BACKGROUND: In recent years serum thyroglobulin (Tg) measurement during thyroxine (T4) treatment and/or after stimulation by endogenous TSH or recombinant human TSH (rhTSH) has eclipsed other diagnostic procedures in managing patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). However, preoperative undetectable Tg was reported in up to 12% of patients affected by DTC and recurrences of DTC with no increase in serum Tg have also been described. Clearly, a negative Tg measurement may falsely reassure both the patient and the clinician in these cases. AIM: We retrospectively evaluated the incidence of undetectable or reduced preoperative serum Tg in a group of 436 patients affected by DTC. Additionally, we evaluated the role of Tg retesting by two different immunoassays in patients with low Tg at first measurement. METHODS: We retrospectively selected 17 patients with undetectable (i.e. less than functional sensitivity of assay method) or reduced Tg (i.e. between functional sensitivity and minimum normal value) among 436 patients with histologically proved DTC. The remaining 419 patients were used as control cases. Frozen sera from all patients were retested by two different Tg immunoassays. RESULTS: Globally, 17 out of 436 (3.8%) patients showed undetectable (n = 5, 1.1%) or reduced (n = 12, 2.7%) preoperative Tg. The Tg level was above the minimum normal value in 3 and 4 out of 5, and 8 and 9 out of 12 of these patients, respectively, when two different immunoassays were employed. On the other hand, undetectable or reduced Tg levels were found in 3.0%-5.1% of control cases when different immunoassays were used. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the method employed, 3.0-5.1% of patients with DTC showed undetectable or reduced preoperative Tg. This fact must be recognized, as Tg cannot be used as a benchmark for DTC follow-up in these cases. However, Tg retesting with different immunoassays seems to be useful in ruling out these pitfalls in a large majority of patients, and also indicates the most effective assay to be employed in these cases.
BACKGROUND: In recent years serum thyroglobulin (Tg) measurement during thyroxine (T4) treatment and/or after stimulation by endogenous TSH or recombinant humanTSH (rhTSH) has eclipsed other diagnostic procedures in managing patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). However, preoperative undetectable Tg was reported in up to 12% of patients affected by DTC and recurrences of DTC with no increase in serum Tg have also been described. Clearly, a negative Tg measurement may falsely reassure both the patient and the clinician in these cases. AIM: We retrospectively evaluated the incidence of undetectable or reduced preoperative serum Tg in a group of 436 patients affected by DTC. Additionally, we evaluated the role of Tg retesting by two different immunoassays in patients with low Tg at first measurement. METHODS: We retrospectively selected 17 patients with undetectable (i.e. less than functional sensitivity of assay method) or reduced Tg (i.e. between functional sensitivity and minimum normal value) among 436 patients with histologically proved DTC. The remaining 419 patients were used as control cases. Frozen sera from all patients were retested by two different Tg immunoassays. RESULTS: Globally, 17 out of 436 (3.8%) patients showed undetectable (n = 5, 1.1%) or reduced (n = 12, 2.7%) preoperative Tg. The Tg level was above the minimum normal value in 3 and 4 out of 5, and 8 and 9 out of 12 of these patients, respectively, when two different immunoassays were employed. On the other hand, undetectable or reduced Tg levels were found in 3.0%-5.1% of control cases when different immunoassays were used. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the method employed, 3.0-5.1% of patients with DTC showed undetectable or reduced preoperative Tg. This fact must be recognized, as Tg cannot be used as a benchmark for DTC follow-up in these cases. However, Tg retesting with different immunoassays seems to be useful in ruling out these pitfalls in a large majority of patients, and also indicates the most effective assay to be employed in these cases.
Authors: Rushad Patell; Alexandra Mikhael; Michael Tabet; James Bena; Eren Berber; Christian Nasr Journal: Endocrine Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Sarah C Oltmann; Glen Leverson; Suzy Hsiu-I Lin; David F Schneider; Herbert Chen; Rebecca S Sippel Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Hosu Kim; Young Nam Kim; Hye In Kim; So Young Park; Jun-Ho Choe; Jung-Han Kim; Jee Soo Kim; Jae Hoon Chung; Tae Hyuk Kim; Sun Wook Kim Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mijin Kim; Min Ji Jeon; Won Gu Kim; Jong Jin Lee; Jin Sook Ryu; Eun Jung Cho; Dae Hyun Ko; Woochang Lee; Sail Chun; Won Ki Min; Tae Yong Kim; Young Kee Shong; Won Bae Kim Journal: Endocrinol Metab (Seoul) Date: 2016-08-02