Size discrepancy between ultrasonic and pathological measurement of solitary cN0M0 papillary thyroid microcarcinoma

doi:10.16139/j.1007-9610.2024.04.12

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To compare the size discrepancy between ultrasonic and pathological measurement of solitary cN0M0 papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC), and to explore their correlation with lymph node metastasis. Methods From April 2021 to January 2022, 234 patients with solitary cN0M0 PTMC who received thyroid lobectomy or total thyroidectomy in the Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine were analyzed retrospectively. The size discrepancy between ultrasonic and pathological measurement were compared, and the risk factors of central lymph node metastasis were analyzed. Results The mean of maximum diameter of PTMC measured by ultrasound was 6.8 (range 5.6 to 8.4) mm, which was significantly bigger than that measured by pathology 5.0 (range 4.0 to 7.0) mm (P=0.000). Of them, 37.2% of the tumor size measured by ultrasound is consistent with pathology, 61.1% of the tumor size measured by ultrasound is bigger than that measured by pathology, and only 1.7% of the tumor size measured by ultrasound is smaller than that measured by pathology. There was a linear correlation between the diameter measured by ultrasound and pathology. And the regression equation can be expressed as: pathological diameter =0.799 × ultrasonic diameter -0.221. In addition, 28.6% patients had central lymph node metastasis. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that the diameter measured by pathology is a risk factor for central lymph node metastasis in patients (OR=17.845, 95%CI: 2.507-127.025, P=0.004), and the cutoff value is 5.5 mm which corresponded to the diameter measured by ultrasound as 7.2 mm. Conclusions The sizes of solitary cN0M0 PTMC measured by ultrasound and pathology are different but also correlated. PMTC with pathological diameter >5.5 mm with its corresponding ultrasonic diameter as 7.2 mm indicated an increased risk of central lymph node metastasis.

Key words: Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, Ultrasonic diameter, Pathological diameter, Central lymph node metastasis

CLC Number:

R736.1

REN Yujie, LI Yujiang, ZENG Zheng, WANG Jianhua, DING Wenbo, WU Xinping, LIU Chao, XU Shuhang. Size discrepancy between ultrasonic and pathological measurement of solitary cN0M0 papillary thyroid microcarcinoma[J]. Journal of Surgery Concepts & Practice, 2024, 29(04): 345-350.

