Li Xinhua, Gui Zhiqiang, Xu Chun, Xiang Jingzhe, Ming Jie, Huang Tao, Jiang Mingming, Zhang Hao, Wang Zhihong
Department of Thyroid Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Department of Breast & Thyroid Surgery, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Int J Surg. 2025 Jun 25. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000002673.
The 2015 American Thyroid Association guidelines recommend total thyroidectomy (TT) followed by radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy as the primary treatment modality for intermediate-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) patients with lateral lymph node metastasis (LLNM). However, the supporting evidence remains insufficient. The clinical superiority of TT versus lobectomy (LT) in this patient population remains unclear, and the optimal surgical approach for intermediate-risk PTC with LLNM continues to be debated.
This meta-analysis examined the clinical superiority of TT versus LT for intermediate-risk PTC with unilateral LLNM.
This PRISMA/AMSTAR-compliant meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRDXXX) evaluated recurrence-free survival (RFS) in intermediate-risk PTC with unilateral LLNM. Systematic searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (2004-2024) combined MeSH terms and title/abstract: ("papillary thyroid carcinoma" OR "papillary thyroid cancer" OR "PTC") AND ("lateral cervical lymph node metastasis" OR "lateral neck lymph node metastasis" OR "lateral lymph node metastasis" OR "lateral cervical nodal metastasis" OR "N1b") AND ("thyroidectomy" OR "total thyroidectomy" OR "lobectomy"). Two investigators independently extracted data on surgical outcomes, adjuvant RAI therapy, and RFS metrics, with quality assessed via Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Prespecified subgroup analyses examined RAI utilization and surgical extent impacts. Pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Review Manager 5.3, prioritizing adjusted HR. Heterogeneity was assessed via I2 statistics.
Among 609 initially identified references, 8 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, comprising 2,462 intermediate-risk PTC patients with unilateral LLNM. Of these, 53.3% (1,313/2,462) underwent TT, and 46.7% (1,149/2,462) underwent LT. Compared with the TT group, LT showed no statistically significant difference on RFS (HR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.83-1.40, p = 0.56). In subgroup analyses: Compared with TT + RAI, LT showed no significant difference in RFS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.40-1.08, p = 0.10); Compared with TT + RAI, LT or TT alone showed no significant difference in RFS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.41-1.03, p = 0.07); Compared with TT alone, LT showed no significant difference in RFS (HR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.63-2.12, p = 0.64); Compared with TT + RAI, TT alone showed no significant difference in RFS (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.42-1.81, p = 0.37).
For intermediate-risk PTC patients with isolated unilateral LLNM, TT and LT demonstrate comparable oncological outcomes in terms of RFS. Unilateral LLNM alone should not constitute an absolute indication for TT. When no additional high-risk features are present, LT may serve as a preferable alternative to optimize quality of life while maintaining oncological safety.
2015年美国甲状腺协会指南推荐,对于伴有侧方淋巴结转移(LLNM)的中度风险甲状腺乳头状癌(PTC)患者,行全甲状腺切除术(TT)继发放射性碘(RAI)治疗作为主要治疗方式。然而,支持证据仍然不足。在这一患者群体中,TT与甲状腺叶切除术(LT)相比的临床优势尚不清楚,对于伴有LLNM的中度风险PTC的最佳手术方式仍存在争议。
本荟萃分析探讨了TT与LT治疗伴有单侧LLNM的中度风险PTC的临床优势。
本项符合PRISMA/AMSTAR标准的荟萃分析(PROSPERO:CRDXXX)评估了伴有单侧LLNM的中度风险PTC的无复发生存期(RFS)。对PubMed、科学网和考克兰图书馆(2004 - 2024年)进行系统检索,结合医学主题词和标题/摘要:(“甲状腺乳头状癌”或“甲状腺乳头状腺癌”或“PTC”)以及(“侧方颈部淋巴结转移”或“侧颈部淋巴结转移”或“侧方淋巴结转移”或“侧方颈部淋巴结转移”或“N1b”)以及(“甲状腺切除术”或“全甲状腺切除术”或“甲状腺叶切除术”)。两名研究者独立提取关于手术结果、辅助RAI治疗和RFS指标的数据,并通过纽卡斯尔 - 渥太华量表评估质量。预先设定的亚组分析检查了RAI的使用情况和手术范围的影响。使用Review Manager 5.3计算合并风险比(HR)及95%置信区间(CI),优先使用调整后的HR。通过I²统计量评估异质性。
在最初识别的609篇参考文献中,8项研究符合纳入和排除标准,包括2462例伴有单侧LLNM的中度风险PTC患者。其中,53.3%(1313/2462)接受了TT,46.7%(1149/2462)接受了LT。与TT组相比,LT在RFS方面无统计学显著差异(HR = 1.08,95% CI 0.83 - 1.40,p = 0.56)。在亚组分析中:与TT + RAI相比,LT在RFS方面无显著差异(HR = 0.66,95% CI 0.40 - 1.08,p = 0.10);与TT + RAI相比,单独的LT或TT在RFS方面无显著差异(HR = 0.65,95% CI 0.41 - 1.03,p = 0.07);与单独的TT相比,LT在RFS方面无显著差异(HR = 1.16,95% CI 0.63 - 2.12,p = 0.64);与TT + RAI相比,单独的TT在RFS方面无显著差异(HR = 0.87,95% CI 0.42 - 1.81,p = 0.37)。
对于伴有孤立性单侧LLNM的中度风险PTC患者,在RFS方面,TT和LT显示出相当的肿瘤学结局。仅单侧LLNM不应构成TT的绝对指征。当不存在其他高危特征时,LT可作为一种更优选择,在维持肿瘤学安全性的同时优化生活质量。