4.5 Review

Updated Review of Nuclear Molecular Imaging of Thyroid Cancers

Journal

ENDOCRINE PRACTICE
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 494-502

Publisher

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eprac.2020.10.001

Keywords

nuclear molecular imaging; thyroid cancer; nuclear medicine; radiopharmaceuticals

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81671711, 81701731]
  2. Shanghai Key Discipline of Medical Imaging [2017ZZ02005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review focuses on the evaluation of differentiated and dedifferentiated thyroid cancer, centering around radioiodine and fluorine 18-fludeoxyglucose respectively. Preferred tracers for medullary thyroid cancer include F-18-L-dihydroxyphenylalanine and gallium 68 DOTATATE. In dedifferentiated medullary and anaplastic thyroid cancer, F-18-fludeoxyglucose is superior.
Objectives: We initiate this comprehensive review to update the advances in this field by objectively elucidating the efficacies of promising radiopharmaceuticals. Methods: We performed a comprehensive PUBMED search using the combined terms of thyroid cancer and radiopharmaceuticals or nuclear medicine, yielding 3273 and 11026 articles prior to December 31, 2020, respectively. Results: Based on the mechanism of molecular metabolism, the evaluation of differentiated thyroid cancer and dedifferentiated thyroid cancer is largely centered around radioiodine and fluorine 18 (F-18)-fludeoxyglucose, respectively. Further, F-18-L-dihydroxyphenylalanine and gallium 68 DOTATATE are the preferred tracers for medullary thyroid cancer. In dedifferentiated medullary thyroid cancer and anaplastic thyroid cancer, F-18-fludeoxyglucose is superior. Conclusions: The future lies in advances in molecular biology, novel radiopharmaceuticals and imaging devices, paving ways to the development of personalized medication for thyroid cancer patients. (C) 2020 AACE. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available