Ginzberg Sara P, Sharpe James, Passman Jesse E, Amjad Wajid, Wirtalla Christopher J, Soegaard Ballester Jacqueline M, Finn Caitlin B, Mandel Susan J, Kelz Rachel R, Wachtel Heather
Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Thyroid. 2024 Aug;34(8):980-989. doi: 10.1089/thy.2023.0327. Epub 2024 Jul 24.
Large tumor size is associated with poorer outcomes in well-differentiated thyroid cancer, yet it remains unclear whether size >4 cm alone confers increased risk, independent of other markers of aggressive disease. The goal of this study was to assess the relationship between tumor size, other high-risk histopathological features, and survival in well-differentiated thyroid cancer and to evaluate the significance of 4 cm as a cutoff for management decisions. Patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015) and categorized by tumor size (i.e., small [≤4 cm] or large [>4 cm]) and presence of high-risk histopathological features (e.g., extrathyroidal extension). First, propensity score matching was used to identify patients who were similar across all other observed characteristics except for small versus large tumor size, and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the relationship between tumor size and survival. Second, we assessed whether the presence of high-risk features demonstrates conditional effects on survival based on the presence of tumor size >4 cm using an interaction term. Finally, additional models assessed the relationship between incremental 1 cm increases in tumor size and survival. Analyses were repeated using a validation cohort from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (2008-2013). Of 193,133 patients in the primary cohort, 7.9% had tumors >4 cm, and 30% had at least one high-risk feature. After matching, tumor size >4 cm was independently associated with worse survival (HR 1.63, < 0.001). However, tumor size >4 cm and one or more other high-risk features together yielded worse survival than either size >4 cm alone (MMD: 0.70, < 0.001) or other high-risk features alone (MMD: 0.49, < 0.001). When assessed in 1 cm increments, the largest increases in hazard of death occurred at 2 cm and 5 cm, not 4 cm. Results from the validation cohort were largely consistent with our primary findings. Concomitant high-risk features confer worse survival than large tumor size alone, and a 4 cm cutoff is not associated with the greatest increase in risk. These findings support a more nuanced approach to tumor size in the management of well-differentiated thyroid cancer.
在高分化甲状腺癌中,肿瘤体积较大与较差的预后相关,但肿瘤大小>4 cm本身是否会增加风险,独立于侵袭性疾病的其他标志物,仍不清楚。本研究的目的是评估高分化甲状腺癌中肿瘤大小、其他高危组织病理学特征与生存率之间的关系,并评估将4 cm作为管理决策临界值的意义。从国家癌症数据库(2010 - 2015年)中识别出高分化甲状腺癌患者,并根据肿瘤大小(即小肿瘤[≤4 cm]或大肿瘤[>4 cm])和高危组织病理学特征(如甲状腺外侵犯)进行分类。首先,使用倾向评分匹配来识别除肿瘤大小不同外,所有其他观察特征相似的患者,并使用多变量Cox比例风险模型来估计肿瘤大小与生存率之间的关系。其次,我们使用交互项评估高危特征的存在是否基于肿瘤大小>4 cm的存在对生存率产生条件效应。最后,其他模型评估肿瘤大小每增加1 cm与生存率之间的关系。使用监测、流行病学和最终结果计划(2008 - 2013年)的验证队列重复进行分析。在原始队列的193,133例患者中,7.9%的患者肿瘤>4 cm,30%的患者至少有一项高危特征。匹配后,肿瘤大小>4 cm与较差的生存率独立相关(风险比1.63,<0.001)。然而,肿瘤大小>4 cm与一项或多项其他高危特征共同导致的生存率比单独肿瘤大小>4 cm(平均差值:0.70,<0.001)或单独其他高危特征(平均差值:0.49,<0.001)更差。当以1 cm增量进行评估时,死亡风险的最大增加发生在2 cm和5 cm,而非4 cm。验证队列的结果与我们的主要发现基本一致。伴随的高危特征比单独的大肿瘤大小导致更差的生存率,并且4 cm的临界值与风险的最大增加无关。这些发现支持在高分化甲状腺癌的管理中对肿瘤大小采取更细致入微的方法。