 177 | 75 | |
| ≥0.6 | 159 | 141 | |
| Margin | |||
| Smooth | 84 | 67 | 0.195 |
| Ill-defined | 252 | 149 | |
| Shape | |||
| Regular | 47 | 37 | 0.676 |
| Irregular | 289 | 179 | |
| Internal echo | |||
| homogeneous | 35 | 12 | 0.178 |
| heterogeneous | 301 | 204 | |
| A/T | 0.941 | ||
| ≤1 | 177 | 114 | |
| >1 | 159 | 102 | |
| Microcalcification | <0.001 | ||
| Negative | 201 | 66 | |
| Positive | 135 | 150 | |
| ETE | <0.001 | ||
| Negative | 255 | 99 | |
| Positive | 81 | 117 | |
| Pre-operative TSH (mU/L) | 0.832 | ||
| <2.5 | 219 | 135 | |
| ≥2.5 | 117 | 81 | |
| Pre-operative TGAb (kU/L) | 0.822 | ||
| <1 | 210 | 141 | |
| ≥1 | 126 | 75 | |
| Pre-operative TPOAb (kU/L) | 0.630 | ||
| <1 | 156 | 90 | |
| ≥1 | 180 | 126 |
Univariate and multivariate analysis of 552 PTMC primary sites with clinical and US features for predicting CLNM.
| Independent variable | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | |
| Age(years) | ||||
| ≥45 | 1(reference) | 1(reference) | ||
| < 45 | 3.171(1.700–6.007) | <0.001 | 4.621 (2.160–9.347) | <0.001 |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 1(reference) | 1(reference) | ||
| Male | 2.374(1.243–3.774) | 0.002 | 1.974(1.243–2.774) | 0.004 |
| US-reported CLN status | ||||
| Negative | 1(reference) | 1(reference) | ||
| Positive | 2.154 (0.995–3.547) | <0.001 | 1.894 (0.754–3.347) | 0.005 |
| Multifocality | ||||
| Negative | 1(reference) | 1(reference) | ||
| Positive | 2.845(1.369–6.061) | 0.001 | 1.793 (0.774–2.649) | 0.007 |
| Bilaterality | ||||
| Negative | 1(reference) | 1(reference) | ||
| Positive | 1.372 (1.192–1.594) | 0.024 | 1.074 (0.763-1.402) | 0.763 |
| Tumor size(cm) | ||||
| <0.6 | 1(reference) | 1(reference) | ||
| ≥0.6 | 2.093(1.144–3.892) | 0.005 | 1.731 (0.793–3.852) | 0.018 |
| Microcalcification | ||||
| Negative | 1(reference) | 1(reference) | ||
| Positive | 3.384(1.825–6.429) | <0.001 | 2.316 (1.099–4.964) | <0.001 |
| ETE | ||||
| Negative | 1(reference) | 1(reference) | ||
| Positive | 3.721(1.988–7.092) | <0.001 | 3.772 (1.752–8.441) | <0.001 |
Figure 2Nomogram for predicting CLNM in PTMC patients.
Figure 3ROC curve analysis to predict CLNM in PTMC patients.
Figure 4Calibration curves of the nomogram for predicting CLNM in PTMC patients.