BACKGROUND: The optimal management of high-risk patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) consists of thyroidectomy followed by radioiodine ((131)I) therapy. The prescribed activity of (131)I can be determined using two approaches: 1) empiric prescribed activity of (131)I (E-Rx); and 2) dosimetry-based prescribed activity of (131)I (D-Rx). AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the relative treatment efficacy and side effects of D-Rx vs. E-Rx. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients with distant metastases and/or locoregionally advanced radioiodine-avid DTC who were treated with either D-Rx or E-Rx. Response to treatment was based on RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) 1.1 criteria. RESULTS: The study group consisted of 87 patients followed for 51 ± 35 months, of whom 43 were treated with D-Rx and 44 with E-Rx. Multivariate analysis, controlling for age, gender, and status of metastases revealed that the D-Rx group tended to be 70% less likely to progress (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.087-1.02; P = 0.052) and more likely to obtain complete response (CR) compared to the E-Rx group (odds ratio, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-53.5; P = 0.029). There was an association in the D-Rx group between the observed CR and percentage of maximum tolerable activity given as a first treatment of (131)I (P = 0.030). The advantage of D-Rx was specifically apparent in the locoregionally advanced group because CR was significantly higher in D-Rx vs. E-Rx in this group of patients (35.7 vs. 3.3%; P = 0.009). The rates of partial response, stable disease, and progression-free survival, as well as the frequency of side effects, were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Higher efficacy of D-Rx with a similar safety profile compared to E-Rx supports the rationale for employing individually prescribed activity in high-risk patients with DTC.
BACKGROUND: The optimal management of high-risk patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) consists of thyroidectomy followed by radioiodine ((131)I) therapy. The prescribed activity of (131)I can be determined using two approaches: 1) empiric prescribed activity of (131)I (E-Rx); and 2) dosimetry-based prescribed activity of (131)I (D-Rx). AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the relative treatment efficacy and side effects of D-Rx vs. E-Rx. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients with distant metastases and/or locoregionally advanced radioiodine-avid DTC who were treated with either D-Rx or E-Rx. Response to treatment was based on RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) 1.1 criteria. RESULTS: The study group consisted of 87 patients followed for 51 ± 35 months, of whom 43 were treated with D-Rx and 44 with E-Rx. Multivariate analysis, controlling for age, gender, and status of metastases revealed that the D-Rx group tended to be 70% less likely to progress (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.087-1.02; P = 0.052) and more likely to obtain complete response (CR) compared to the E-Rx group (odds ratio, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-53.5; P = 0.029). There was an association in the D-Rx group between the observed CR and percentage of maximum tolerable activity given as a first treatment of (131)I (P = 0.030). The advantage of D-Rx was specifically apparent in the locoregionally advanced group because CR was significantly higher in D-Rx vs. E-Rx in this group of patients (35.7 vs. 3.3%; P = 0.009). The rates of partial response, stable disease, and progression-free survival, as well as the frequency of side effects, were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Higher efficacy of D-Rx with a similar safety profile compared to E-Rx supports the rationale for employing individually prescribed activity in high-risk patients with DTC.
Authors: Frederik A Verburg; Markus Luster; Luca Giovanella; Michael Lassmann; Carlo Chiesa; Nicolas Chouin; Glenn Flux Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: C Chiesa; K Sjogreen Gleisner; G Flux; J Gear; S Walrand; K Bacher; U Eberlein; E P Visser; N Chouin; M Ljungberg; M Bardiès; M Lassmann; L Strigari; M W Konijnenberg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bryan R Haugen; Erik K Alexander; Keith C Bible; Gerard M Doherty; Susan J Mandel; Yuri E Nikiforov; Furio Pacini; Gregory W Randolph; Anna M Sawka; Martin Schlumberger; Kathryn G Schuff; Steven I Sherman; Julie Ann Sosa; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle; Leonard Wartofsky Journal: Thyroid Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Nicholas S Andresen; John M Buatti; Hamed H Tewfik; Nitin A Pagedar; Carryn M Anderson; John M Watkins Journal: Eur Thyroid J Date: 2017-03-23