Figures/Tables 5

Fig 1

Tab 1

Tab 2

Tab 3

Fig 2

References 21

[1]	SUNG H, FERLAY J, SIEGEL R L, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3):209-249.
[2]	BALOCH Z W, ASA S L, BARLETTA J A, et al. Overview of the 2022 WHO classification of thyroid Neoplasms[J]. Endocr Pathol, 2022, 33(1):27-63. doi: 10.1007/s12022-022-09707-3 pmid: 35288841
[3]	HAUGEN B R, ALEXANDER E K, BIBLE K C, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association management guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer: the American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer[J]. Thyroid,2016, 26(1):1-133.
[4]	BACHAR G, BUDA I, COHEN M, et al. Size discrepancy between sonographic and pathological evaluation of solitary papillary thyroid carcinoma[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2013, 82(11):1899-1903. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.07.002 pmid: 23948454
[5]	TESSLER F N, MIDDLETON W D, GRANT E G, et al. ACR thyroid imaging, reporting and data system (TI-RADS): white paper of the ACR TI-RADS committee[J]. J Am Coll Radiol, 2017, 14(5):587-595. doi: S1546-1440(17)30186-2 pmid: 28372962
[6]	赖兴建, 张波, 姜玉新, 等. 超声影像和病理测量甲状腺乳头状癌的差异[J]. 中国医学科学院学报, 2015, 37(3):305-308. doi: 10.3881/j.issn.1000-503X.2015.03.011
	LAI X J, ZHANG B, JIANG Y X, et al. Discrepancy of papillary thyroid carcinoma sizes measured by ultrasonography and pathology[J]. ACTA Acad Med Sin, 2015, 37(3):305-308.
[7]	中国抗癌协会甲状腺癌专业委员会(CATO). 甲状腺微小乳头状癌诊断与治疗中国专家共识(2016版)[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2016, 43(10):405-411.
	Chinese Association of Thyroid Oncology(CATO). Chinese expert consensus on diagnosis and treatment of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (2016 Edition)[J]. Chin J Clin Oncol, 2016, 43(10):405-411.
[8]	中华医学会内分泌学分会, 中华医学会外科学分会甲状腺及代谢外科学组, 中国抗癌协会头颈肿瘤专业委员会, 等. 甲状腺结节和分化型甲状腺癌诊治指南(第二版)[J]. 中华内分泌代谢杂志, 2023, 39(3):181-226.
	Chinese Society of Endocrinology, Thyroid and Metabolism Surgery Group of the Chinese Society of Surgery, China Anti-Cancer Association, Chinese Association of Head and Neck Oncology, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer (Second edition)[J]. Chin J Endocrinol Metab, 2023, 39(3):181-226.
[9]	HAHN S Y, SHIN J H, OH Y L, et al. Discrepancies between the ultrasonographic and gross pathological size of papillary thyroid carcinomas[J]. Ultrasonography, 2016, 35(3):220-225. doi: 10.14366/usg.15077 pmid: 26983767
[10]	CHUNG S R, CHOI Y J, LEE S S, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in sonographic measurement of diameter and volume of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma[J]. Thyroid, 2021, 31(3):452-458. doi: 10.1089/thy.2020.0317 pmid: 33287640
[11]	K K, KAMBOJ V, SREEDHARAN S, et al. Effect of formalin fixation on tumour size and margins in head and neck cancer specimens[J]. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital, 2022, 42(5):434-440. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-N2185 pmid: 36541381
[12]	ZHANG C, LI B J, LIU Z, et al. Predicting the factors associated with central lymph node metastasis in clinical node-negative (cN0) papillary thyroid microcarcinoma[J]. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2020, 277(4):1191-1198. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-05787-1 pmid: 31932880
[13]	KIM B Y, CHOI N, KIM S W, et al. Randomized trial of prophylactic ipsilateral central lymph node dissection in patients with clinically node negative papillary thyroid microcarcinoma[J]. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2020, 277(2):569-576. doi: 10.1007/s00405-019-05702-3 pmid: 31664515
[14]	WEN X, JIN Q, CEN X, et al. Clinicopathologic predictors of central lymph node metastases in clinical node-negative papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2022, 20(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02573-7 pmid: 35365171
[15]	WANG Z, GUI Z, WANG Z, et al. Clinical and ultrasonic risk factors for high-volume central lymph node metastasis in cN0 papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: a retrospective study and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2023, 98(4):609-621.
[16]	WANG W H, XU S Y, ZHAN W W. Clinicopathologic factors and thyroid nodule sonographic features for predicting central lymph node metastasis in papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: a retrospective study of 1204 patients[J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2016, 35(11):2475-2481.
[17]	FENG J W, YE J, WU W X, et al. Management of cN0 papillary thyroid microcarcinoma patients according to risk-scoring model for central lymph node metastasis and predictors of recurrence[J]. J Endocrinol Invest, 2020, 43(12):1807-1817.
[18]	REN Y, HAN X, LI Y, et al. Initial ablation ratio predicts the recurrence of low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinomas treated with microwave ablation: a 5-year, single-institution cohort study[J]. Endocr Connect, 2023, 12(9):e230128.
[19]	MA T, WANG L, ZHANG X, et al. A clinical and molecular pathology prediction model for central lymph node metastasis in cN0 papillary thyroid microcarcinoma[J]. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2023,14:1075598.
[20]	WANG D, HU J, DENG C, et al. Predictive nomogram for central lymph node metastasis in papillary thyroid microcarcinoma based on pathological and ultrasound features[J]. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2023,14:1108125.
[21]	VITA R, IENI A, TUCCARI G, et al. The increasing prevalence of chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis in papillary microcarcinoma[J]. Rev Endocr Metab Disord, 2018, 19(4):301-309.

Items		Results
Gender
Female		185 (79.1)
Male		49 (20.9)
Age (years)		43 (34, 52)
Location
	Left lobe	97 (41.5)
	Right lobe	132 (56.4)
	Isthmus	5 (2.1)
Tumor size (mm)
Ultrasound		6.8 (5.6, 8.4)
Pathology		5.0 (4.0, 7.0)
Agreement		87 (37.2)
Disagreement
	Overestimation	143 (61.1)
	Underestimation	4 (1.7)
Chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis		72 (30.8)
CLNM		67 (28.6)

Model	Non-standardized coefficient		Standardized coefficient		t value	P value	95%CI
Model	B	Standard error		Beta	t value	P value	95%CI
Maximum tumor diameter measured by ultrasound	0.799	0.062	0.649		12.987	0.000	0.678-0.920
Intercept	-0.221	0.443			-0.499	0.618	-1.093-0.651

Items	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Items	B	OR (95% CI)	P value	B	OR (95% CI)	P value
Sex	0.121	1.128 (0.568-2.243)	0.730	0.133	1.143 (0.556-2.346)	0.716
Age	-0.013	0.987 (0.961-1.013)	0.324	-0.017	0.983 (0.957-1.011)	0.229
Maximum tumor diameter measured by ultrasound	1.352	3.864 (0.711-21.006)	0.118	-1.047	0.351 (0.034-3.679)	0.383
Maximum tumor diameter measured by pathology	2.373	10.731 (2.56-44.983)	0.001	2.882	17.845 (2.507-127.025)	0.004
Chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis	-0.829	0.437 (0.22-0.865)	0.018	-0.832	0.435 (0.214-0.884)	0.021