Next Article in Journal
Response to Androgens and Androgen Receptor Antagonists in the Presence of Cytokines in Prostate Cancer
Next Article in Special Issue
Quercetin Induces Anticancer Activity by Upregulating Pro-NAG-1/GDF15 in Differentiated Thyroid Cancer Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Life after Cell Death—Survival and Survivorship Following Chemotherapy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Four Ultrasonography-Based Risk Stratification Systems in Thyroid Nodules with Nondiagnostic/Unsatisfactory Cytology: A Real-World Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/cancers13122943
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Proposal of a New Prognostic Model for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer with TERT Promoter Mutations

by
Jun Park
1,2,
Sungjoo Lee
3,
Jiyun Park
1,
Hyunju Park
1,
Chang-Seok Ki
4,
Young-Lyun Oh
5,
Jung-Hee Shin
6,
Jee-Soo Kim
7,
Sun-Wook Kim
1,
Jae-Hoon Chung
1,
Kyunga Kim
3,8,* and
Tae-Hyuk Kim
1,*
1
Thyroid Center, Samsung Medical Center, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea
2
Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Sahmyook Medical Center, Seoul 02500, Korea
3
Department of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea
4
Green Cross Genome, Yongin 16924, Korea
5
Samsung Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea
6
Samsung Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea
7
Samsung Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea
8
Statistics and Data Center, Samsung Medical Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Seoul 06355, Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2021, 13(12), 2943; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13122943
Submission received: 6 May 2021 / Revised: 9 June 2021 / Accepted: 9 June 2021 / Published: 11 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomarkers of Thyroid Cancer)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

In a cohort study involving 393 patients with differentiated thyroid cancer, we incorporated the TERT mutational status into AJCC TNM staging 8th edition (TNM-8), proposing a new prognostic system, termed TNM-8T. We demonstrated that the new prognostic system is superior to the existing TNM-8 staging system and its contents are not very complicated. This study is the first to present a new model that combines the mutational profile with the AJCC TNM stage to improve the predictability of cancer-specific survival with long-term follow-up.

Abstract

The role of telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter mutations as an independent poor prognostic factor in differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) patients is well known, but there is no prognostic system that combines the TERT promoter mutation status with tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage to predict cancer-specific survival (CSS). A total of 393 patients with pathologically confirmed DTC after thyroidectomy were enrolled. After incorporating wild-type TERT and mutant TERT with stages I, II, and III/IV of the AJCC TNM system 8th edition (TNM-8), we generated six combinations and calculated 10-year and 15-year CSS and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer-related death using Cox regression. Then, a new mortality prediction model termed TNM-8T was derived based on the CSS and HR of each combination in the four groups. Of the 393 patients, there were 27 (6.9%) thyroid cancer-related deaths during a median follow-up of 14 years. Patients with a more advanced stage had a lower survival rate (10-year CSS for TNM-8T stage 1, 2, 3, and 4: 98.7%, 93.5%, 77.3%, and 63.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). TNM-8T showed a better spread of CSS (p < 0.001) than TNM-8 (p = 0.002) in the adjusted survival curves. The C-index for mortality risk predictability was 0.880 (95% CI, 0.665–0.957) in TNM-8T and 0.827 (95% CI, 0.622–0.930) in TNM-8 (p < 0.001). TNM-8T, a new prognostic system that incorporates the TERT mutational status into TNM-8, showed superior predictability to TNM-8 in the long-term survival of DTC patients.

1. Introduction

Telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter mutations have been detected in several human cancers, including thyroid cancer [1], and have been reported to be an independent poor prognostic factor in the recurrence and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) [2,3].
The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system is most commonly used to predict the prognosis of thyroid cancer. To predict disease mortality, AJCC/UICC staging is recommended for all DTC patients according to the 2015 American Thyroid Association guidelines [4]. It was revised to the 8th edition (TNM-8) in 2016 [5,6], improving its predictability of CSS compared to the 7th edition in patients with DTC [7,8]. However, there are some problems. Approximately 30% of DTC patients are downstaged to stage I or II, so there are too few patients with stage III and IV disease [6,9], and there is no molecular profile of clinical prognostic significance that has recently emerged [10,11]. In addition, a large multicenter cohort study showed the poor predictability of TNM-8 in the CSS of follicular thyroid cancer (FTC) patients [12]. Thus, there has been a need for a more complementary staging system in predicting the survival of individual DTC patients.
Kim et al. [13] proposed a new prognostic model by incorporating TERT promoter mutations into a dynamic risk stratification (DRS) system and demonstrated that it is as effective as DRS at predicting structural recurrence and CSS in nonmetastatic DTC patients. In addition, our research team recently reported that the prognostic predictability increased by the inclusion of TERT mutations based on the TNM-8 system regardless of the histologic type or initial stage of DTC patients [14].
Therefore, in this study, we aimed to develop a new prediction model for CSS and to compare it with the prediction power of the existing TNM-8 staging system with the hypothesis that if the TERT promoter mutational status is incorporated into TNM-8, a better prediction system will be created.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients and Clinicopathological Data

