ECE2017 Eposter Presentations: Thyroid Thyroid (non-cancer) (260 abstracts)
Evaluation of differentiated thyroid cancer patients according to different scoring systems: a single center experience
Bekir Cakir 1 , Cevdet Aydin 1 , Berna Evranos Ogmen 2 , Ali Abbas Tam 1 , Sefika Burcak Polat 1 , Husniye Baser 2 , Neslihan Cuhaci 1 , Fatma Dilek Kahramanca 2 , Nagihan Bestepe 2 , Cuneyt Bilginer 1 , Sevgul Faki 1 , Mehmet Kilic 4 , Aydan Kilicarslan 3 & Reyhan Ersoy 1
1Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey; 2Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; 3Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey; 4Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey.
Introduction: True risk evaluation is important in the management of thyroid cancer. We aimed to evaluate patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) according to the different staging systems.
Method: Data of patients diagnosed with DTC between 2007 and 2014 at our institution were analysed retrospectively. TNM, MACIS, EORTC, AMES, De Groot, ETA, LATS, and ATA staging systems were applied to patients according to their original description. In ATA risk classification system, we classified patients into four categories considering inappropriate postoperative thyroglobulin levels.
Results: There were 983 patients (218 male and 765 female) with a mean age of 49.4±12.5 and a mean follow-up of 42.6±24.3 months. Distribution of patients according to the staging systems were as follows; TNM: 81.1%, 4.7%, 12.7%, 1%, 0.3%, 0.2% of patients in stage I, II, III, IVA, IVB, IVC respectively; MACIS: 91%, 5.9%, 2.2%, 0.8% of patients in group 1–4 respectively; EORTC: 39.4%, 36.7%, 19.8%, 4%, 0.1% of patients in group 1–5 respectively; AMES: 82.2% of patients in low risk and 17.8% in high-risk group; De Groot: 81.6%, 4.7%, 13.3%, 0.4% of patients in stages 1–4 respectively; ETA: 35.5%, 25.9%, 12.4%, 26.1% of patients in very low, low, high and undetermined risk groups respectively; LATS: 35.5%, 26.7%, 17.7%, 20.1% of patients in very low, low, high and undetermined risk groups respectively. According to ATA, distribution of patients in low, intermediate, high and undetermined risk groups were respectively 26.4, 8.7, 40.8 and 23.6% in category 1, 39.7, 12.9, 23.8 and 23.6% in category 2, 46.7, 15.2, 14.5 and 23.6% in category 3, and 3.9, 19.2, 3.3 and 23.6% in category 4.
Conclusion: Variable scoring systems with variable risk assessments were suggested for DTC in the literature. A standardized categorization is required to overcome confusion and help clinicians during management of these patients.
Article tools
My recent searches
My recently viewed abstracts
Authors
Endocrine Abstracts
ISSN 1470-3947 (print) | ISSN 1479-6848 (online)
© Bioscientifica 2024 |
Privacy policy |
Cookie settings
BiosciAbstracts
Bioscientifica Abstracts is the gateway to a series of products that provide a permanent, citable record of abstracts for biomedical and life science conferences.
Find out more