陈伟超, 姚繁, 杨安奎. 国内甲状腺乳头状癌中央区淋巴结转移术前彩超评估现状[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2019, 46(20): 1040-1045. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2019.20.878
引用本文: 陈伟超, 姚繁, 杨安奎. 国内甲状腺乳头状癌中央区淋巴结转移术前彩超评估现状[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2019, 46(20): 1040-1045. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2019.20.878
Chen Weichao, Yao Fan, Yang Ankui. Current domestic status of preoperative ultrasonography for evaluating central lymph node metastasis from papillary thyroid carcinoma[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 46(20): 1040-1045. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2019.20.878
Citation: Chen Weichao, Yao Fan, Yang Ankui. Current domestic status of preoperative ultrasonography for evaluating central lymph node metastasis from papillary thyroid carcinoma[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 46(20): 1040-1045. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2019.20.878

国内甲状腺乳头状癌中央区淋巴结转移术前彩超评估现状

Current domestic status of preoperative ultrasonography for evaluating central lymph node metastasis from papillary thyroid carcinoma

  • 摘要:
      目的  探究术前彩超对甲状腺乳头状癌(papillary thyroid carcinoma,PTC)中央区淋巴结转移的评估现状及其诊断效能。
      方法  收集2017年1月至2017年12月全国13家三甲医院PTC患者的术前彩超报告及手术病理报告资料,回顾性分析术前彩超对中央区淋巴结转移的评估现状。以术后病理诊断为金标准,分为中央区淋巴结转移组和无转移组。通过两种淋巴结判定方式评估术前彩超对中央区淋巴结转移的诊断效能:1)假设以超声报告发现/描述中央区淋巴结作为转移性淋巴结的诊断标准;2)以超声报告判断/考虑典型的中央区淋巴结转移作为诊断标准。
      结果  除去资料不符者,共收集1 016例患者资料,其中925例术前彩超对中央区淋巴结进行评估。925例中有825例行中央区淋巴结清扫,术后中央区淋巴结转移组384例,无转移组441例。以发现中央区淋巴结为诊断标准,中央区淋巴结的检出率为18.9%(3.0%~50.0%),中央区淋巴结转移的敏感度、特异度和准确度分别为33.59%、89.11%和63.27%。以典型的中央区淋巴结转移征象作为诊断标准,中央区淋巴结的检出率为8.2%(0~33.0%),中央区淋巴结转移的敏感度、特异度和准确度分别为17.97%、97.96%和60.73%。
      结论  彩超对PTC中央区淋巴结转移诊断的检出率和敏感度较低,说明2012年国内指南推荐cN0的PTC在保护功能前提下进行预防性清扫符合目前的评估现状。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To investigate the current status and diagnostic efficacy of preoperative ultrasonography (US) in detecting central lymph node metastasis (CLNM) from papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC).
      Methods  Data of preoperative US findings and surgical pathology of PTC patients were collected from 13 Grade-A tertiary hospitals, and a retrospective analysis of preoperative US assessment for CLNM was conducted. The patients were divided into the metastasis and non-metastasis groups according to postoperative pathological diagnosis of CLNM. Two criteria were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy. One was based on the hypothesis that the US findings of the central lymph node matched the diagnostic criteria for metastatic lymph nodes; the other was based on the hypothesis that the US findings detected typical CLNM characteristics.
      Results  The data of a total of 1, 016 patients were collected. Those who did not fulfill the criteria were excluded, resulting in 925 cases with preoperative US data of the central lymph nodes. Of the 925 patients, 825 underwent central lymph node dissection. Of the included cases, 384 were metastatic and 441 were non-metastatic. When the detection of the central lymph node was used as the diagnostic criteria, the detection rate of CLNM was 18.9% (3.0%-50.0%). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for CLNM detection were 33.59%, 89.11%, and 63.27%, respectively. When the detection of the typical CLNM characteristics was used as the diagnostic criteria, the detection rate was 8.2% (0-33.0%). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for CLNM detection were 17.97%, 97.96%, and 60.73%, respectively.
      Conclusions  The detection rate and sensitivity of US for the diagnosis of CLNM are low, indicating that the 2012 domestic guideline is in line with the current evaluation condition, which recommends prophylactic central neck dissection under the premise of function preservation.

     

/

返回文章
返回