This retrospective case-control study showed that although the response to treatment at one and two years was not different between the case and control groups, time to reach excellent response was significantly longer in patients with familial NMTCs than in non-familial patients while they had received similar treatments and were age, sex, and TNM stage-matched. These findings were also correct when we compared two sub-groups of familial NMTCs (families with two involved NMTC first-degree relatives and families with three or more NMTC patients). Our results support those reports showing that familial NMTCs are more aggressive and may require additional treatments to achieve an excellent response.
Familial NMTCs account for about 3 - 9% of all differentiated thyroid cancers and seem to follow an inherited feature (
8,
12,
16). Although a large number of researchers advocate more aggressiveness of familial disease and suggest more aggressive treatments for them (
7,
9,
17), others believe that familial and sporadic NMTCs are not different in terms of clinical and pathological presentations from sporadic NMTC and have a similar prognosis (
11,
18). One of the main reasons behind these controversies is the low incidence of familial NMTCs and limited literature on their genetic mutations (
14,
19). Other variables that may be effective include different follow-up durations, different definitions of response to treatment, and different inclusion criteria.
In this study, 95.1% of the patients had papillary thyroid cancer, and 87% had a classic subtype. These findings are concordant with other studies that reported papillary thyroid cancer as the most frequent pathologic type of differentiated thyroid cancers (
7,
10,
11,
17). Many reports confirm that familial NMTCs are more frequent in women than in men, and no gender difference is noted between familial and sporadic NMTCs (
7,
10,
11,
16,
17). Our results supported this finding and showed that the female to male ratio was about 2.79 in familial NMTC patients. This result suggests more careful screening in female first-degree relatives of NMTC patients.
In this study, 2.75% of thyroid cancer patients had familial NMTC, which is concordant with reports from other parts of the world. Overall, familial NMTC was reported in 3 - 9% of patients with thyroid cancer (
8,
12,
16), and it was 4% in Japan (
20), 10% in the USA (
17), 6.4% in Italy (
16), 5.3% in Israel (
11), and 4.4% in Canada (
18).
We found differences in time to reach excellent response to treatment between familial and sporadic NMTCs. Macdonald et al. reported more aggressiveness of familial NMTCs at first diagnosis, more deaths, more required reoperation, and more iodine therapy in familial NMTC (
7). In our study, five cancer deaths happened in the FNMTC group, while no cancer death was reported in the control group. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, additional treatments like second surgery or additional radio-iodine therapy were not more frequent in patients in our study. The advantage of our study was that we matched familial and sporadic patients for age, sex, and TNM stage. Moreover, we excluded more aggressive histologies like anaplastic cancer, which could have more effects on prognosis in a group of patients. Our study, however, indicates the importance of long-term follow-up in any research involving NMTC, as cancer death was more common in patients with familial NMTC than in sporadic cases. Furthermore, our study showed a similar response to treatments one and two years after therapy in sporadic and familial NMTC. Some comparative studies (
7,
11,
17) compared familial and sporadic NMTC patients without matching for age, sex, or TNM stage. To the extent of our search in the literature, there was no study in which response to treatment and time to excellent response was compared between two groups.
In another study, Uchino et al. showed that familial NMTCs were more aggressive, and disease recurrence was significantly more common in familial NMTCs (
20). The high number of familial NMTCs (258 familial versus 6200 non-familial cancer cases) in that study was a big advantage. They concluded that although overall survival was not different between the two groups, cancer-free survival was shorter in familial NMTC patients. This conclusion seems to be concordant with our findings of the longer time required to achieve excellent response despite no difference in categorized response to treatment after one and two years. One study compared 321 non-familial NMTCs with 37 familial NMTCs, and familial NMTCs were found to be more aggressive in pathology and included more disease recurrence in long-term follow-up (
17). Again, this study included all NMTC patients without matching and did not evaluate response to treatment. We had one recurrence in each group.
