Purpose: Surgical removal is recommended for recurrent thyroid carcinomas (RTCs) unable to uptake radioiodine and/or not responsive to chemotherapy. However, repeated neck dissection is difficult for surgeons. Thus, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was proposed for RTCs. The aim of this prospective study is to assess RTC treatment response after RFA, according to well-established criteria. Methods: Sixteen lesions in 13 patients were treated by RFA. All patients refused/were excluded from repeated surgery or other conventional therapy. CT and US examinations were performed before RFA to evaluate lesion volume and vascularization. All RFA procedures were performed under US-guidance by an 18-gauge, electrode. Treatment response was evaluated by CT, according to RECIST 1.1 and to mRECIST guidelines; CT examinations were performed during follow-up (6–18 months); the volume of residual vital tumour tissue and the percentage of necrotic tissue were estimated by contrast enhanced CT. Results: RFA was well tolerated by all patients; in two cases laryngeal nerve paralysis was observed. Mean pre-treatment volume was 4.18 ± 3.53 ml. Vital tumour tissue and percentage of necrosis at 6, 12 and 18 months were 0.18 ± 0.25, 0.11 ± 0.13, 0.29 ± 0.40 ml and 91.9 ± 11.1, 90.4 ± 13.3, 80.8 ± 23.1%. According to RECIST 1.1, target lesion response was classified as complete response (CR) in one case, partial response (PR) in 11/16, stable disease in 4/16 cases. According to mRECIST, 11/16 cases were classified as CR and the remaining 5 as PR. Conclusion: RFA is a safe procedure to treat the viable tumour tissue and to reduce the RTC volume; as to the criteria to assess treatment response, mRECIST appears to be more accurate.

mRECIST criteria to assess recurrent thyroid carcinoma treatment response after radiofrequency ablation: a prospective study

Cervelli, R.;Elisei, R.;Tarantini, G.;Molinaro, E.;De Napoli, L.;Vitti, P.;Caramella, D.
2018-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: Surgical removal is recommended for recurrent thyroid carcinomas (RTCs) unable to uptake radioiodine and/or not responsive to chemotherapy. However, repeated neck dissection is difficult for surgeons. Thus, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was proposed for RTCs. The aim of this prospective study is to assess RTC treatment response after RFA, according to well-established criteria. Methods: Sixteen lesions in 13 patients were treated by RFA. All patients refused/were excluded from repeated surgery or other conventional therapy. CT and US examinations were performed before RFA to evaluate lesion volume and vascularization. All RFA procedures were performed under US-guidance by an 18-gauge, electrode. Treatment response was evaluated by CT, according to RECIST 1.1 and to mRECIST guidelines; CT examinations were performed during follow-up (6–18 months); the volume of residual vital tumour tissue and the percentage of necrotic tissue were estimated by contrast enhanced CT. Results: RFA was well tolerated by all patients; in two cases laryngeal nerve paralysis was observed. Mean pre-treatment volume was 4.18 ± 3.53 ml. Vital tumour tissue and percentage of necrosis at 6, 12 and 18 months were 0.18 ± 0.25, 0.11 ± 0.13, 0.29 ± 0.40 ml and 91.9 ± 11.1, 90.4 ± 13.3, 80.8 ± 23.1%. According to RECIST 1.1, target lesion response was classified as complete response (CR) in one case, partial response (PR) in 11/16, stable disease in 4/16 cases. According to mRECIST, 11/16 cases were classified as CR and the remaining 5 as PR. Conclusion: RFA is a safe procedure to treat the viable tumour tissue and to reduce the RTC volume; as to the criteria to assess treatment response, mRECIST appears to be more accurate.
2018
Mazzeo, S.; Cervelli, R.; Elisei, R.; Tarantini, G.; Cappelli, C.; Molinaro, E.; Galleri, D.; De Napoli, L.; Comite, C.; Cioni, R.; Vitti, P.; Caramel...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/981514
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 14
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact