| Literature DB >> 34079521 |
Alessandro Bisceglia1, Ruth Rossetto1, Sara Garberoglio1,2, Angelica Franzin1, Alice Cerato1, Francesca Maletta3, Mauro Giulio Papotti4, Ezio Ghigo1, Loredana Pagano1, Mauro Maccario1, Roberto Garberoglio1,2.
Abstract
Purpose: To confirm the efficacy of ultrasound (US) guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of benign thyroid nodules, we evaluated as primary outcome the technical efficacy and clinical success in a single center dataset. The secondary outcome was to find a correlation between nodules' pre-treatment features and volume reduction rate (VRR) ≥75% at 12 months after RFA and during follow-up period.Entities:
Keywords: benign thyroid nodules; efficacy of radiofrequency ablation; predictive factors; radiofrequency ablation (RFA); volume reduction
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34079521 PMCID: PMC8165384 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.638880
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Pre-treatment clinical features of 119 thyroid RFA-treated nodules.
| Clinical Features | Total n = 119 (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Thyroid function | Euthyroidism | 100 (83.00) |
| Hypothyroidism | 16 (13.50) | |
| Hyperthyroidism | 3 (2.50) | |
| Citology | Tir2 | 114 (95.80) |
| Tir3A | 5 (4.20) | |
| Compressive symptoms | 0 | 3 (2.52) |
| 1 | 2 (1.68) | |
| 2 | 14 (11.76) | |
| 3 | 13 (10.92) | |
| 4 | 14 (11.76) | |
| 5 | 35 (29.41) | |
| 6 | 19 (15.97) | |
| 7 | 7 (5.88) | |
| 8 | 9 (7.56) | |
| 9 | 2 (1.68) | |
| 10 | 1 (0.84) | |
| Cosmetic score | 1 | 1 (0.84) |
| 2 | 2 (1.68) | |
| 3 | 2 (1.68) | |
| 4 | 114 (95.80) | |
|
|
|
|
| Neck circumference (cm) | 37.59 ± 3.57 | 37 (5.00) |
| Volume (ml) | 25.25 ± 16.81 | 22.4 (20.70) |
Ultrasonographic features of 119 thyroid RFA-treated nodules.
| Ultrasound Features | Total n = 119 (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Solid | 29 (19.33) |
| Microcystic | 62 (52.10) | |
| Macrocystic | 9 (7.56) | |
| Spongiform | 11 (9.24) | |
| Echogenicity | Anechoic | 0 (0.00) |
| Isoechoic | 72 (60.50) | |
| Hypoechoic | 47 (39.50) | |
| Markedly Hypoechoic | 0 (0.00) | |
| Margins | Regular | 116 (97.48) |
| Irregular | 3 (2.52) | |
| Calcifications | Absent | 80 (67.23) |
| Present | 29 (32.77) | |
| Shape | Regular | 119 (100) |
| Taller than wide | 0 (0.00) | |
| Vascularization | Perinodular | 29 (24.37) |
| Endonodular | 0 (0.00) | |
| Peri-Endonodular | 88 (73.95) | |
| Unknown | 2 (1.68) | |
| Elastosonography | Soft | 42 (35.29) |
| Intermediate | 52 (43.70) | |
| Hard | 3 (2.52) | |
| Unknown | 22 (18.49) | |
| Volume (mL) | ≤ 10 | 21 (17.65) |
| 11-30 | 60 (50.42) | |
| >30 | 38 (31.93) | |
Figure 1Nodules’ volume (A) and VRR (B) by time after RFA.
Figure 2Nodules’ volume by time after RFA stratified by pre-treatment volume (A) and echostructure (B).
Figure 3Nodules’ VRR by time after RFA stratified by pre-treatment volume (A) and echostructure (B).
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier curves of cumulative incidence of technical success (VRR ≥ 75%) by median volume (A) and three volume categories (B).
Figure 5Kaplan–Meier curves of cumulative incidence of technical success (VRR ≥ 75%) by echostructure (A) and VRR at 1 month (B).