mRECIST criteria to assess recurrent thyroid carcinoma treatment response after radiofrequency ablation: a prospective study
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, ISSN: 1720-8386, Vol: 41, Issue: 12, Page: 1389-1399
2018
- 18Citations
- 36Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations18
- Citation Indexes17
- 17
- CrossRef1
- Policy Citations1
- 1
- Captures36
- Readers36
- 36
Article Description
Purpose: Surgical removal is recommended for recurrent thyroid carcinomas (RTCs) unable to uptake radioiodine and/or not responsive to chemotherapy. However, repeated neck dissection is difficult for surgeons. Thus, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was proposed for RTCs. The aim of this prospective study is to assess RTC treatment response after RFA, according to well-established criteria. Methods: Sixteen lesions in 13 patients were treated by RFA. All patients refused/were excluded from repeated surgery or other conventional therapy. CT and US examinations were performed before RFA to evaluate lesion volume and vascularization. All RFA procedures were performed under US-guidance by an 18-gauge, electrode. Treatment response was evaluated by CT, according to RECIST 1.1 and to mRECIST guidelines; CT examinations were performed during follow-up (6–18 months); the volume of residual vital tumour tissue and the percentage of necrotic tissue were estimated by contrast enhanced CT. Results: RFA was well tolerated by all patients; in two cases laryngeal nerve paralysis was observed. Mean pre-treatment volume was 4.18 ± 3.53 ml. Vital tumour tissue and percentage of necrosis at 6, 12 and 18 months were 0.18 ± 0.25, 0.11 ± 0.13, 0.29 ± 0.40 ml and 91.9 ± 11.1, 90.4 ± 13.3, 80.8 ± 23.1%. According to RECIST 1.1, target lesion response was classified as complete response (CR) in one case, partial response (PR) in 11/16, stable disease in 4/16 cases. According to mRECIST, 11/16 cases were classified as CR and the remaining 5 as PR. Conclusion: RFA is a safe procedure to treat the viable tumour tissue and to reduce the RTC volume; as to the criteria to assess treatment response, mRECIST appears to be more accurate.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85045834001&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40618-018-0886-0; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29687416; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40618-018-0886-0; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40618-018-0886-0; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40618-018-0886-0
Springer Nature
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know