The same dataset was used in the previous study [14]. In brief, from October 1994 to December 2004, a total of 393 patients with pathologically confirmed DTC, 327 with papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) and 66 with FTC, including Hurthle cell carcinoma, were enrolled in this study after thyroidectomy and neck dissection. All patients received thyrotropin suppression therapy, and 364 (310 with PTC and 54 with FTC) received radioiodine ablation after surgery according to standard guidelines [15,16].
CSS was defined as the time of the initial surgical treatment to the last observation date (31 December 2018) or the date of thyroid cancer-specific death. Patients who died from other causes were censored at the time of death.
One sample per patient was collected from thyroid cancer tissue through the Department of Pathology at Samsung Medical Center, and mutation analysis was performed. Since it was performed after surgery and radioiodine treatment, the result did not affect the decision-making process of the physicians. Thyroid cancer-related mortality data were derived from the Korea National Statistical Office and hospital medical records.

2.2. Detection of TERT Promoter Mutations in Thyroid Cancer Samples

Genomic DNA was extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue using the Qiagen DNA FFPE Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For FFPE tissue, 4 μm thick unstained slides were prepared, and pathologists decided to use the slides for DNA extraction based on a minimum tumor percentage of 75%. Then, we used seminested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to identify TERT promoter mutations, and mutations were enriched with 3′-modified oligonucleotide PCR.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

We stratified DTC patients by a combination of the TERT promoter mutation status [wild-type (WT) or mutant] and TNM-8 stage. At this time, as the number of patients in stages III and IV was very small, they were grouped into one group, resulting in a total of six combinations. To propose alternative prognostic groupings, Cox regression was used to calculate the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) by univariate and multivariate analyses (with Firth’s penalized Cox regression), and 10-year and 15-year survival rates were obtained. Among the variables with a p value ≤ 0.2 in the univariate analysis, sex and histology were selected as covariates for the multivariate analysis, except for the age, extrathyroidal extension, distant metastasis, and tumor size constituting TNM-8 (Table S1). After all pairwise analyses for each of the 6 combinations of TNM-8 stage and TERT promoter mutation status, four alternative groups were derived, which were termed TNM-8T: TNM-8 + TERT. These four TNM-8T groups were also subjected to pairwise multivariate analysis. Proportional hazards assumption checking was performed with Schoenfeld’s residual test.
Thyroid CSS was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier survival curves and compared with the log-rank test and adjusted survival curves (adjusted for age and histology via a Cox proportional hazards model).
TNM-8T was evaluated through internal validation based on 1000 datasets generated by the stratified bootstrapping technique. The bootstrap sample was used as the training set, and the out-of-bag data for each sampling were used as the testing set. Harrell’s C-index and the integrated area under the curve (iAUC) during the 10-year follow-up were calculated to evaluate the discrimination ability. [17,18] Additionally, the proportion of variance explained (PVE) values and Brier scores at the 10-year follow-up were calculated to evaluate the overall performance of the two staging systems. [19,20] Differences in the C-index, iAUC, PVE, and Brier score between the two staging systems, TNM-8T and TNM-8, were analyzed by paired t-tests.
Statistical analyses were performed using R 3.6.1 (Vienna, Austria; http://www.R-project.org; accessed on 9 November 2020). A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

The clinical and genetic characteristics of DTC patients are summarized in Table 1. Of all patients, 329 (83.7%) were female, and 64 (16.3%) were male. The median age at diagnosis was 42.8 years (range 15.8–81.4 years), and 319 (81.2%) were under 55 years of age. Most of the tumors were unifocal (72.8%) and PTC (83.2%), and most patients were classified as TNM-8 stage I (83.7%) at the time of diagnosis and received postoperative radioactive iodine therapy (92.6). TERT promoter mutations were identified in 10.9% (43/393, 4 of C250T and 39 of C228T) of patients. As the stage increased, the higher the prevalence of TERT mutations was identified (4.9% in stage I, 35.4% in stage II, and 62.5% in stage III/IV). During the median follow-up of 16 years (interquartile range 14–19 years), there were 27 thyroid cancer-related deaths (6.9%).

