Retrospective cohort study assesses age impact on prognostic parameters in papillary thyroid carcinoma, suggesting age-stratified approaches.
Background: Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is the most common endocrine malignancy, with a rising global incidence. The state of Kerala, India, reports a particularly high burden, prompting concerns about overdiagnosis and regional epidemiological differences. Age is a well-established prognostic factor in PTC, with younger patients typically demonstrating favorable outcomes despite aggressive histologic features, while older individuals often present with more advanced disease. However, the applicability of current prognostic models, largely based on Western populations, remains uncertain in this regional context. Objective: This study aims to address the potential gaps in existing staging systems and offering insight into local disease behavior. Materials and Methods: This hospital-based retrospective cohort study included 350 histologically confirmed PTC cases from 2020 to 2024. Data on tumor features and staging were collected and stratified by age. Key parameters analyzed included tumor size, vascular invasion, perineural involvement, capsular invasion, cervical lymph node metastasis (LNM), and pathological staging Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 23. Results: Of the 350 cases – mean age 56.4 ± 21.8 years; 83.7% female. Patients were grouped as <55 years (45.1%) and ≥55 years (54.9%). Significant associations were found between age and tumor focality, capsular involvement, tumor size, LNM, and stage ( P < 0.05). Younger patients more often presented with aggressive features but showed superior survival, with 100% 5-year survival versus 68.0% in older patients. Median survival was 62 months (<55) versus 50 months (≥55). Conclusion: Despite younger patients exhibiting aggressive features, age under 55 remains a favorable prognostic marker in PTC, underscoring the significance of age-stratified risk assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ummer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: