The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 9:30 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 1 hour.
2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-05841-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

To give or not to give? A critical appraisal of a clinical trial on radioiodine treatment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In a current analysis of the ESTIMABL2-trial patients with low-risk thyroid cancer after thyroidectomy, a follow-up strategy that did not involve the use of radioiodine (1.1 GBq) was non-inferior to an ablation strategy with radioiodine, regarding the occurrence of functional, structural, and biologic events at 3 years’ follow-up [ 21 ]. The main criticisms of this study, as stated by specialists such as those from the group of Tuncel et al, are the low activity of 1.1 GBq (which induces remnant ablation, no adjuvant therapy [ 16 ]), the study population (pT1a/b, N0/x) covering only a part of the low-risk group, and the short follow-up period, which, according to the work of Sawka et al, should be at least 10 years [ 22 , 23 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a current analysis of the ESTIMABL2-trial patients with low-risk thyroid cancer after thyroidectomy, a follow-up strategy that did not involve the use of radioiodine (1.1 GBq) was non-inferior to an ablation strategy with radioiodine, regarding the occurrence of functional, structural, and biologic events at 3 years’ follow-up [ 21 ]. The main criticisms of this study, as stated by specialists such as those from the group of Tuncel et al, are the low activity of 1.1 GBq (which induces remnant ablation, no adjuvant therapy [ 16 ]), the study population (pT1a/b, N0/x) covering only a part of the low-risk group, and the short follow-up period, which, according to the work of Sawka et al, should be at least 10 years [ 22 , 23 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A similar study, IoN, is currently investigating this question with incorporation of a higher risk group (up to T3 and N1a disease) (7). Nevertheless, further work may also be required with respect to larger patient groups and long follow-ups (8). Two randomised trials (HiLo and ESTIMABL1) reported similar post-ablation success at 6-9 months and recurrence rates in patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer when comparing 1.1 GBq and 3.7 GBq (9)(10)(11).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An open-label, phase III, non-inferiority trial study randomized low-risk DTC patients to postoperative administration of 1.1 GBq 131 I versus no ablation [ 12 ]. The authors did not find differences in outcomes after 3 years in the different groups, but acknowledged several limitations, pointing out in particular that the 3-year period applied was too short to draw definitive conclusions [ 13 , 14 ]. Their critical analysis was correctly addressed to clinical readers via a well-recognized medical journal.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%