3.2. Alternative Grouping According to the AJCC Stage and TERT Promoter Mutation Status

We analyzed the HRs of six combinations of TNM-8 stage and TERT promoter mutation status after adjusting for sex and histologic type for thyroid cancer-related death with 10-year and 15-year CSS (Table 2 and Table S2). When patients with the same TERT mutational status were analyzed, the 10-year and 15-year CSS rates decreased as the stage increased, and the mutant TERT groups were associated with lower 10-year and 15-year CSS rates than the WT TERT groups regardless of stage (p < 0.001) (Table 2). Thyroid CSS was visualized via Kaplan–Meier curves and adjusted survival curves (Figure S1). Based on the above results, an alternative staging system of four groups termed TNM-8T was generated to predict thyroid CSS: TNM-8T stage 1 (patients with TNM-8 stage I and WT TERT), TNM-8T stage 2 (patients with TNM-8 stage II and WT TERT), TNM-8T stage 3 (patients with TNM-8 stage III/IV and WT TERT or with TNM-8 stage I and mutant TERT), and TNM-8T stage 4 (patients with TNM-8 stage II or III/IV and mutant TERT). The 10-year CSS rates were 98.7%, 93.5%, 77.3%, and 63.0%, respectively (p < 0.001) (Table 3 and Table 4). Overall, there was no severe violation of the proportional hazards assumptions of either staging system.

3.3. Comparison of Survival in Patients Staged According to TNM-8 and TNM-8T

For comparison, the HRs of each stage of TNM-8T and TNM-8 for cancer-related death after adjusting for sex and histologic type were calculated (Table 4 and Table S3). In TNM-8T, the adjusted HRs increased as the stage increased (adjusted HR 10.62, 18.57, and 62.87 for stages 2, 3, and 4, respectively), but in TNM-8, there was no difference in the adjusted HRs of stages III and IV (adjusted HRs 13.20, 26.99, and 26.39 for stages II, III, and IV, respectively) (Table 4). TNM-8T showed a better spread of CSS (p < 0.001) than TNM-8 (p = 0.002) in the adjusted survival curves (Figure 1). The C-index indicating risk predictability was 0.880 (95% CI, 0.665–0.957) in TNM-8T, which was significantly higher than that in TNM-8 (0.827; 95% CI, 0.622–0.930) (p < 0.001). The PVE, which indicates the ability of the two staging systems to explain CSS, was 0.205 (95% CI, 0.151–0.264) in TNM-8T, which was also significantly higher than that in TNM-8 (0.153; 95% CI, 0.095–0.221) (p < 0.001).

3.4. Comparison of TNM Staging Groups According to TNM-8 vs. TNM-8T

Of the 393 DTC patients, the stages of 42 (10.7%) were changed in TNM-8T. Of the 329 patients with stage I disease, 16 were upstaged to stage 3, and of the 48 patients with stage II disease, 17 were upstaged to stage 4. Six patients with stage III disease were upstaged to stage 4, and 3 patients with stage IV disease were downstaged to stage 3. Figure 2 demonstrates the stage migration in our data from TNM-8 to TNM-8T based on the alluvial flow diagram.

