Table 2.
Comparison of clinical and histopathologic parameters in patients with a low versus a high density of CD68+ TAMs in PDTC patients.
|
Density of CD68+ TAMs |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables |
Low (n = 17) |
High (n = 20) |
p value |
|
Age |
63 +/−4 (range 16−85) |
61 +/− 4 (range 25−93) |
0.760 |
| Gender | 0.300 |
||
| Male | 4 | 9 | |
| Female |
13 |
11 |
|
| Stagea | 0.419 |
||
| I | 3 | 0 | |
| II | 1 | 1 | |
| III | 4 | 2 | |
| IV |
9 |
12 |
|
|
Tumor size, (cm) |
4.3+/− 0.4 (n = 17) |
5.4 +/− 0.6 (n = 14) |
0.135 |
| Necrosisb | |||
| Focal | 8 | 4 | 0.149 |
| Extensive |
7 |
12 |
|
|
Mitosis, # per high power field |
4.0 +/−2.3 (n=12) |
8.2 +/− 7.0 (n=16) |
0.168 |
| Capsular invasion |
0.034 |
||
| Absent | 5 | 0 | |
| Present | 4 | 7 | |
| No capsule |
5 |
6 |
|
| Extrathyroidal extension |
0.009 |
||
| Absent | 10 | 2 | |
| Present |
6 |
14 |
|
| Extrathyroidal vascular invasion | 0.128 |
||
| Absent | 8 | 4 | |
| Present |
5 |
10 |
|
| FDG-PET | 0.063 |
||
| No uptake | 9 | 5 | |
| Positive uptake |
4 |
12 |
|
| Distant metastases | 0.197 | ||
| None | 5 | 2 | |
| Present | 9 | 15 | |
a
Staging based on American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging manual, 6th edition.
b
Two tumors with a low TAM density and 3 tumors in the high TAM density group had no evidence of tumor necrosis For each variable, where n does not equal the total number of cases in the TAM group, there was insufficient or missing data from some cases in that particular category and therefore some cases were not included in the analysis.