ArticleJournal of endocrinological investigation2021
Indication for radioiodine remnant ablation in differentiated thyroid cancer patients: does 2018 Italian consensus change anything?
Article in Journal of endocrinological investigation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe speculated that radioiodine remnant ablation (RRA) could be performed less frequently in differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) patients, if the recommendations of the 2018 Italian Consensus (ITA) were applied in clinical practice. Therefore, we compared the ITA indications for RRA with the recommendations by the 2015 American Thyroid Association guidelines (ATA).
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 380 consecutive DTC patients treated with surgery and RRA, followed at the Section of Endocrinology, University of Siena, Italy from January 2006 to December 2019.
resultsUsing ITA a significant increase of DTC patients classified as low or high risk and a significant decrease of patients defined at intermediate risk were observed (p < 0.0001). Consequently, the percentage of patients without routinary indication for RRA (47.4%, versus 38.2%, p < 0.0001) and those with a definite indication for RRA (8.2 versus 1.8%, p < 0.0001) was significantly higher compared to ATA. Moreover, using ITA the percentage of patients with a selective use of RRA was lower in comparison to ATA (44.7% versus 60%, p < 0.0001). Nevertheless, the prevalence of distant metastases, at post-ablative whole body scan, in patients without indication for RRA, was not different using either ATA or ITA (2.1% and 1.1% respectively, p = 0.37).
conclusionThe use of ITA Consensus, in clinical practice, increases significantly the number of patients for whom RRA is not routinely indicated in comparison to ATA guidelines but without differences in delaying the diagnosis of distant metastatic disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.