4. Discussion

DTC is generally an indolent tumor with low mortality, but in some patients, it often progresses aggressively, and distinguishing high-risk patients early in diagnosis is very important for providing the best clinical outcomes for individual patients.
The importance of genetic markers in predicting the prognosis of thyroid cancer has already been reported [10,21]. Among them, the prognostically most promising and notable are carcinogenic mutations and BRAF V600E and TERT promoter mutations. The poor outcomes caused by BRAF V600E and TERT promoter mutations or their synergistic effects have been well characterized and widely appreciated [22,23,24,25,26].
The TERT promoter has two mutational hotspots on chromosome 5, C228T and C250T. TERT C228T is far more prevalent than C250T in thyroid cancer. Both mutations play carcinogenic roles by generating a new site where E-twenty-six transcription factors can bind and increase the transcriptional activities of the TERT promoter [27]. Those with less differentiated histologic types have a high prevalence (on average, 11.3% of PTCs, 17.1% of FTCs, 43.2% of poorly differentiated DTCs, and 40.1% of anaplastic thyroid cancers) [22,24]. They are also associated with aggressive tumor behaviors, radioiodine refractoriness, and increased tumor recurrence and DTC-specific death [2,28,29,30,31]. In particular, in PTC patients, coexisting BRAF V600E and TERT promoter mutations are associated with increased cancer aggressiveness, lymph node and distant metastases, and an advanced stage and increase tumor recurrence and mortality more rapidly than either alone [32,33,34]. This study also showed consistent results with those of previous studies, in which all patients with mutant TERT, regardless of stage, had lower 10-year and 15-year CSS rates and higher HRs than those with WT TERT when the six combinations of TNM-8 stages and TERT mutational statuses were assessed (Table 2).
PTC accounts for 90% of all DTCs [35,36], and BRAF mutations are found in approximately 45% of sporadic PTC tumors [37]. In particular, more than 80% of patients newly diagnosed with PTC in Korea have BRAF mutations [38]. Therefore, it is believed that TERT promoter mutations play an important role in death from DTC. In a previous study, we demonstrated that TERT promoter mutations act as an independent poor prognostic factor with the TERT promoter mutational status based on TNM-8 in a cohort of patients with DTC [14].
Therefore, in this study, we proposed a new prognostic staging system, TNM-8T, by incorporating the TERT promoter mutational status into the AJCC staging system, the most commonly recommended staging system for predicting the prognosis of thyroid cancer. The adjusted HRs significantly increased in all pairwise multivariate Cox regression analyses (p < 0.001) (Table S3). In addition, through various internal validations, it was demonstrated that the TNM-8T staging system has a C-index of 0.880 (95% CI, 0.665–0.957), an iAUC of 0.981 (95% CI, 0.859–0.967), a PVE of 0.205 (95% CI, 0.151–0.264), and a Brier score of 0.018 (95% CI, 0.008–0.029), with significantly superior risk predictability for thyroid CSS than the TNM-8 staging system, with a C-index of 0.827 (95% CI, 0.622–0.930), an iAUC of 0.879 (95% CI, 0.783–0.962), a PVE of 0.153 (95% CI, 0.095–0.221), and a Brier score of 0.019 (95% CI, 0.009–0.030) (p < 0.001).
There are several limitations to this study. First, since this was a retrospective study, it was susceptible to selection bias. Second, Korean patients with PTC have a higher rate of BRAF mutations than those from other countries [37,38], and given reports of the synergistic association between BRAF V600E and TERT promoter mutations [32,33,34], the impact of the BRAF mutation alone or its synergistic effect with the TERT promoter mutations on CSS may have been reflected in the present study; therefore, it is difficult to apply these results to DTC patients worldwide. Third, since the cohort size and number of cancer-specific deaths per subgroup were small, the statistical power was low; thus, it is necessary to develop this study into a multicenter large-volume study. Nevertheless, it is meaningful that this study is the first to present a new model that combines the mutational profile with the AJCC TNM stage to improve the predictability of CSS with long-term follow-up.

