MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390011191 · doi:10.1089/thy.2023.0350

Prevalence of Differentiated High-Grade Thyroid Carcinoma Among Well-Differentiated Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4390011191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anello Marcello Poma, Elisabetta Macerola, Ronald A. Ghossein, Giovanni Tallini, Fulvio Basolo

Bibliographic record

VenueThyroid · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineThyroid cancerThyroid carcinomaInternal medicineThyroidSystematic reviewOncologyMeta-analysisGrading (engineering)Thyroid nodulesFollicular thyroid cancerPathologyGynecologyMEDLINEPapillary thyroid cancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The current edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of endocrine tumors introduced grading for follicular cell-derived thyroid cancer. Tumors with necrosis and/or high mitotic count but not fulfilling the Turin criteria for poorly differentiated carcinoma will be reclassified as differentiated high-grade thyroid carcinoma (DHGTC). However, the impact of this reclassification has not been evaluated. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of this new entry across thyroid tumor subtypes. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, studies reporting data on necrosis and/or mitoses in well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma (WDTC) were used to estimate the prevalence of DHGTC. Heterogeneity and potential publication bias were also evaluated. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed, and quality assessment was performed using a modification of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. The study has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42022378716). Results: In clinically unselected patients, the prevalence of DHGTC in WDTC was 0.072 [95% confidence interval, CI, = 0.045–0.113]. The proportion of high-grade tumors greatly varied across growth patterns and subtypes. Overall, the prevalence of DHGTC was higher in follicular thyroid carcinoma (FTC; 0.146 [CI = 0.101–0.205]) than in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC; 0.059 [CI = 0.036–0.097]). Diffuse sclerosing, follicular, and classic subtype PTC had the lowest rates of high-grade features (i.e., 0.018 [CI = 0.004–0.084]; 0.036 [CI = 0.010–0.124]; and 0.042 [CI = 0.027–0.066], respectively), while a greater proportion of solid trabecular and histologically aggressive PTC could be reclassified as DHGTC (i.e., 0.154 [CI = 0.067–0.314] and 0.168 [CI = 0.108–0.252], respectively). Similar proportions were obtained for minimally and widely invasive FTC (i.e., 0.136 [CI = 0.058–0.287] and 0.152 [CI = 0.086–0.254], respectively). Finally, in a cohort of patients with poor prognosis (i.e., fatal cases, metastatic and radioiodine resistant tumors, cases with biochemical recurrence), the proportion of DHGTC was 0.287 [CI = 0.155–0.469]. Conclusions: Following the current WHO indications, some tumors will be reclassified as DHGTC. The proportion of tumors with high-grade features is relevant in FTC, solid trabecular, and histologically aggressive PTC subtypes. A remarkable enrichment in DHGTC among patients with poor prognosis confirms the negative impact of high-grade features on outcome.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThyroidSame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207