Schmitz, John J.

Abstract Disclosure: M. Dhanasekaran: None. A.A. Rajwani: None. M.R. Castro: None. J.C. Morris: None. J. Schmitz: None. R.A. Lee: None. M. Callstrom: None. M. Stan: None. Context: Autonomously functioning thyroid nodules (AFTNs) constitutes 5% of thyroid nodules and is the second most common cause of hyperthyroidism following Graves’ Disease. Untreated hyperthyroidism is associated with adverse cardiovascular and skeletal complications. Currently, radioactive iodine (RAI) and surgery are the standard treatment options for AFTNs, and both incur a risk of post-procedural hypothyroidism. To overcome this and other surgery/radiation-related complications, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been utilized in multiple countries (for both toxic and non-toxic thyroid nodules). It has been shown to induce significant nodule volume reduction along with restoration of normal thyroid function in many AFTNs. Methods: We present a single-center experience using RFA as an alternative treatment modality for AFTNs. The study's primary aim was to assess the efficacy of RFA in normalizing thyroid hormone concentration and restoring the euthyroid state. In addition, we analyzed the efficacy of RFA in nodule volume rate reduction (VRR) and its associated adverse events. Results: A total of 22 consecutive patients (17 F and 5 M) underwent RFA for a solitary AFTN (hot nodule in thyroid uptake and scan) under variable degrees of general anesthesia. 72% (n=16) had subclinical hyperthyroidism, 9% (n=2) had overt hyperthyroidism, and 18% (n=4) were biochemically euthyroid on anti-thyroid drugs (ATD). The mean age at the time of ablation was 52.09 years (SD= 14.6), with a mean BMI of 27.36 kg/m2 (SD= 4.67). Average pre-treatment TSH was 0.41 mIU/L (SD= 0.980) and free T4 1.29 ng/dl (SD= 0.33). The thyroid function was assessed after a single RFA session. TSH normalized in all patients within 3-6 months following the ablation. All four patients on ATD pre-treatment discontinued therapy within three months following the procedure. The average VRR (62.54%) was achieved within 3-6 months following the RFA, and importantly, none of the nodules grew back during the follow-up period (up to 24 months). Two patients (9%) developed transient tachycardia requiring short-term beta-blocker therapy, and two (9%) developed mild hypothyroidism requiring levothyroxine therapy. One patient, euthyroid post RFA, developed recurrent hyperthyroidism 45 months later and elected to undergo lobectomy. No serious adverse effects were noted in this cohort. Conclusions - RAI and/or surgery represent the standard of care for toxic adenomas but RFA shows excellent efficacy along with an excellent safety profile. Therefore at centers with RFA expertise it should be considered an alternative treatment strategy, avoiding radiation and surgery-related complications. Presentation Date: Saturday, June 17, 2023

Abstract Context After a thorough evaluation most thyroid nodules are deemed of no clinical consequence and can be observed. However, when they are compressive, toxic, or involved by papillary thyroid carcinoma surgery or radioactive iodine (RAI) (if toxic) are the treatments of choice. Both interventions can lead to hypothyroidism and other adverse outcomes (eg, scar, dysphonia, logistical limitation with RAI). Active surveillance might be used for papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC) initially, but anxiety leads many cases to surgery later. Several ablative therapies have thus evolved over the last few years aimed at treating these nodules while avoiding described risks. Cases We present 4 cases of thyroid lesions causing concern (compressive symptoms, thyrotoxicosis, anxiety with active surveillance of PTMC). The common denominator is patients’ attempt to preserve thyroid function, bringing into focus percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) and thermal ablation techniques (radiofrequency ablation [RFA] being the most common). We discuss the evidence supporting these approaches and compare them with standard therapy, where evidence exists. We discuss additional considerations for the utilization of these therapies, their side-effects, and conclude with a simplified description of how these procedures are performed. Conclusion Thermal ablation, particularly RFA, is becoming an attractive option for managing a subgroup of solid thyroid nodules, while PEI has a role in managing thyroid cysts and a select group of PTMC. Their role in the algorithm of thyroid nodule management is still being refined and technical expertise will be essential to reproduce the reported results into everyday practice.

