| Title |
Defining a New Tumor Dimension in Staging of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-017-5764-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ping Wang, Yong Wang, Chundi Miao, Xing Yu, Haichao Yan, Qiuping Xie, Jaiswal Sanjay, Qunzi Zhao |
| Abstract |
Cervical lymph node metastasis is a vital factor associated with local recurrence in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). Tumor size is used in the staging of PTC because it represents the tumor load. This study compared two methods of tumor size assessment to predict tumor behavior in the relationship between size and cervical node involvement for patients with PTC. The study enrolled 1084 patients who underwent initial thyroid surgery and had a pathologic diagnosis of PTC between 2012 and 2014 at The Second Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University School of Medicine. Cervical lymph node metastasis (LNM) risk was analyzed according to the clinicopathologic features. For each patient with multifocal disease, two tumor size estimates were used: (1) the dominant focus size and (2) the aggregate size, calculated as the sum of the maximal diameters of all tumor foci. Of the 1084 patients, 294 (27.1%) had multifocal cancer lesions, and 49% of these patients had cervical LNM, compared with 38.1% who had unifocal disease (P = 0.001). The use of aggregate dimension significantly increased the tumor size and reclassified significant numbers of multifocal PTCs to a more advanced T stage. This aggregate dimension took account of all tumor foci and predicted LNM risk at a proportion identical with that for size-matched, unifocal tumors. Multifocality together with aggregate tumor size is a more accurate predictor of node status and, by inference, tumor behavior in the relationship between tumor size and cervical node involvement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 1 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,454,502
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,431
of 6,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,822
of 422,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#58
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.