Endocrine Abstracts

Introduction: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a group of metabolic abnormalities where insulin resistance (IR) plays a major role. Previous studies have shown that thyroid volume and nodule prevalence were increased in patients with IR. The aim of our study is to evaluate MetS and its components in patients with benign and malignant nodular thyroid disease (NTD).

Methods: A total of 800 patients (430 euthyroid benign and 370 euthyroid malignant NTD) followed in the outpatient clinic of Endocrinology department were analyzed. Fine needle aspiration cytology and histopathological examination, whichever eligible, was considered for the pathological classification of nodules. Serum insulin levels and the level of IR estimated by homeostasis model assessment, as well as other MetS parameters were evaluated. The results were also compared with a reference population study on MetS prevalance.

Results: MetS was detected in 59.8 percent (n=478) of 800 patients. The prevalance was 33.8% in the reference population study (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between benign and malignant NTD groups related to prevalence of the MetS (61.4 and 57.8% respectively, P>0.05). When MetS components were analysed, the most common component was abdominal obesity (n=520, 65%), followed by low HDL-C level (n=518, 64.8%), and high blood glucose level (n=246, 30.8%). There was no significant difference between benign and malignant NTD groups in terms of insulin levels (9.06±5.3 and 8.68±4.8 respectively, P>0.05) and insulin resistance (2.74±2.9 and 2.4±2.2 respectively, P>0.05). Conclusion: When the reference population data is considered, the results suggest that patients with NTD have significantly increased metabolic syndrome prevalence compared to patients without NTD (59.8%, 33.9% respectively). There was no significant difference between benign and malignant NTD in terms of prevalence and distribution of components of MetS.

Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.