5. Conclusions

This is the first work to incorporate the TERT mutational status into TNM-8. We propose a new prognostic system, termed TNM-8T, which is superior to the existing system and is easy to apply to real clinics because the contents are not very complicated. This staging system will aid in the precision of management decision making for DTC patients, including decisions on the extent of surgery, prophylactic neck dissection, postoperative radioiodine therapy, and molecular targeted therapy.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers13122943/s1, Figure S1: Thyroid cancer-specific survival according to the 6 combinations of TNM-8 stage and TERT promoter mutation status with Kaplan–Meier survival curves (A) and with adjusted survival curves (B), Table S1: Regression analysis of TERT mutation status and clinicopathological variables in patients with DTC, Table S2: Hazard ratios of 6 combinations of TNM-8 stage and TERT promoter mutation status for cancer-related death from all pairwise multivariate cox regression, Table S3: Hazard ratios of TNM-8T for cancer-related death from all pairwise multivariate cox regression.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.P. (Jun Park), S.L., K.K. and T.-H.K.; methodology, K.K.; formal analysis, S.L. and C.-S.K.; investigation, J.P. (Jun Park), S.L., K.K. and T.-H.K.; data curation, J.P. (Jiyun Park) and H.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.P. (Jun Park); writing—review and editing, S.L., K.K., T.-H.K.; visualization, S.L.; supervision, Y.-L.O., J.-H.S., J.-S.K., S.-W.K. and J.-H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Samsung Medical Center (SMC-IRB 2016-05-053).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective study design.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vinagre, J.; Almeida, A.; Pópulo, H.; Batista, R.; Lyra, J.; Pinto, V.; Coelho, R.; Celestino, R.; Prazeres, H.; Lima, L.; et al. Frequency of TERT promoter mutations in human cancers. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Kim, T.H.; Kim, Y.E.; Ahn, S.; Kim, J.Y.; Ki, C.S.; Oh, Y.L.; Kim, K.; Yun, J.W.; Park, W.Y.; Choe, J.H.; et al. TERT promoter mutations and long-term survival in patients with thyroid cancer. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2016, 23, 813–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Lee, S.E.; Hwang, T.S.; Choi, Y.L.; Han, H.S.; Kim, W.S.; Jang, M.H.; Kim, S.K.; Yang, J.H. Prognostic Significance of TERT Promoter Mutations in Papillary Thyroid Carcinomas in a BRAF(V600E) Mutation-Prevalent Population. Thyroid Off. J. Am. Thyroid Assoc. 2016, 26, 901–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Haugen, B.R.; Alexander, E.K.; Bible, K.C.; Doherty, G.M.; Mandel, S.J.; Nikiforov, Y.E.; Pacini, F.; Randolph, G.W.; Sawka, A.M.; Schlumberger, M.; 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. Thyroid Off. J. Am. Thyroid Assoc. 2016, 26, 1–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Nixon, I.J.; Wang, L.Y.; Migliacci, J.C.; Eskander, A.; Campbell, M.J.; Aniss, A.; Morris, L.; Vaisman, F.; Corbo, R.; Momesso, D.; et al. An international multi-institutional validation of age 55 years as a cutoff for risk stratification in the AJCC/UICC staging system for well-differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid Off. J. Am. Thyroid Assoc. 2016, 26, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tuttle, R.M.; Haugen, B.; Perrier, N.D. Updated American Joint Committee on Cancer/Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging System for Differentiated and Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer (Eighth Edition): What Changed and Why? Thyroid Off. J. Am. Thyroid Assoc. 2017, 27, 751–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kim, M.; Kim, W.G.; Oh, H.S.; Park, S.; Kwon, H.; Song, D.E.; Kim, T.Y.; Shong, Y.K.; Kim, W.B.; Sung, T.Y.; et al. Comparison of the Seventh and Eighth Editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging System for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid Off. J. Am. Thyroid Assoc. 2017, 27, 1149–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Shteinshnaider, M.; Kalmovich, L.; Koren, S.; Or, K.; Cantrell, D.; Benbassat, C. Reassessment of differentiated thyroid cancer patients using the eighth TNM/AJCC classification system: A comparative study. Thyroid Off. J. Am. Thyroid Assoc. 