Impact of delayed radioiodine therapy in intermediate‐/high‐risk papillary thyroid carcinoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mijin Kim ◽  
Minkyu Han ◽  
Min Ji Jeon ◽  
Won Gu Kim ◽  
In Joo Kim ◽  
...  
Swiss Surgery ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-68
Author(s):  
Schweizer ◽  
Seifert ◽  
Gemsenjäger

Fragestellung: Die Bedeutung von Lymphknotenbefall bei papillärem Schilddrüsenkarzinom und die optimale Lymphknotenchirurgie werden kontrovers beurteilt. Methodik: Retrospektive Langzeitstudie eines Operateurs (n = 159), prospektive Dokumentation, Nachkontrolle 1-27 (x = 8) Jahre, Untersuchung mit Bezug auf Lymphknotenbefall. Resultate: Staging. Bei 42 Patienten wurde wegen makroskopischem Lymphknotenbefall (cN1) eine therapeutische Lymphadenektomie durchgeführt, mit pN1 Status bei 41 (98%) Patienten. Unter 117 Patienten ohne Anhalt für Lymphknotenbefall (cN0) fand sich okkulter Befall bei 5/29 (17%) Patienten mit elektiver (prophylaktischer) Lymphadenektomie, und bei 2/88 (2.3%) Patienten ohne Lymphadenektomie (metachroner Befall) (p < 0.005). Lymphknotenrezidive traten (1-5 Jahre nach kurativer Primärtherapie) bei 5/42 (12%) pN1 und bei 3/114 (2.6%) cN0, pN0 Tumoren auf (p = 0009). Das 20-Jahres-Überleben war bei TNM I + II (low risk) Patienten 100%, d.h. unabhängig vom N Status; pN1 vs. pN0, cN0 beeinflusste das Überleben ungünstig bei high risk (>= 45-jährige) Patienten (50% vs. 86%; p = 0.03). Diskussion: Der makroskopische intraoperative Lymphknotenbefund (cN) hat Bedeutung: - Befall ist meistens richtig positiv (pN1) und erfordert eine ausreichend radikale, d.h. systematische, kompartiment-orientierte Lymphadenektomie (Mikrodissektion) zur Verhütung von - kurablem oder gefährlichem - Rezidiv. - Okkulter Befall bei unauffälligen Lymphknoten führt selten zum klinischen Rezidiv und beeinflusst das Überleben nicht. Wir empfehlen eine weniger radikale (sampling), nur zentrale prophylaktische Lymphadenektomie, ohne Risiko von chirurgischer Morbidität. Ein empfindlicherer Nachweis von okkultem Befund (Immunhistochemie, Schnellschnitt von sampling Gewebe oder sentinel nodes) erscheint nicht rational. Bei pN0, cN0 Befund kommen Verzicht auf 131I Prophylaxe und eine weniger intensive Nachsorge in Frage.


2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 257-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Riesco-Eizaguirre ◽  
P Gutiérrez-Martínez ◽  
M A García-Cabezas ◽  
M Nistal ◽  
P Santisteban

The oncogene BRAFV600E is the most frequent genetic event in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) but its prognostic impact still remains to be elucidated. We evaluated a representative series of 67 individuals with PTC who underwent total thyroidectomy. BRAF-positive tumours correlated with early recurrences (32% vs 7.6%; P=0.02) during a median postoperative follow-up period of 3 years. Interestingly, within the recurrences, a significant majority had negative radioiodine (131I) total body scans, predicting a poorer outcome as treatment with 131I is not effective. This last observation led us to investigate the role of BRAFV600E and the MEK-ERK pathway in thyroid dedifferentiation, particularly in Na+/I− symporter (NIS) impairment, as this thyroid-specific plasma membrane glycoprotein mediates active transport of I− into the thyroid follicular cells. A subset of 60 PTC samples was evaluated for NIS immunoreactivity and, accordingly, we confirmed a significant low NIS expression and impaired targeting to membranes in BRAF-positive samples (3.5% vs 30%; P=0.005). Furthermore, experiments with differentiated PCCl3 thyroid cells demonstrated that transient expression of BRAFV600E sharply impaired both NIS expression and targeting to membrane and, surprisingly, this impairment was not totally dependent on the MEK-ERK pathway. We have concluded that BRAFV600E is a new prognostic factor in PTC that correlates with a high risk of recurrences and less differentiated tumours due to the loss of NIS-mediated 131I uptake.


Author(s):  
Stamatina Ioakim ◽  
Vasilis Constantinides ◽  
Meropi Toumba ◽  
Theodoros Lyssiotis ◽  
Angelos Kyriacou

Summary Our objective is to demonstrate the importance of considering microcalcifications even without evidence of nodules as a potential sign of malignancy. Current guidelines, such as those of the British Thyroid Association, acknowledge the clinical significance of microcalcifications only when found within nodules. In this case, they are considered a suspicious feature, classifying the nodules as U5 (i.e. high risk) where fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) is warranted, following the high likelihood of cancer in these nodules. In addition, there is a dearth of evidence of ultrasound scan (USS) detection of microcalcifications in the thyroid gland outside of nodules, along with their associated clinical implications. Yet, this clinical manifestation is not so infrequent considering that we do encounter patients in the clinic showing these findings upon ultrasound examination. Three patients who presented to our clinic with thyroid-related symptoms were shown to have areas of microcalcifications without a nodule upon sonographic evaluation of their thyroid gland. These incidentally detected hyperechoic foci were later confirmed to correspond to areas of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) on histopathological examination of resected tissue following thyroidectomy. Four more cases were identified with sonographic evidence of microcalcifications without nodules and given their clinical and other sonographic characteristics were managed with active surveillance instead. Learning points Echogenic foci known as microcalcifications may be visible without apparent association to nodular structures. Microcalcifications without nodules may not be an infrequent finding. Microcalcifications are frequently indicative of malignancy within the thyroid gland even without a clearly delineated nodule. Empirically, the usual guidelines for the management of thyroid nodules can be applied to the management of microcalcifications not confined to a nodule, but such a finding per se should be classified as a ‘high-risk’ sign.


2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anish Bhattacharya ◽  
SunilHejjaji Venkataramarao ◽  
ChandraSekhar Bal ◽  
BhagwantRai Mittal

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document