MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Acknowledging gray areas: 2015 vs. 2009 American Thyroid Association differentiated thyroid cancer guidelines on ablating putatively low-intermediate-risk patients
Acknowledging gray areas: 2015 vs. 2009 American Thyroid Association differentiated thyroid cancer guidelines on ablating putatively low-intermediate-risk patients
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Acknowledging gray areas: 2015 vs. 2009 American Thyroid Association differentiated thyroid cancer guidelines on ablating putatively low-intermediate-risk patients
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Acknowledging gray areas: 2015 vs. 2009 American Thyroid Association differentiated thyroid cancer guidelines on ablating putatively low-intermediate-risk patients
Acknowledging gray areas: 2015 vs. 2009 American Thyroid Association differentiated thyroid cancer guidelines on ablating putatively low-intermediate-risk patients

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Acknowledging gray areas: 2015 vs. 2009 American Thyroid Association differentiated thyroid cancer guidelines on ablating putatively low-intermediate-risk patients
Acknowledging gray areas: 2015 vs. 2009 American Thyroid Association differentiated thyroid cancer guidelines on ablating putatively low-intermediate-risk patients
Journal Article

Acknowledging gray areas: 2015 vs. 2009 American Thyroid Association differentiated thyroid cancer guidelines on ablating putatively low-intermediate-risk patients

2017
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Purpose Typically formulated by investigators from “world centres of excellence,” differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) management guidelines may have more limited applicability in settings of less expert care and fewer resources. Arguably the world’s leading DTC guidelines are those of the American Thyroid Association, revised in 2009 (“ATA 2009”) and 2015 (“ATA 2015”). To further explore the issue of “real-world applicability” of DTC guidelines, we retrospectively compared indications for ablation using ATA 2015 versus ATA 2009 in a two-centre cohort of ablated T1–2, M0 DTC patients ( N  = 336). Based on TNM status and histology, these patients were low–intermediate risk, but many ultimately had other characteristics suggesting elevated or uncertain risk. Methods Working by consensus, two experienced nuclear medicine physicians considered patient and treatment characteristics to classify each case as having “no indication,” a “possible indication,” or a “clear indication” for ablation according to ATA 2009 or ATA 2015. The physicians also identified reasons for classification changes between ATA 2015 versus ATA 2009. Classification was unblinded, but the physicians had cared for only 138/336 patients, and the charts encompassed September 2010–October 2013, several years before the classification was performed. Results One hundred of 336 patients (29.8 %) changed classification regarding indication for ablation using ATA 2015 versus ATA 2009. Most reclassified patients (70/100) moved from “no indication” or “clear indication” to “possible indication.” Reflecting this phenomenon, “possible indication” became the largest category according to the ATA 2015 classification (141/336, 42.0 %, versus 96/336, 28.6 %, according to ATA 2009). Many reclassifications were attributable to multiple clinicopathological characteristics, most commonly, stimulated thyroglobulin or anti-thyroglobulin antibody levels, multifocality, bilateral involvement, or capsular/nodal invasion. Conclusions Regarding indications for ablation, ATA 2015 appears to better “acknowledge grey areas,” i.e., patients with ambiguous or unavailable data requiring individualised, nuanced decision-making, than does ATA 2009.