2018, 28, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Shaha, A.R.; Migliacci, J.C.; Nixon, I.J.; Wang, L.Y.; Wong, R.J.; Morris, L.G.T.; Patel, S.G.; Shah, J.P.; Tuttle, R.M.; Ganly, I. Stage migration with the new American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system (8th edition) for differentiated thyroid cancer. Surgery 2019, 165, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xing, M.; Haugen, B.R.; Schlumberger, M. Progress in molecular-based management of differentiated thyroid cancer. Lancet 2013, 381, 1058–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. McKelvey, B.A.; Umbricht, C.B.; Zeiger, M.A. Telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) regulation in thyroid cancer: A review. Front. Endocrinol. 2020, 11, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kim, M.; Kim, H.I.; Jeon, M.J.; Kim, H.K.; Kim, E.H.; Yi, H.S.; Kim, E.S.; Kim, H.; Kim, B.H.; Kim, T.Y.; et al. Eighth edition of tumor-node-metastasis staging system improve survival predictability for papillary, but not follicular thyroid carcinoma: A multicenter cohort study. Oral Oncol. 2018, 87, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, T.H.; Ki, C.S.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, K.; Choe, J.H.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.S.; Oh, Y.L.; Hahn, S.Y.; Shin, J.H.; et al. Refining Dynamic Risk Stratification and Prognostic Groups for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer with TERT Promoter Mutations. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2017, 102, 1757–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Park, J.; Lee, S.; Kim, K.; Park, H.; Ki, C.-S.; Oh, Y.L.; Shin, J.H.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, S.W.; Chung, J.H.; et al. TERT Promoter Mutations and the 8th Edition TNM Classification in Predicting the Survival of Thyroid Cancer Patients. Cancers 2021, 13, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cooper, D.S.; Doherty, G.M.; Haugen, B.R.; Kloos, R.T.; Lee, S.L.; Mandel, S.J.; Mazzaferri, E.L.; McIver, B.; Sherman, S.I.; Tuttle, R.M. Management guidelines for patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid Off. J. Am. Thyroid Assoc. 2006, 16, 109–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Cooper, D.S.; Doherty, G.M.; Haugen, B.R.; Kloos, R.T.; Lee, S.L.; Mandel, S.J.; Mazzaferri, E.L.; McIver, B.; Pacini, F.; Schlumberger, M.; et al. Revised American Thyroid Association management guidelines for patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid Off. J. Am. Thyroid Assoc. 2009, 19, 1167–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Harrell, F.E., Jr.; Lee, K.L.; Mark, D.B. Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat. Med. 1996, 15, 361–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Heagerty, P.J.; Zheng, Y. Survival model predictive accuracy and ROC curves. Biometrics 2005, 61, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Schemper, M.; Stare, J. Explained variation in survival analysis. Stat. Med. 1996, 15, 1999–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brier, G.W. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Mon. Weather Rev. 1950, 78, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xing, M. Genetic-guided risk assessment and management of thyroid cancer. Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. N. Am. 2019, 48, 109–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Alzahrani, A.S.; Alsaadi, R.; Murugan, A.K.; Sadiq, B.B. TERT Promoter Mutations in Thyroid Cancer. Horm. Cancer 2016, 7, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Li, F.; Chen, G.; Sheng, C.; Gusdon, A.M.; Huang, Y.; Lv, Z.; Xu, H.; Xing, M.; Qu, S. BRAFV600E mutation in papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: A meta-analysis. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2015, 22, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Liu, R.; Xing, M. TERT promoter mutations in thyroid cancer. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2016, 23, R143–R155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Tufano, R.P.; Teixeira, G.V.; Bishop, J.; Carson, K.A.; Xing, M. BRAF mutation in papillary thyroid cancer and its value in tailoring initial treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2012, 91, 274–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Xing, M. BRAF mutation in papillary thyroid cancer: Pathogenic role, molecular bases, and clinical implications. Endocr. Rev. 2007, 28, 742–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Huang, D.-S.; Wang, Z.; He, X.-J.; Diplas, B.H.; Yang, R.; Killela, P.J.; Meng, Q.; Ye, Z.-Y.; Wang, W.; Jiang, X.-T.; et al. Recurrent TERT promoter mutations identified in a large-scale study of multiple tumour types are associated with increased TERT expression and telomerase activation. Eur. J. Cancer 2015, 51, 969–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Liu, X.; Qu, S.; Liu, R.; Sheng, C.; Shi, X.; Zhu, G.; Murugan, A.K.; Guan, H.; Yu, H.; Wang, Y.; et al. TERT promoter mutations and their association with BRAF V600E mutation and aggressive clinicopathological characteristics of thyroid cancer. