Iconaru Laura, Baleanu Felicia, Taujan Georgiana, Duttmann Ruth, Spinato Linda, Karmali Rafik, Bergmann Pierre, Hambye Anne-Sophie
Department of Endocrinology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place van Gehuchten4, 1020 Laeken, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Anatomopathology, CHU Brugmann, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Thyroid Res. 2020 Sep 12;13:15. doi: 10.1186/s13044-020-00089-4. eCollection 2020.
131-iodine (I) administration after surgery remains a standard practice in differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). In 2014, the American Thyroid Association presented new guidelines for the staging and management of DTC, including no systematic I in patients at low-risk of recurrence and a reduced I activity in intermediate risk.The present study aims at evaluating the rate of response to treatment following this new therapeutic management compared to our previous treatment strategy in patients with DTC of different risks of recurrence.
Patients treated and followed up for DTC according to the 2014-ATA guidelines (Group 2) were compared to those treated between 2007 and 2014 (Group 1) in terms of general characteristics, risk of recurrence (based on the 2015-ATA recommendations), preparation to I administration, cumulative administered I activity and response to treatment.
In total, 136 patients were included: 78 in Group 1 and 58 in Group 2. The two groups were not statistically different in terms of clinical characteristics nor risk stratification: 42.3% in Group 1 and 31% in Group 2 were classified as low risk, 38.5 and 48.3% as intermediate risk and 19.2 and 20.7% as high risk ( = 0.38). Two patients (one in each group) with distant metastases were excluded from the analysis.Preparation to I administration consisted in rhTSH stimulation in 23.4% of the patients in Group 1 and 100% in Group 2 ( < 0.001).I was administered to 46/77 patients (59.7%) in Group 1 (5 at low risk of recurrence) and 38/57 patients (66.7%) in Group 2 (0 with a low risk). Among the patients treated by I, median cumulative activity was significantly higher in Group 1 (3.70GBq [100 mCi] range 1.11-11.1 GBq [30-300 mCi]) than in Group 2 (1.11 GBq [30 mCi], range 1.11-7.4 GBq [30-200 mCi], < 0.001). Complete response was found in 90.9% in Group 1 vs. 96.5% in Group 2 ( = 0.20).
Using the 2015-ATA evidence-based guidelines for the management of DTC, meaning no I administration in low-risk patients, a low activity in intermediate and even high risk patients, and a systematic use of rhTSH stimulation before I therapy allowed us to reduce significantly the median administered I activity, with a similar rate of complete therapeutic response.
手术后给予¹³¹碘(I)仍是分化型甲状腺癌(DTC)的标准治疗方法。2014年,美国甲状腺协会提出了DTC分期和管理的新指南,包括复发低风险患者不进行系统性I治疗,以及中风险患者降低I活度。本研究旨在评估与我们之前对不同复发风险的DTC患者的治疗策略相比,采用这种新治疗管理后的治疗反应率。
根据2014年美国甲状腺协会(ATA)指南治疗并随访的DTC患者(第2组)与2007年至2014年期间治疗的患者(第1组)在一般特征、复发风险(基于2015年ATA建议)、I给药准备、累积给予的I活度和治疗反应方面进行比较。
总共纳入136例患者:第1组78例,第2组58例。两组在临床特征和风险分层方面无统计学差异:第1组42.3%和第2组31%被归类为低风险,38.5%和48.3%为中风险,19.2%和20.7%为高风险(P = 0.38)。两名有远处转移的患者(每组各一名)被排除在分析之外。第1组23.4%的患者和第2组100%的患者I给药准备采用重组人促甲状腺素(rhTSH)刺激(P < 0.001)。第1组46/77例患者(59.7%)(5例复发低风险患者)和第2组38/57例患者(66.7%)(0例低风险患者)接受了I治疗。在接受I治疗的患者中,第1组的中位累积活度(3.70GBq [100mCi],范围1.11 - 11.1GBq [30 - 300mCi])显著高于第2组(1.11GBq [30mCi],范围1.11 - 7.4GBq [30 - 200mCi],P < 0.001)。第1组完全缓解率为90.9%,第2组为96.5%(P = 0.20)。
采用2015年ATA基于证据的DTC管理指南,即低风险患者不给予I治疗;中风险甚至高风险患者给予低活度I治疗,并在I治疗前系统性使用rhTSH刺激,使我们能够显著降低中位给予的I活度,同时完全治疗反应率相似。