Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 413

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Controversies, Consensus, and Collaboration in the Use of 131 I Therapy in Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Joint Statement from the American Thyroid Association, the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and the European Thyroid Association

Open access
Tuttle, R. Michael, Ahuja, Sukhjeet, Avram, Anca M., Bernet, Victor J., Bourguet, Patrick, Daniels, Gilbert H., Dillehay, Gary, Draganescu, Ciprian, Flux, Glenn, Führer, Dagmar, Giovanella, Luca, Greenspan, Bennett, Luster, Markus, Muylle, Kristoff, Smit, Johannes W.A., Van Nostrand, Douglas, Verburg, Frederik A., Hegedüs, Laszlo·2019·Thyroid

Abstract

Background: Publication of the 2015 American Thyroid Association (ATA) management guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer was met with disagreement by the extended nuclear medicine community with regard to some of the recommendations related to the diagnostic and therapeutic use of radioiodine ( 131 I). Because of these concerns, the European Association of Nuclear Medicine and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging declined to endorse the ATA guidelines. As a result of these differences in opinion, patients and clinicians risk receiving conflicting advice with regard to several key thyroid cancer management issues. Summary: To address some of the differences in opinion and controversies associated with the therapeutic uses of 131 I in differentiated thyroid cancer constructively, the ATA, the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and the European Thyroid Association each sent senior leadership and subject-matter experts to a two-day interactive meeting. The goals of this first meeting were to (i) formalize the dialogue and activities between the four societies; (ii) discuss indications for 131 I adjuvant treatment; (iii) define the optimal prescribed activity of 131 I for adjuvant treatment; and (iv) clarify the definition and classification of 131 I-refractory thyroid cancer. Conclusion: By fostering an open, productive, and evidence-based discussion, the Martinique meeting restored trust, confidence, and a sense of collegiality between individuals and organizations that are committed to optimal thyroid disease management. The result of this first meeting is a set of nine principles (The Martinique Principles) that (i) describe a commitment to proactive, purposeful, and inclusive interdisciplinary cooperation; (ii) define the goals of 131 I therapy as remnant ablation, adjuvant treatment, or treatment of known disease; (iii) describe the importance of evaluating postoperative disease status and multiple other factors beyond clinicopathologic staging in 131 I therapy decision making; (iv) recognize that the optimal administered activity of 131 I adjuvant treatment cannot be definitely determined from the published literature; and (v) acknowledge that current definitions of 131 I-refractory disease are suboptimal and do not represent definitive criteria to mandate whether 131 I therapy should be recommended.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/thy.2018.0597

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Tuttle, R. M., Ahuja, S., Avram, A. M., Bernet, V. J., Bourguet, P., Daniels, G. H., Dillehay, G., Draganescu, C., Flux, G., Führer, D., Giovanella, L., Greenspan, B., Luster, M., Muylle, K., Smit, J. W. A., Van Nostrand, D., Verburg, F. A., & Hegedüs, L.
Venue
Thyroid
Published
2019-04
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
461-470
ISSN
  • 1050-7256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9077
OpenAlex
W2923440107
Cited by
413
References
2
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.