AbstractPurposeThe current evidence regarding iodine-containing compounds and iodine allergy cross-reactivity is reviewed.SummaryIodine is an essential human nutrient found in the thyroid gland. It is used in the synthesis of the thyroid hormones thyroxine and triiodothyroxine. Patients who report having adverse reactions to iodine-containing substances are often labelled as having an “iodine allergy,” which can result in delays in care or patients being denied essential iodinated contrast media (ICM) or other iodine-containing drugs. A literature review was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding iodine allergy and iodine-containing drugs. Of 435 articles considered potentially appropriate for full review (plus 12 additional articles included on the basis of references from the eligible articles), 113 could not be obtained. After exclusion of 353 articles that did not meet all inclusion criteria, the remaining 81 articles were included in the review. The results of the literature review indicated that iodine has not been shown to be the allergen responsible for allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media, amiodarone, povidone-iodine, and other iodine-containing compounds.ConclusionThere is a lack of evidence to support cross-reactivity between iodine-containing compounds in so called iodine-allergic individuals.

Abstract Introduction: Outcomes of multidisciplinary and molecular tumor boards have been reported. Lymphoma specific tumor board outcomes have not been reported in the molecular era. In addition, the utility of multi-site, interactive tumor boards using videoconference technology are not widely reported. We prospectively followed the outcomes of a multidisciplinary multi-site lymphoma tumor board in the molecular era and during a change in the revision of the World Health Organization Classification in first published in 2016. Methods: The Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board is a component of the international Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN). The format includes the clinical case presentation, presentation of radiology and hematopathology findings by the appropriate specialist, proposed treatment options, review of the literature pertinent to the case, and discussion followed by recommendations. Requirement for presentation includes having a diagnosis of lymphoma with pathology reviewed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (MCR). Pathology and radiology material, when relevant to the case, are required to be reviewed at MCR and presented by MCR pathologists/radiologists. Patients must be presented prospectively, and have active clinical issues or questions to be addressed. Four cases are presented per 60-minute meeting. 309 consecutive highly selected cases with a diagnosis of lymphoma were presented at the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board from 2014 to 2018. The pathology material was independently reviewed by the presenting hematopathologists and radiology material by the presenting radiologist. Participants are office based and included multiple members of the health care team which also incudes pharmacists, clinical research associates affiliated with lymphoma research, and physicians in training. Recommendations were prospectively tracked for changes in radiology interpretation, pathologic diagnosis, and treatment approaches. Actual follow-up of all patients after the meeting was not allowed in the MCCN. Participation in the meeting can be either via in-room attendance at MCR, video conference at a participating MCCN site, or via non-participatory live-stream online. Results: 309 cases were presented were presented from 2014-2018. 258 cases were from MCR, and 51 were not physically seen at MCR. 16 cases were presented at a subsequent meeting for further recommendations in the course of their disease after the initial presentation. 54% of patients presented had changes in some aspect of their care as a result of the meeting. Changes in radiologic interpretation occurred in 5 (1.6%) patients. The pathologic diagnosis changed in 27 (8.7%). Additional testing was recommended in 44 (14%). Clinical management changes were recommended in 90 (29%) cases. These included alterations in treatment approach in 43 (14%), change from undecided to pursuit of treatment 10 (3%), change from undecided regarding treatment approach to further diagnostic testing 4 (1.3%), change from observation to treatment 9 (3%), change from treatment to observation 4 (1.3%), and treatment to further tests in 2 (0.6%) Site in room average attendance (internal/external) was 16.8/8.6. Non-participatory live-stream attendance was not possible to track. In an annual electronic evaluation of this activity, 93% of the responders reported an improvement in knowledge and competence, and 100% recommended no changes to the format of the conference. Enhancements over time have included Continuous Medical Education credit, an in room microscope, and real-time radiology images. Selected cases will now be on line on an international web site. Conclusion: In this highly selected group of lymphoma cases from multiple sites over a 4-year period, 54% of the (167/309) case presentations resulted in changes to some aspect of care as a direct result of this tumor board. A multidisciplinary lymphoma tumor board approach was of value, efficacious, and meaningfully impacted lymphoma patients while substantially enhancing interdisciplinary interactions. Disclosures Ansell: Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding.