4.6 Article

Updated clinical management guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic: thyroid nodules and cancer

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 186, Issue 4, Pages G1-G7

Publisher

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-21-0716

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article summarizes the adjustments made by nuclear thyroidology during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent the spread of the virus while maintaining the quality and safety of the services provided.
Healthcare settings, including nuclear medicine (NM) departments, promptly adjusted their standard operating procedures to cope with the unprecedented crisis caused by coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Nuclear thyroidology has adopted changes and predicated on a careful risk-benefit analysis, in order to prevent a potential spread of the virus while being at the same time effective, safe and preserving their quality of essential services. Since most thyroid nodules (TNs) are benign, and malignant neoplasms are characterized by an indolent natural history, it is generally safe to delay diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In this respect, the main adjustments that nuclear thyroidology has adopted are summarized into the following: general workplace adjustments including remote work for NM staff; postponing appointments for consultation, diagnostic and therapeutic purposes and rescheduling based on individualized risk stratification; telemedicine; preparation for possible issues on radiopharmaceuticals synthesis and delivery; preventing measures and protocols to minimize or avoid potential COVID-19 infection of patients and medical staff. This document should be considered as updated guidance on how clinical management of TNs and thyroid cancer has been altered, remodeled and adapted to the new circumstances in the COVID-19 era, based on the rapidly growing volume of scientific information regarding the new coronavirus.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available