Search for other papers by Alexander Heinzel in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dirk Müller in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Hanneke M van Santen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Emma Children’s Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, Department of Pediatrics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Sarah C Clement in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Arthur B Schneider in
Google Scholar
PubMed
University Hospital Würzburg, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Würzburg, Germany
Search for other papers by Frederik A Verburg in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-related mortality. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to perform a comparative analysis of the different clinically used surveillance strategies mentioned above for their effect on DTC-related survival. Materials and methods Literature search
Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Search for other papers by Jes Sloth Mathiesen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jens Peter Kroustrup in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Steno Diabetes Center North Jutland, Aalborg, Denmark
Search for other papers by Peter Vestergaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Per Løgstrup Poulsen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Åse Krogh Rasmussen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ulla Feldt-Rasmussen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sten Schytte in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Stefano Christian Londero in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Henrik Baymler Pedersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christoffer Holst Hahn in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jens Bentzen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Odense Patient data Explorative Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Search for other papers by Sören Möller in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mette Gaustadnes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Maria Rossing in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Finn Cilius Nielsen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kim Brixen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christian Godballe in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Danish Thyroid Cancer Group (DATHYRCA) in
Google Scholar
PubMed
until death, emigration or last follow-up (January 1, 2018), whichever came first. For calculation of overall and disease-specific survival, all deaths and deaths due to MTC were considered as an event, respectively. Statistical analysis
Search for other papers by Zherui Fu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yi Lai in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Qianfei Wang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Feng Lin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jiaping Fang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
’. Kaplan–Meier curve analysis Data processing and visualization were performed using R software (R version 4.2.1). We used the R package ‘survival’ to conduct KM cure analysis on the previously processed data. The results were visualized by the R package
Search for other papers by Hanbaro Kim in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ki Byung Song in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dae Wook Hwang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jae Hoon Lee in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Shadi Alshammary in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Song Cheol Kim in
Google Scholar
PubMed
mean tumor size of NF-PNETs over time. When we analyzed the tumor grade over time, the proportion of grade G3 tumors was lowest (6.6%) in the late period. In the survival analysis, we found that DSS and DFS according to each time period tended to
Search for other papers by Enrique Pedernera in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Flavia Morales-Vásquez in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by María J Gómora in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Miguel A Almaraz in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Universidad La Salle, Posgrado de la Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Ciudad de México, México
Search for other papers by Esteban Mena in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Delia Pérez-Montiel in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Elizabeth Rendon in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Horacio López-Basave in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Juan Maldonado-Cubas in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Carmen Méndez in
Google Scholar
PubMed
proportions ( Z -value). Analysis of the association between HSD17β1 expression, tumor subtypes and FIGO clinical stage was performed by chi-squared test. Significance in Kaplan–Meier survival curves was obtained using log-rank values. Hazard ratio and
Search for other papers by Ashley K Clift in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Omar Faiz in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Robert Goldin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by John Martin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Harpreet Wasan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marc-Olaf Liedke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Erik Schloericke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Pathophysiology and Endocrinology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
Search for other papers by Anna Malczewska in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Guido Rindi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mark Kidd in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Irvin M Modlin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Andrea Frilling in
Google Scholar
PubMed
IIIA, 19 (27.1%) were stage IIIB and 44 (62.9%) were stage IV at the time of initial presentation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, the median estimated survival for patients with G1 tumours was 156 months. For G2 tumours, no median estimated survival could
Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
Search for other papers by Wentao Zhou in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Tiantao Kuang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Xu Han in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wenqi Chen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Xuefeng Xu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wenhui Lou in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dansong Wang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
cut-off values of LMR for G1, G2 and G3 were 5.0, 4.4 and 3.5, respectively (Supplementary Fig. 4). Survival analysis manifested that LMR >4.4 was associated with favorable prognosis in G2 patients ( P = 0.020), but no statistical difference was
Search for other papers by Matteo Scopel in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Eugenio De Carlo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Francesca Bergamo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sabina Murgioni in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Riccardo Carandina in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anna Rita Cervino in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marta Burei in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Federica Vianello in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Vittorina Zagonel in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Matteo Fassan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Roberto Vettor in
Google Scholar
PubMed
diagnosis (evaluated by the same morpho-functional analysis), that appeared after 6 months or later. By defining these two groups we analyzed the possible differences in terms of tumor aggressiveness and patient survival. Moreover, we tried to investigate
Search for other papers by Lauren E Henke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by John D Pfeifer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thomas J Baranski in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Todd DeWees in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Division of Nuclear Medicine, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
Search for other papers by Perry W Grigsby in
Google Scholar
PubMed
analysis of 542 patients with established BRAF status, presence of the BRAF mutation did not independently predict C-PTC histology. Patient outcomes For the entire cohort, overall survival was 92.5 and 90.3% at 10 and 15 years, respectively. RFS
Search for other papers by Keiko Ohkuwa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kiminori Sugino in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mitsuji Nagahama in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wataru Kitagawa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kenichi Matsuzu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Akifumi Suzuki in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Chisato Tomoda in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kiyomi Hames in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Junko Akaishi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Chie Masaki in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Koichi Ito in
Google Scholar
PubMed
detected, and a log-rank test was used to determine the significance. The Cox proportional hazards model was performed to determine the hazard ratio (HRs) of variables with 95% CIs for survival rate. Multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards