These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effects of Coexistent BRAFV600E and TERT Promoter Mutations on Poor Clinical Outcomes in Papillary Thyroid Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.
    Author: Moon S, Song YS, Kim YA, Lim JA, Cho SW, Moon JH, Hahn S, Park DJ, Park YJ.
    Journal: Thyroid; 2017 May; 27(5):651-660. PubMed ID: 28181854.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The presence of a telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter mutation has been suggested as a potential prognostic marker for thyroid cancer, and a synergistic association with the BRAFV600E mutation has been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to verify the role of this genetic duet in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC). METHODS: Studies of the association of BRAFV600E and TERT promoter mutations with clinicopathologic features, recurrence, or PTC-related mortality were included from PubMed and Embase databases (inception to September 2016). RESULTS: Thirteen eligible studies incorporating 4347 patients with PTC were included, and 283 (median 8.3%) of these patients had coexistent BRAFV600E and TERT promoter mutations. The coexistence of the two mutations was far more strongly associated with high-risk clinicopathologic features than either mutation alone was, including advanced TNM stage (vs. BRAFV600E: odds ratio [OR] = 4.19 [confidence interval (CI) 3.07-5.71]; vs. TERT: OR = 4.66 [CI 2.67-8.13]), extrathyroidal extension (vs. BRAFV600E: OR = 3.1 [CI 2.2-4.37]; vs. TERT: OR = 5.66 [CI 3.02-10.6]), lymph node metastasis (vs. BRAFV600E: OR = 1.59 [CI 1.16-2.17]; vs. TERT: OR = 2.03 [CI 1.22-3.38]), and distant metastasis (vs. BRAFV600E: OR = 11.76 [CI 5.63-24.58]). The coexistence of the mutations showed the highest risk of recurrence (coexistence vs. no mutations: hazard ratio [HR] = 6.60 [CI 3.82-11.40]; BRAFV600E vs. no mutations: HR = 1.31 [CI 0.49-3.46]; TERT vs. no mutations: HR = 3.38 [CI 0.85-13.35]). Moreover, PTC-related mortality was significantly higher with coexistent mutations than in the presence of BRAFV600E alone (HR = 20.07 [CI 8.37-48.09]). CONCLUSIONS: Coexistent BRAFV600E and TERT promoter mutations have a synergistic effect on clinical outcomes in PTC, whereas each mutation alone has a modest effect. Therefore, molecular testing of BRAFV600E and TERT promoter mutations together is useful in assessing risk stratification of PTC.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]