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2014, 99, E1130–E1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Melo, M.; da Rocha, A.G.; Vinagre, J.; Batista, R.; Peixoto, J.; Tavares, C.; Celestino, R.; Almeida, A.; Salgado, C.; Eloy, C.; et al. TERT promoter mutations are a major indicator of poor outcome in differentiated thyroid carcinomas. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2014, 99, E754–E765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Yang, X.; Li, J.; Li, X.; Liang, Z.; Gao, W.; Liang, J.; Cheng, S.; Lin, Y. TERT promoter mutation predicts radioiodine-refractory character in distant metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 2017, 58, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Jin, A.; Xu, J.; Wang, Y. The role of TERT promoter mutations in postoperative and preoperative diagnosis and prognosis in thyroid cancer. Medicine 2018, 97, e11548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jin, L.; Chen, E.; Dong, S.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, Y.; Zeng, R.; Yang, F.; Pan, C.; Liu, Y.; et al. BRAF and TERT promoter mutations in the aggressiveness of papillary thyroid carcinoma: A study of 653 patients. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 18346–18355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Liu, R.; Bishop, J.; Zhu, G.; Zhang, T.; Ladenson, P.W.; Xing, M. Mortality Risk Stratification by Combining BRAF V600E and TERT Promoter Mutations in Papillary Thyroid Cancer: Genetic Duet of BRAF and TERT Promoter Mutations in Thyroid Cancer Mortality. JAMA Oncol. 2017, 3, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Xing, M.; Liu, R.; Liu, X.; Murugan, A.K.; Zhu, G.; Zeiger, M.A.; Pai, S.; Bishop, J. BRAF V600E and TERT promoter mutations cooperatively identify the most aggressive papillary thyroid cancer with highest recurrence. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 2718–2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Hundahl, S.A.; Cady, B.; Cunningham, M.P.; Mazzaferri, E.; McKee, R.F.; Rosai, J.; Shah, J.P.; Fremgen, A.M.; Stewart, A.K.; Hölzer, S. Initial results from a prospective cohort study of 5583 cases of thyroid carcinoma treated in the United States during 1996. U.S. and German thyroid cancer study group. An American college of Surgeons commission on cancer patient care evaluation study. Cancer 2000, 89, 202–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oh, C.M.; Kong, H.J.; Kim, E.; Kim, H.; Jung, K.W.; Park, S.; Won, Y.J. National epidemiologic survey of thyroid cancer (NEST) in Korea. Epidemiol. Health 2018, 40, e2018052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Xing, M. BRAF mutation in thyroid cancer. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2005, 12, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kim, S.K.; Kim, D.L.; Han, H.S.; Kim, W.S.; Kim, S.J.; Moon, W.J.; Oh, S.Y.; Hwang, T.S. Pyrosequencing analysis for detection of a BRAFV600E mutation in an FNAB specimen of thyroid nodules. Diagn. Mol. Pathol. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. Part B 2008, 17, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 13 02943 g001 550
Figure 1. Thyroid cancer-specific survival according to TNM-8T with Kaplan–Meier survival curves (A) and adjusted survival curves (B). Thyroid cancer-specific survival according to TNM-8 with Kaplan–Meier survival curves (C) and adjusted survival curves (D).
Figure 1. Thyroid cancer-specific survival according to TNM-8T with Kaplan–Meier survival curves (A) and adjusted survival curves (B). Thyroid cancer-specific survival according to TNM-8 with Kaplan–Meier survival curves (C) and adjusted survival curves (D).
Cancers 13 02943 g001
Cancers 13 02943 g002 550
Figure 2. Alluvial flow diagram representing the restaging of patient cohorts from the TNM-8 staging system (Roman numerals) to the TNM-8T staging system (Arabic numerals). Red line indicates deceased patients.
Figure 2. Alluvial flow diagram representing the restaging of patient cohorts from the TNM-8 staging system (Roman numerals) to the TNM-8T staging system (Arabic numerals). Red line indicates deceased patients.
Cancers 13 02943 g002
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study patients.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study patients.
CharacteristicNumber (%), (Total = 393)
Age, years
Median (range)42.8 (15.8–81.4)
Sex
Male329 (83.7)
Female64 (16.3)
Tumor size, cm
Median (range)2.7 (0.4–12.0)
