ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Pathology-based thermal ablation safety margin for follicular adenoma: a digital whole-slide study of follicular carcinoma invasion.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Follicular adenoma (FA) and follicular thyroid carcinoma (FC) are difficult to differentiate before surgery, raising concerns that thermal ablation (TA) of FA might treat an occult minimally invasive FC. Therefore, the microscopic extent of FC invasion was quantified to propose a pathology-informed ablation safety margin. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 43 surgically resected FCs treated between 2016 and 2023. Two readers independently reviewed the pathological images (×40 magnification). The capsule infiltration distance (the maximum depth of infiltration beyond the capsule) and the minimally invasive infiltration distance (the ultrasound-undetectable occult infiltration depth) were measured. These distances were compared by tumor stage, FC pathological classification, and lymph node metastasis (LNM). Results: The capsule infiltration distance ranged from 0.14 to 6.10 mm (mean, 1.49 ± 1.22). The minimally invasive infiltration distance ranged from 0.09 to 1.36 mm (mean, 0.56 ± 0.37). The distances did not differ by tumor stage, FC pathological classification, sex, or lymph node metastasis (LNM) (all P > 0.05). Age was associated with a larger capsule infiltration distance (P = 0.040). However, age was not associated with the minimally invasive infiltration distance (P = 0.367). Conclusion: The minimally invasive infiltration in FC did not exceed 1.36mm in this cohort. Since the actual ablation area achieved by clinical TA exceeds the pathological margin, this supports the extended ablation safety margin of 2mm beyond the sonographic tumor boundary. This TA margin could cover occult minimally invasive FC.
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.