Sparano Clotilde, Rotondi Mario, Verdiani Valentina, Brunori Paolo, Castiglione Francesca, Bartoli Caterina, Perigli Giuliano, Badii Benedetta, Vezzosi Vania, Simontacchi Gabriele, Livi Lorenzo, Antonuzzo Lorenzo, Maggi Mario, Petrone Luisa
Endocrinology Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences 'Mario Serio', University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri IRCCS, Unit of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
J Endocr Soc. 2022 Oct 13;6(12):bvac157. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvac157. eCollection 2022 Oct 26.
Despite the wide revision of current guidelines, the management of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (mPTC) still has to be decided case by case. There is conflicting evidence about the role of more frequent histological subtypes, and no data about potential differences at presentation.
Our aim was to compare the phenotype of the 2 most frequent mPTC variants, namely, classical papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (mPTCc) and the follicular variant of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (mFVPTC) .
Retrospective observational study, from January 2008 to December 2017 of a consecutive series of patients with mPTCc and mFVPTC. All cases were classified according to the 2015 American Thyroid Association (ATA) risk classification. Clinical and preclinical features of mPTCc and mFVPTC at diagnosis were collected. The comparison was also performed according to the incidental/nonincidental diagnosis and differences were verified by binary logistic analysis.
In total, 235 patients were eligible for the analysis (125 and 110 mPTCc and mFVPTC, respectively). Compared with mPTCc, mFVPTCs were more often incidental and significantly smaller (4 vs 7 mm) ( < .001 all), possibly influenced by the higher rate of incidental detection. mFVPTC and incidental ( < .001 both) tumors were significantly more often allocated within the lowrisk class. A logistic regression model, with ATA risk class as the dependent variable, showed that both mFVPTC (OR 0.465 [0.235-0.922]; = .028]) and incidental diagnosis (OR 0.074 [0.036-0.163]; < .001) independently predicted ATA risk stratification.
mFVPTC shows some differences in diagnostic presentation compared with mPTCc, and seems to retain a significant number of favorable features, including a prevalent onset as incidental diagnosis.
尽管当前指南已广泛修订,但甲状腺微小乳头状癌(mPTC)的治疗仍需逐例决定。关于更常见组织学亚型的作用存在相互矛盾的证据,且关于其临床表现潜在差异的数据尚无。
我们的目的是比较两种最常见的mPTC变体的表型,即经典甲状腺微小乳头状癌(mPTCc)和甲状腺微小乳头状癌滤泡变体(mFVPTC)。
对2008年1月至2017年12月一系列连续的mPTCc和mFVPTC患者进行回顾性观察研究。所有病例均根据2015年美国甲状腺协会(ATA)风险分类进行分类。收集mPTCc和mFVPTC诊断时的临床和临床前特征。还根据偶然/非偶然诊断进行比较,并通过二元逻辑分析验证差异。
共有235例患者符合分析条件(分别为125例mPTCc和110例mFVPTC)。与mPTCc相比,mFVPTC更常为偶然发现且明显更小(4对7毫米)(均P<0.001),这可能受偶然发现率较高的影响。mFVPTC和偶然发现的肿瘤显著更常被归类为低风险类别。以ATA风险类别为因变量的逻辑回归模型显示,mFVPTC(比值比0.465[0.235 - 0.922];P = 0.028)和偶然诊断(比值比0.074[0.036 - 0.163];P<0.001)均独立预测ATA风险分层。
与mPTCc相比,mFVPTC在诊断表现上存在一些差异,并且似乎保留了大量有利特征,包括以偶然诊断为主的发病情况。