Histological type
PTC327 (83.2)
FTC66 (16.8)
Multifocality
Absent286 (72.8)
Present107 (27.2)
Lymph node metastasis
Absent199 (50.6)
Present193 (49.1)
Missing1 (0.3)
Extrathyroidal invasion
Absent352 (89.6)
Present41 (10.4)
Distant metastasis
Absent370 (94.1)
Present23 (5.9)
Stage at diagnosis
I329 (83.7)
II48 (12.2)
III/IV16 (4.1)
TERT promoter mutations
WT350 (89.1)
Mutant43 (10.9)
RAI treatment
Absent29 (7.4)
Present364 (92.6)
Incidence related
Incident cases27
Persons-year6366
Incident rate (1000 persons-year)4
Death
Survival366 (93.1)
Death27 (6.9)
PTC, papillary thyroid cancer; FTC, follicular thyroid cancer; TERT, telomerase reverse transcriptase; WT, wild-type; RAI, radioactive iodine.
Table
Table 2. Hazard ratios of 6 combinations of TNM-8 stage and TERT promoter mutation status for cancer-related death.
Table 2. Hazard ratios of 6 combinations of TNM-8 stage and TERT promoter mutation status for cancer-related death.
CombinationCancer-Related DeathUnadjustedAdjusted *
Events/Total (%)10-y CSS 15-y CSS HR (95% CI)p-ValueHR (95% CI)p-Value
WT/stage I4/313 (1.3)98.7298.721.00 (reference)<0.0011.00 (reference)<0.001
WT/stage II3/31 (9.7)93.5590.328.05 (1.80–35.98)0.006310.66 (2.37–47.95)0.002
WT/stage III/IV1/6 (16.7)83.3383.3315.44 (1.72–138.16)0.014417.82 (2.44–130.18)0.0045
MUT/stage I4/16 (25.0)75.0075.0023.66 (5.92–94.63)<0.00120.63 (5.17–82.40)<0.001
MUT/stage II8/17 (47.1)70.5952.2945.46 (13.68–151.13)<0.00155.37 (16.06–190.87)<0.001
MUT/stage III/IV7/10 (70.0)50.0030.0078.45 (22.82–269.76)<0.00178.37 (22.44–273.67)<0.001
TNM-8, AJCC tumor-node-metastasis staging system 8th edition; TERT, telomerase reverse transcriptase; y, year; CSS, cancer-specific survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; WT, wild-type; MUT, mutant. * Cox model adjusted for sex and histological type.
Table
Table 3. Definition of the TNM-8T groups.
Table 3. Definition of the TNM-8T groups.
Alternative GroupingDefinition
TNM-8T stage 1Patients with TNM-8 stage I and wild-type TERT
TNM-8T stage 2Patients with TNM-8 stage II and wild-type TERT
TNM-8T stage 3Patients with TNM-8 stage III/IV and wild-type TERT or with TNM-8 stage I and mutant TERT
TNM-8T stage 4Patients with TNM-8 stage II and mutant TERT or with TNM-8 stage III/IV and mutant TERT
Table
Table 4. Hazard ratios of TNM-8T and TNM-8 for cancer-related death.
Table 4. Hazard ratios of TNM-8T and TNM-8 for cancer-related death.
Alternative GroupingTNM-8T
Cancer-Related DeathUnadjustedAdjusted *
Events/Total (%)10-y CSS15-y CSSHR (95% CI)p-ValueHR (95% CI)p-Value
TNM-8T stage 14/313 (1.3)98.798.71.00 (reference)<0.0011.00 (reference)<0.001
TNM-8T stage 23/31 (9.7)93.590.38.05 (1.80–35.97)0.00610.62 (2.41–46.71)0.002
TNM-8T stage 35/22 (22.7)77.377.321.37 (5.74–79.59)<0.00118.57 (5.02–68.70)<0.001
TNM-8T stage 415/27 (55.6)63.044.156.40 (18.67–170.36)<0.00162.87 (20.66–191.29)<0.001
AJCC StageTNM-8
Cancer-Related DeathUnadjustedAdjusted *
Events/Total (%)10-y CSS15-y CSSHR (95% CI)p-ValueHR (95% CI)p-Value
TNM-8 stage I8/329 (2.4)97.697.61.00 (reference)<0.0011.00 (reference)<0.001
TNM-8 stage II11/48 (22.9)85.476.310.43 (4.19–25.93)<0.00113.20 (5.08–34.30)<0.001
TNM-8 stage III4/9 (44.4)77.855.620.68 (6.21–68.84)<0.00126.99 (8.06–90.42)<0.001
TNM-8 stage IV4/7 (57.1)42.942.938.24 (11.44–127.75)<0.00126.39 (7.84–88.79)<0.001
TNM-8, AJCC tumor-node-metastasis staging system 8th edition; y, year; CSS, cancer-specific survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval. * Cox model adjusted for sex and histological type.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Park, J.; Lee, S.; Park, J.; Park, H.; Ki, C.-S.; Oh, Y.-L.; Shin, J.-H.; Kim, J.-S.; Kim, S.-W.; Chung, J.-H.; et al. Proposal of a New Prognostic Model for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer with TERT Promoter Mutations. Cancers 2021, 13, 2943. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13122943

AMA Style

Park J, Lee S, Park J, Park H, Ki C-S, Oh Y-L, Shin J-H, Kim J-S, Kim S-W, Chung J-H, et al. Proposal of a New Prognostic Model for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer with TERT Promoter Mutations. Cancers. 2021; 13(12):2943. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13122943

Chicago/Turabian Style

Park, Jun, Sungjoo Lee, Jiyun Park, Hyunju Park, Chang-Seok Ki, Young-Lyun Oh, Jung-Hee Shin, Jee-Soo Kim, Sun-Wook Kim, Jae-Hoon Chung, and et al. 2021. "Proposal of a New Prognostic Model for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer with TERT Promoter Mutations" Cancers 13, no. 12: 2943. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13122943

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop