| Literature DB >> 34504471 |
Xinyang Li1,2, Yu Lan2, Nan Li2, Lin Yan2, Jing Xiao2, Mingbo Zhang2, Yukun Luo1,2.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of thermal ablation (TA) for Bethesda IV thyroid nodules, and to compare TA and surgery in terms of treatment outcomes, complications, and costs. Method: This study was approved by the local ethics committee. From January 2017 to December 2019, 30 patients elected TA and 31 patients elected surgery for treatment of Bethesda IV thyroid nodules. Demographics information and conventional ultrasound before treatment for each patient was obtained. For the TA group, the ablation extent was 3 mm beyond the edge of the tumor to prevent marginal residual and recurrence. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months after intervention, and every 6 months thereafter. Postoperative complications, operation time, hospitalization time, blood loss, and incision length were recorded.Entities:
Keywords: Bethesda IV; surgery; thermal ablation; thyroid nodules; ultrasound
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34504471 PMCID: PMC8421723 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.674970
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Figure 1Flowchart summarizing the patient inclusion process. CND is the abbreviation of central lymph node dissection.
General information and ultrasound characteristics of patients undergoing thermal ablation and surgery.
| Characteristics | Thermal ablation | Surgery | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age(y) | 47.3 ± 13.6 | 48.2 ± 11.5 | 0.798 |
| Sex | 0.221 | ||
| Male | 4 | 8 | – |
| Female | 26 | 23 | – |
| Nodule maximum diameter(cm) | 2.46 ± 1.37 | 2.47 ± 1.35 | 0.975 |
| Nodule volume(ml) | 6.56 ± 9.09 | 6.42 ± 7.10 | 0.945 |
| Position | 0.353 | ||
| Left | 11 | 13 | – |
| Right | 19 | 16 | – |
| Isthmus | 0 | 2 | – |
| Composition | 0.949 | ||
| Cystic or almost completely cystic | 0 | 0 | – |
| Mixed cystic/solid | 6 | 6 | – |
| Solid or almost completely | 24 | 25 | – |
| Echogenicity | 0.466 | ||
| Hypoechoic | 14 | 19 | – |
| Isoechoic | 14 | 9 | – |
| Hyperechoic | 2 | 3 | – |
| Shape | 0.981 | ||
| Wider-than-tall | 29 | 30 | – |
| Taller-than-wide | 1 | 1 | – |
| Margin | 0.724 | ||
| Smooth | 19 | 17 | – |
| Ill-defined | 8 | 11 | – |
| Lobulated or irregular | 3 | 2 | – |
| Echogenic foci | 0.816 | ||
| None or large comet-tail artifacts | 22 | 21 | – |
| Macrocalcification | 0 | 0 | – |
| Peripheral calcifications | 1 | 2 | – |
| Punctuate echogenic foci | 7 | 8 | – |
Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation; categorical data are presented as frequencies.
Changes of the maximum diameter, mean volume, and reduction rate of the nodule after thermal ablation at each follow-up point.
| Follow-up | n | Maximum diameter | Volume | VRR | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD(cm) | Range | Mean ± SD(ml) | Range | Mean ± SD(%) | Range | |||||
| Baseline | 30 | 2.46 ± 1.37 | 0.70-5.20 | – | 6.56 ± 9.09 | 0.08-37.90 | – | – | – | – |
| Immediately | 30 | 2.76 ± 1.01 | 1.20-4.90 | 0.314 | 8.45 ± 8.22 | 0.76-32.00 | 0.043* | – | – | – |
| 1 month | 30 | 2.37 ± 0.88 | 0.90-4.00 | 0.143 | 4.58 ± 5.10 | 0.14-22.08 | 0.019* | 47.40 ± 19.47 | 10-83 | <0.001* |
| 3 months | 30 | 2.00 ± 0.82 | 0.60-4.00 | 0.003* | 2.62 ± 2.70 | 0.01-11.00 | <0.001* | 66.27 ± 15.47 | 34-93 | <0.001* |
| 6 months | 30 | 1.71 ± 0.85 | 0.00-3.80 | <0.001* | 1.93 ± 2.24 | 0.00-9.15 | <0.001* | 77.13 ± 15.25 | 40-100 | <0.001* |
| 12 months | 30 | 1.27 ± 0.91 | 0.00-3.70 | <0.001* | 1.34 ± 2.02 | 0.00-8.54 | <0.001* | 87.17 ± 13.14 | 56-100 | <0.001* |
| 18 months | 14 | 0.88 ± 1.10 | 0.00-3.50 | <0.001* | 0.91 ± 1.71 | 0.00-6.26 | 0.002* | 93.36 ± 9.17 | 70-100 | <0.001* |
| 24 months | 8 | 0.71 ± 1.22 | 0.00-3.20 | <0.001* | 0.79 ± 1.62 | 0.00-4.52 | 0.014* | 94.63 ± 8.99 | 76-100 | <0.001* |
Data are means ± standard deviation.
*P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 2A 47-year-old woman with Bethesda IV thyroid nodules on FNA in the right thyroid lobe. (A) Before RFA, ultrasound image shows a hypoechoic nodule with an smooth margin thyroid nodule, and size with 0.9cm×0.6 cm×0.6 cm; (B) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound performed immediately after RFA shows larger in size(1.2cm×1.1cm×1.1 cm) than that before ablation and a complete lack of enhancement in the treated area (white arrows). (C) Ultrasound shows gas formation in the nodule which covered by a hyperechoic ablation area (white arrows); (D) 1 month after ablation, the ablation zone was 0.9cm × 0.5cm × 0.6 cm in size; (E) 3 month after RFA, ultrasound shows the treated area shrunk (0.6cm×0.2cm×0.2cm); (F) 6 months after RFA, ultrasound shows line-like hypoechoic area, remained as a small scar lesion (white arrows); (G) The ablation area disappeared on ultrasonography 12 months after ablation.
Figure 3The variation of VRR after thermal ablation at each follow-up period. *p < 0.001.
Comparison of the complications of the thermal ablation group and surgery group.
| Comparison | Thermal ablation | Surgery | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voice hoarseness | 0 | 0 | – |
| Hematoma | 0 | 0 | – |
| Postoperative pain | 1 | 31 | <0.001* |
| Incision infections | 0 | 0 | – |
| Hypothyroidism | 0 | 5 | <0.001* |
| Hypocalcemia | 0 | 4 | 0.042* |
Data are numbers of patients.
*P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Treatment variables of the thermal ablation and the surgery groups.
| Characteristics | Thermal ablation (n=30) | Total Surgery (n=31) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total operation time(min) | 4.43 ± 2.36 | 85.55 ± 28.29 | <0.001* |
| Estimated Blood loss(ml) | 0 | 36.93 ± 51.03 | <0.001* |
| Hospitalization(d) | 0 | 6.84 ± 1.72 | <0.001* |
| Cost($USD) | 1900.62 ± 119.58 | 2932.89 ± 529.70 | <0.001* |
| Incision length(cm) | 0.19 ± 0.15 | 6.52 ± 1.36 | <0.001* |
Data are means ± standard deviation.
*P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.