| Literature DB >> 35757396 |
Fan Yao1,2,3, Zhongyuan Yang1,2,3, Yixuan Li1,2,3, Weichao Chen1,2,3, Tong Wu1,2,3, Jin Peng1,2,3, Zan Jiao1,2,3, Ankui Yang1,2,3.
Abstract
Introduction: Guidelines for prophylactic dissection in clinical central negative node (cN0) of papillary thyroid carcinoma vary among different countries due to the uncertainty on the benefit of dissection. The Chinese guidelines recommend prophylactic central compartment lymph node dissection (pCLND) under professional technology. Preoperative ultrasound (US) evaluation of central lymph node determines the surgical strategy used. Sensitivity differs significantly when US is conducted by different physicians even in diverse hospitals. In this study, the aim was to explore why the Chinese guidelines were different from the America Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines through the real-world evidence on the preoperative diagnosis of cN0.Entities:
Keywords: central lymph mode metastasis; papillary thyroid carcinmona; real-world data; sensitivity; ultrasound
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35757396 PMCID: PMC9223469 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.865911
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 6.055
The basic situation of preoperative US evaluation in13 Grade-A tertiary hospitals among China.
| Hospitals | Cases | LN-Evaluated | US-diagnosed CLNM (Strict Criteria) | CLND | No CLND with CLNM (Strict Criteria) | Pathological CLNM | Pathological CLNM With LLNM | CLND with No US-Diagnosed CLNM | Occult CLNM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 100 | 100(100.0%) | 2 (2.0%) | 56 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 55 | 18(32.7%) |
|
| 67 | 67(100.0%) | 0 (0%) | 67 | 0 | 29 | 19 | 67 | 29(43.3%) |
|
| 79 | 67 (84.8%) | 0 (0%) | 77 | 0 | 34 | 14 | 77 | 34(44.2%) |
|
| 72 | 53 (73.6%) | 1 (1.4%) | 70 | 0 | 35 | 7 | 69 | 34(49.3%) |
|
| 99 | 92 (92.9%) | 4 (4.0%) | 99 | 0 | 28 | 5 | 94 | 24(25.5%) |
|
| 106 | 105(99.1%) | 35 (33.0%) | 102 | 0 | 59 | 25 | 61 | 25(41.0%) |
|
| 50 | 50(100.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | 50 | 0 | 20 | 5 | 44 | 15(34.1%) |
|
| 21 | 15 (71.4%) | 0 (0%) | 18 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 18 | 6(33.3%) |
|
| 74 | 73 (98.6%) | 8 (10.8%) | 74 | 0 | 40 | 9 | 64 | 31(48.4%) |
|
| 97 | 97 (99.0%) | 15 (15.3%) | 96 | 1 | 47 | 11 | 79 | 31(39.2%) |
|
| 99 | 97 (98.0%) | 1 (1.0%) | 24 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 18 | 10(55.6%) |
|
| 98 | 98(100.0%) | 15 (15.3%) | 41 | 3 | 29 | 12 | 26 | 15(57.7%) |
|
| 53 | 11 (20.8%) | 0 (0%) | 51 | 0 | 23 | 6 | 51 | 23(45.1%) |
|
| 1,015 | 925(91.1%) | 83 (8.2%) | 825 | 5 | 384 | 115 | 723 | 295(40.8%) |
The diagnostic value of preoperative US in CLNM.
| Pathological Diagnosis | Sensitivity(%) | Specificity(%) | Accuracy(%) | PPV(%) | NPV(%) | Jω (ω = 0.6) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasonic Diagnosis | CLN positive | CLN negative | ||||||||
|
| Multicenter | CLN positive | 89 | 13 | 23.18% | 97.05% | 62.67% | 87.25% | 59.20% | 0.05456 |
| CLN negative | 295 | 428 | ||||||||
| Standardized Training | CLN positive | 369 | 64 | 37.58% | 91.94% | 61.88% | 85.22% | 54.36% | 0.18568 | |
| CLN negative | 613 | 730 | ||||||||
| Specialized Evaluation | US | CLN positive | 117 | 19 | 58.21% | 86.23% | 69.62% | 86.03% | 58.62% | 0.38836 |
| CLN negative | 84 | 119 | ||||||||
| US/CT | CLN positive | 170 | 40 | 84.58% | 71.01% | 79.06% | 80.95% | 75.97% | 0.58304 | |
| CLN negative | 31 | 98 | ||||||||
Standardized training was performed by different physicians and surgeons.
Specialized evaluation was performed by the same group of physicians and surgeons.
The basic situation of preoperative US evaluation in our single medical center.
| Cases | LN-Evaluated | US-Diagnosed CLNM | CLND | Pathological CLNM | Pathological CLNM with LLNM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standardized Training | 1,776 | 1,776 (100.0%) | 433 (24.4%) | 1,776 | 982 (55.29%) | 392 | |
| Specialized Evaluation | US | 339 | 339 (100.0%) | 136 (40.1%) | 339 | 201 (59.29%) | / |
| CT/US | 339 | 339 (100.0%) | 210 (61.9%) | 339 | 201 (59.29%) | / |
Standardized training was performed by different physicians and surgeons.
Specialized evaluation was performed by the same group of physicians and surgeons.