4.7 Article

Comparison of Empiric Versus Whole-Body/-Blood Clearance Dosimetry Based Approach to Radioactive Iodine Treatment in Patients with Metastases from Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 58, 期 5, 页码 717-722

出版社

SOC NUCLEAR MEDICINE INC
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.179606

关键词

endocrine; oncology; radionuclide therapy; dosimetry; radioactive iodine; thyroid cancer

资金

  1. Genzyme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The optimal management of radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment in patients with metastatic thyroid cancer (TC) is still a matter of debate. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 352 patients with RAI-avid metastatic well-differentiated TC treated with 1311 by an empiric fixed activity of 3.7 GBq at Gustave Roussy (GR, n = 231) or by personalized activity (2.7-18.6 GBq) based on whole-body/-blood clearance (WB/BC) dosimetry at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC, n = 121). The primary endpoint was to compare overall survival (OS) in the 2 groups of patients by log-rank test. Results: Patients received a median cumulative activity of 14.8 GBq at GR and 24.2 GBq at MSKCC (P < 0.0001). The median follow-up after the diagnosis of metastases was 7.2 y (0.4-31 y). Five-year OS was 86.8% and 78.8% for patients treated at GR and at MSKCC, respectively (P < 0.01). However, there was no statistical difference in OS after correction for sex, age at the diagnosis of distant metastases, metastases site, and metastases extension between the 2 centers (P = 0.16). OS at 5 y was 96% and 96% for patients younger than 40 y with micrometastases, 70% and 65% for patients older than 40 y with macrometastases or multiple metastases, and 92% and 87% for younger patients with macrometastases or older patients with micrometastases treated at GR and MSKCC, respectively (P = not significant). Conclusion: Routine use of WB/BC dosimetry without lesional dosimetry provided no OS advantage when compared with empiric fixed RAI activity in the management of thyroid cancer patients with RAI-avid distant metastases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据