Background Measurement of the 24-h urinary iodine concentration or urinary iodine excretion (UIE) is the gold standard to determine iodine status; however, this method is inconvenient. The use of salivary iodine could be a possible alternative since salivary glands express the sodium-iodine symporter. Objectives We aimed to establish the correlation between the salivary iodine secretion and UIE, to evaluate the clinical applicability of the iodine saliva measurement. Methods We collected 24-h urine and saliva samples from 40 participants ≥18 y: 20 healthy volunteers with no specific diet (group 1), 10 patients with differentiated thyroid cancer with a low dietary intake (<50 μg/d, group 2), and 10 patients with a high iodine status as the result of the use of amiodarone (group 3). Urinary and salivary iodine were measured using a validated inductively coupled plasma MS method. To correct for differences in water content, the salivary iodine concentration (SIC) was corrected for salivary protein and urea concentrations (SI/SP and SI/SU, respectively). The intra- and inter-individual CVs were calculated, and the Kruskal-Wallis test and Spearman's correlation were used. Results The intra-individual CVs for SIC, SI/SP, and SI/SU were 63.8%, 37.7%, and 26.9%, respectively. The inter-individual CVs for SIC, SI/SP, and SI/SU were 77.5%, 41.6% and 47.0%, respectively. We found significant differences (P < 0.01) in urinary and salivary iodine concentrations between all groups [the 24-h UIE values were 176 μg/d (IQR, 96.1–213 μg/d), 26.0 μg/d (IQR, 22.0–37.0 μg/d), and 10.0*103 μg/d (IQR, 7.57*103–11.4*103 μg/d) in groups 1–3, respectively; the SIC values were 136 μg/L (IQR, 86.3–308 μg/L), 71.5 μg/L (IQR, 29.5–94.5 μg/L), and 14.3*103 μg/L (IQR, 10.6*103–25.6*103 μg/L) in groups 1–3, respectively]. Correlations between the 24-h UIE and SIC, SI/SP, and SI/SU values were strong (ρ = 0.80, ρ = 0.90, and ρ = 0.86, respectively; P < 0.01). Conclusions Strong correlations were found between salivary and urinary iodine in adults with different daily iodine intakes. A salivary iodine measurement can be performed to assess the total iodine body pool, with the recommendation to correct for salivary protein or urea.

Background Currently, there are no European recommendations for the management of pediatric thyroid cancer. Other current international guidelines are not completely concordant. In addition, medical regulations differ between for instance the US and Europe. We aimed to develop new, easily accessible national recommendations for differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) patients <18 years of age in the Netherlands as a first step towards a harmonized European Recommendation. Methods A multidisciplinary working group was formed including pediatric and adult endocrinologists, a pediatric radiologist, a pathologist, endocrine surgeons, pediatric surgeons, pediatric oncologists, nuclear medicine physicians, a clinical geneticist and a patient representative. A systematic literature search was conducted for all existing guidelines and review articles for pediatric DTC from 2000 until February 2019. The Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used for assessing quality of the articles. All were compared to determine dis- and concordances. The American Thyroid Association (ATA) pediatric guideline 2015 was used as framework to develop specific Dutch recommendations. Discussion points based upon expert opinion and current treatment management of DTC in children in the Netherlands were identified and elaborated. Results Based on the most recent evidence combined with expert opinion, a 2020 Dutch recommendation for pediatric DTC was written and published as an online interactive decision tree (www.oncoguide.nl). Conclusion Pediatric DTC requires a multidisciplinary approach. The 2020 Dutch Pediatric DTC Recommendation can be used as starting point for the development of a collaborative European recommendation for treatment of pediatric DTC.

Background: Thyroglobulin (Tg) is an established tumor marker in differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC). However, Tg assays can be subject to interference by autoantibodies against Tg (TgAbs). No clinical consensus exists on the cutoff value of TgAb positivity and its relationship to Tg assay interference. The aims of this study were to investigate the most applicable cutoff value for TgAb positivity in clinical practice and to evaluate whether tumor characteristics differ between TgAb+ and TgAb-patients during ablation therapy using the manufacturer's cutoff (MCO) and institutional cutoff (ICO). Methods: This single-center cohort study included 230 DTC patients diagnosed between January 2006 and December 2014. Serum Tg and TgAbs were measured with the Tg-IRMA (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and ARCHITECT Anti-Tg (Abbott Laboratories) assays. Patients were divided into TgAb-and TgAb+ based on the limit of detection (LoD; ‡0.07 IU/mL), functional sensitivity (FS; ‡0.31 IU/mL), MCO ( ‡4.11 IU/mL), and ICO ( ‡10 IU/mL). Results: All patients were TgAb+ based on the LoD; one patient was negative on FS. Fifty-five (23.9%) and 34 (14.8%) patients had TgAbs above the MCO and ICO, respectively. Histology, presence of multifocality, tumor-node-metastasis, and American Thyroid Assocation risk stratification did not differ between TgAb-and TgAb+ patients using MCO and ICO during ablation. Conclusions: This study supports the use of a higher cutoff value than that of the FS for TgAb positivity in clinical settings. The LoD and FS are too sensitive to discriminate TgAb positivity and negativity in DTC patients during ablation therapy. The presence of TgAbs during ablation is not related to tumor characteristics and risk profile. This implies that TgAb positivity should not be considered a separate risk factor.