English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: The optimal management of high-risk patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) consists of thyroidectomy followed by radioiodine (131I) therapy. The prescribed activity of 131I can be determined using two approaches: 1) empiric prescribed activity of 131I (E-Rx); and 2) dosimetry-based prescribed activity of 131I (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 131I (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.

Efficacy of Dosimetric Versus Empiric Prescribed Activity of 131I for Therapy of Differentiated Thyroid Cancer