Hegedüs, László

Background: The thyroid eye disease (TED) treatment landscape is rapidly evolving. How new treatment options have impacted practice is unknown. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of American and European Thyroid Association members between June 2 and June 30, 2021. The survey included TED questions about resources for its management, index cases for different severities and presentations of TED, barriers for the management of TED, and participants' concerns about TED. We classified respondents into three geographic categories: North America, Europe, or other regions. Results: Two hundred fifty-two eligible participants started the survey (15% response rate), and 227 completed it. Participants were mostly men (50.2%, 114/227), white (79.7%, 181/227), endocrinologists with a thyroid focus (66.1%, 150/227), practicing in a tertiary academic center (46.7%, 106/227), caring for 10 or more TED patients over the last 12 months (40.5%, 92/227), and reported not having a multidisciplinary TED clinic in their institution (52.8%, 120/227). The majority reported that new TED cases per annum have not changed in the past 10 years (47.5%, 108/227), and that TED patients are found in practice during the management of hyperthyroidism (41.8%, 95/227). For mild active TED, participants from Europe reported a higher use of selenium (73%[96/132] vs. 32%[20/62] of respondents from North America and 24%[8/33] of respondents from other regions). For moderate-to-severe active TED, there was a modest preference for teprotumumab as first-line therapy (37%, 23/62) among North American participants and intravenous (IV) steroids (73%[96/132], and 42%[14/33]) for participants from Europe and other regions, respectively. These treatment preferences did not change in patients with moderate-to-severe active TED with poorly controlled diabetes. In contrast, participants from the three geographic categories preferred IV steroids for optic neuropathy and women planning pregnancy. The three top “very important” concerns about TED management according to participants were: the cost of TED treatment (31.3%, 71/227), lack of effective TED treatments (19.8%, 45/227), and difficulty in predicting whether TED will develop (18.9%, 43/227). Conclusions: There is a marked geographic practice variation in the management of TED. Clinicians' concerns about TED management demand ongoing research on more effective treatment, TED predictive tools, and policy changes to improve the affordability of new TED therapies.

<P>Objective: The first edition of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology/American College of Endocrinology/Associazione Medici Endocrinologi Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Thyroid Nodules was published in 2006 and updated in 2010 and 2016. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology/American College of Endocrinology/Associazione Medici Endocrinologi multidisciplinary thyroid nodules task force was charged with developing a novel interactive electronic algorithmic tool to evaluate thyroid nodules. <P> Methods: The Thyroid Nodule App (termed TNAPP) was based on the updated 2016 clinical practice guideline recommendations while incorporating recent scientific evidence and avoiding unnecessary diagnostic procedures and surgical overtreatment. This manuscript describes the algorithmic tool development, its data requirements, and its basis for decision making. It provides links to the web-based algorithmic tool and a tutorial. <P> Results: TNAPP and TI-RADS were cross-checked on 95 thyroid nodules with histology-proven diagnoses. <P> Conclusion: TNAPP is a novel interactive web-based tool that uses clinical, imaging, cytologic, and molecular marker data to guide clinical decision making to evaluate and manage thyroid nodules. It may be used as a heuristic tool for evaluating and managing patients with thyroid nodules. It can be adapted to create registries for solo practices, large multispecialty delivery systems, regional and national databases, and research consortiums. Prospective studies are underway to validate TNAPP to determine how it compares with other ultrasound-based classification systems and whether it can improve the care of patients with clinically significant thyroid nodules while reducing the substantial burden incurred by those who do not benefit from further evaluation and treatment.</P>

Background: The American Thyroid Association (ATA), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, the European Thyroid Association, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging have established an intersocietal working group to address the current controversies and evolving concepts in thyroid cancer management and therapy. The working group annually identifies topics that may significantly impact clinical practice and publishes expert opinion articles reflecting intersocietal collaboration, consensus, and suggestions for further research to address these important management issues. Summary: In 2019, the intersocietal working group identified the following topics for review and interdisciplinary discussion: (i) perioperative risk stratification, (ii) the role of diagnostic radioactive iodine (RAI) imaging in initial staging, and (iii) indicators of response to RAI therapy. Conclusions: The intersocietal working group agreed that (i) initial patient management decisions should be guided by perioperative risk stratification that should include the eighth edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system to predict disease specific mortality, the modified 2009 ATA risk stratification system to estimate structural disease recurrence, with judicious incorporation of molecular theranostics to further refine management recommendations; (ii) diagnostic RAI scanning in ATA intermediate risk patients should be utilized selectively rather than being considered mandatory or not necessary for all patients in this category; and (iii) a consistent semiquantitative reporting system should be used for response evaluations after RAI therapy until a reproducible and clinically practical quantitative system is validated.

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.