Efficacy of Low-Dose Radioiodine Ablation in Low- and Intermediate-Risk Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis

Strategies for Radioiodine Treatment: What’s New

Radioiodine treatment (RAI) represents the most widespread and effective therapy for differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). RAI goals encompass ablative (destruction of thyroid remnants, to enhance thyroglobulin predictive value), adjuvant (destruction of microscopic disease to reduce recurrences), and therapeutic (in case of macroscopic iodine avid lesions) purposes, but its use has evolved over time. Randomized trial results have enabled the refinement of RAI indications, moving from a standardized practice to a tailored approach. In most cases, low-risk patients may safely avoid RAI, but where necessary, a simplified protocol, based on lower iodine activities and human recombinant TSH preparation, proved to be just as effective, reducing overtreatment or useless impairment of quality of life. In pediatric DTC, RAI treatments may allow tumor healing even at the advanced stages. Finally, new challenges have arisen with the advancement in redifferentiation protocols, through which RAI still represents a leading therapy, even in former iodine refractory cases. RAI therapy is usually well-tolerated at low activities rates, but some concerns exist concerning higher cumulative doses and long-term outcomes. Despite these achievements, several issues still need to be addressed in terms of RAI indications and protocols, heading toward the RAI strategy of the future.

Can we safely reduce the administration of 131-iodine in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer? - experience of the Brugmann hospital in Brussels

Background

131-iodine (¹³¹I) administration after surgery remains a standard practice in differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). In 2014, the American Thyroid Association presented new guidelines for the staging and management of DTC, including no systematic ¹³¹I in patients at low-risk of recurrence and a reduced ¹³¹I activity in intermediate risk.The present study aims at evaluating the rate of response to treatment following this new therapeutic management compared to our previous treatment strategy in patients with DTC of different risks of recurrence.

Methods

Patients treated and followed up for DTC according to the 2014-ATA guidelines (Group 2) were compared to those treated between 2007 and 2014 (Group 1) in terms of general characteristics, risk of recurrence (based on the 2015-ATA recommendations), preparation to ¹³¹I administration, cumulative administered ¹³¹I activity and response to treatment.

Results

In total, 136 patients were included: 78 in Group 1 and 58 in Group 2. The two groups were not statistically different in terms of clinical characteristics nor risk stratification: 42.3% in Group 1 and 31% in Group 2 were classified as low risk, 38.5 and 48.3% as intermediate risk and 19.2 and 20.7% as high risk (P = 0.38). Two patients (one in each group) with distant metastases were excluded from the analysis.Preparation to ¹³¹I administration consisted in rhTSH stimulation in 23.4% of the patients in Group 1 and 100% in Group 2 (p < 0.001).¹³¹I was administered to 46/77 patients (59.7%) in Group 1 (5 at low risk of recurrence) and 38/57 patients (66.7%) in Group 2 (0 with a low risk). Among the patients treated by ¹³¹I, median cumulative activity was significantly higher in Group 1 (3.70GBq [100 mCi] range 1.11-11.1 GBq [30-300 mCi]) than in Group 2 (1.11 GBq [30 mCi], range 1.11-7.4 GBq [30-200 mCi], P < 0.001). Complete response was found in 90.9% in Group 1 vs. 96.5% in Group 2 (P = 0.20).

Conclusions

Using the 2015-ATA evidence-based guidelines for the management of DTC, meaning no ¹³¹I administration in low-risk patients, a low activity in intermediate and even high risk patients, and a systematic use of rhTSH stimulation before ¹³¹I therapy allowed us to reduce significantly the median administered ¹³¹I activity, with a similar rate of complete therapeutic response.