Only two studies had exactly matched familial and non-familial patients in terms of age, sex, and TNM stage and had been performed by Pinto et al. (
10) and Evelyn Linda Maxwell et al. (
18). They concluded that familial and sporadic NMTCs were similar in clinical behavior and prognosis, except for multifocality that was more frequent in familial patients (
Table 4). Our study showed a similar response to treatment one and two years after therapy between the case and control groups. Also, they compared disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) as prognostic criteria, which was not different between familial and non-familial patients. Moreover, the mortality rate was calculated to be higher in the control group in one of these studies (although statistically insignificant) (
10). Multifocality was not more prevalent in FNMTC patients in our study. The difference between our study and others may reflect different selection criteria and methodology in our study. Most of the previous studies did not match familial NMTC patients with their non-familial counterparts. From the studies that matched the two groups, one had 24 patients with FNMTC and found no difference in any variable that could be due to the limited number of patients in that investigation (
18). The second study found that only multifocality was more common in FNMTC patients; however, it did not compare time to reach excellent response between the two groups (
10). Multifocality was not different in our study that may be due to the exclusion of high-risk histologic variants in our study.
| References | Age (y) | F/M | Incidence of FNMTC | PTC (%) | > 2 Member | Matched | Multifocality | Follow-up Time (mo) | Cancer Death | Significant Difference |
|---|
| Current study | 37.7 ± 12.6 | 52/14 (78.8) | 81/2944 (2.75) | 95.1 | 22/66 (33.3) | Age, sex, TNM | 44/66 (66.7) | 62.7 ± 49.1 | 2/66 (3) | TTER |
| Mc. Donald et al. (7) | 41.66 ± 1.9 | 72/19 (79.1) | 91/698 (13) | 95.1 | 41/91 (45) | No match | 54/91 (59.3) | 57.96 ± 8.28 | 3/91 (3.3) | Death, distant metastasis, persistent disease, additional surgery, additional RIT |
| Uchino et al. (20) | 49.1 ± 13.9 | 227/31 (88) | 258/6458 (4) | NA | 43/258 (16.6) | No match | 105/258 (15.9) | 142.5 ± 123.1 | 7/258 (2.7) | Recurrence, DFS, multifocality |
| Mazeh H et al. (17) | 43 ± 3 | 29/8 (78.4) | 37/358 (10) | 90 | 19/37 (51.3) | No match | 18/37 (48) | NA | NA | Age, multifocality, N stage, recurrence |
| Pinto et al. (10) | 46.1 | 82/25 (76.6) | NA | 77.6 | 32/107 (29.9) | Age, sex, pTNM, approximate follow-up time | 52/107 (49.1) | 92.7 | 0/107 | Multifocality |
| Maxwell et al. (18) | 54.6 ± 18.5 | 19/5 (79.2) | 24/543 (4.4) | 92 | NA | Age, sex, stage at presentation, tumor size | 12/24 (50) | ≥ 24 | 0/24 | Nothing |
Abbreviations: TTER, time to reach excellent response; DFS, disease-free survival.
a Values are expressed as mean ± SD and No. (%) unless otherwise indicated.
In another study, 67 familial NMTC patients were compared with 375 patients with non-familial NMTC, and it found no significant difference in age, gender, TNM stage, pathology aggressiveness, prognosis, persistent/recurrent disease, and disease-free survival between the two groups (
11). Our study also showed no difference in response to treatment one and two years after surgery, but time to excellent response was longer in patients with familial NMTC. These findings suggest that although familial NMTCs are not significantly more aggressive and their one and two years’ response to therapy are not statistically different, they may require more careful follow-up to achieve an excellent response.
Furthermore, we looked at the number of involved family members and compared two subgroups of patients with two involved members and more than two involved members. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of response to therapy, similar to other reports that found no significant difference (
10,
11,
17,
21). These findings suggest that the number of involved family members did not change the prognosis in familial NMTC. Anyhow, a recent screening study of family members of FNMTC patients showed that thyroid carcinoma was more commonly seen (22.7 versus 4.6%) in family members of patients with three or more involved relatives compared to patients with two involved relatives and recommend that screening in this group may be justified (
22).
The strength of our study was that we compared two uniform groups that were matched for age, sex, and TNM stage, and we excluded aggressive histology. However, our main limitations were a relatively limited number of patients and the retrospective nature of the study.
4.1. Conclusion
Our studies showed that the majority of the patients with FNMTC had only one involved first-degree relative. The chance of the involvement of a female relative was 2.79 times higher than that of the involvement of a male relative. Furthermore, the time to excellent response was longer in patients with FNMTC than in controls, and the involvement of more than one family relative would not increase the chance of incomplete response.