4.3 Article

99mTc-Pertechnetate Scintigraphy Predicts Successful Postoperative Ablation in Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma Patients Treated with Low Radioiodine Activities

Journal

ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM
Volume 34, Issue 1, Pages 63-69

Publisher

KOREAN ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.3803/EnM.2019.34.1.63

Keywords

Differentiated thyroid carcinoma; Radioiodine; Radionuclide imaging; Sodium pertechnetate Tc 99m

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Postoperative routine radioiodine (RAI) treatment is currently debated for patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) patients. If performed, a low 131I activity (i.e., 1 to 2 GBq) is recommended with the aim to ablate thyroid remnant and facilitate subsequent follow-up by thyroglobulin measurement. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between postsurgical technetium-99m (Tc-99m)-pertechnetate scintigraphy and the rate of successful remnant ablation after low activity radioiodine ablation in patients with DTC. Methods: Enrolled were 193 patients with low risk DTC who underwent total thyroidectomy and RAI ablation with a fixed 1.1 GBq activity of I-131. Tc-99m-pertechnetate scans were done and thyrotropin stimulated thyroglobulin (sTg) levels measured just before ablation. Ablation effectiveness was assessed 6 to 12 months later by sTg measurement, neck ultrasound and diagnostic whole body scan. Results: A negative Tc-99m-perthecnetate scans was the best predictor of successful ablation (P<0.001) followed by preablative sTg levels <0.8 ng/mL (P=0.008) and Tc-99m-pertechnetate uptake rate values <0.9% (P=0.065). Neither sex nor age of the patient at the time of ablation or tumor histology and size showed a significant association with the rate of successful ablation. Conclusion: The Tc-99m-pertechnetate scintigraphy is a simple and feasible tool to predict effectiveness of low activity I-131 thyroid to ablate thyroid remnants in patients with DTC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available