Smit, Johannes W. A.

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.