Recommended Reporting Format for Thyroid Carcinoma

Rosaí, Juan; Carcangiu, Maria Luisa; Lellis, R. A. De; LiVolsi, Virginia A.; Sobrinho‐Simöes, Manuel

doi:10.1309/jx6n-k5a8-ee8t-pehw

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recognition of the importance of standardised reporting of thyroid cancer, the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology published guidelines in 2000 that could eliminate some of the variability seen in this study. 14 Another area that presented clinical uncertainty was the distinction of N1a lymph nodes, which can be confusing if not explicitly stated by a surgeon or pathologist given the need to understand neck anatomy. Although we did not explicitly ask the experts and fellows to stage the disease, we suspect that there was some confusion interpretation between N1a and N1b disease.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pilot Study of a Web-based Decision Tool on Post-operative Use of Radioactive Iodine

Baxi

Kurtzman

Eaton

et al. 2017

European Endocrinology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Thyroid Cancer Care Collaborative developed a web-based clinical decision-making module (CDMM) to inform risk-adjusted decisions on post-thyroidectomy radioactive iodine (RAI) use in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC). Methods: In a pilot study, we evaluated the CDMM in 19 PTC cases representing low- (five), intermediate- (seven) and high-risk (seven) disease. Two PTC experts and 10 PTC physicians reviewed cases and assigned risk level and RAI recommendation. The experts used a standard approach while the others used the CDMM. We assessed agreement between responses using a weighted Kappa. Results: Between experts, risk-assignment was concordant in 100%, 57% and 86% of low-, intermediate- and high-risk cases, respectively. Between CDMM users, risk-assignment was concordant in 100%, 29% and 14% in low-, intermediate- and high-risk cases, respectively (p=0.01). CDMM-assigned risk agreed with the expert-assigned risk in 100%, 25% and 0% of low-, intermediate- and high-risk cases, respectively (Kappa=0.69). For RAI use, the experts agreed in 15 cases while CDMM users agreed in eight. On further analysis, interpretation of extrathyroidal extension and lymph node staging led to discrepancies with the CDMM. Conclusions: For a web-based CDMM to accurately inform appropriate use of RAI in PTC, standard pathological and surgical reports are necessary.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%