Search

The surgical treatment of the intermediate-risk DTC (1–4 cm) remains still controversial. We analyzed the current practice in Italy regarding the surgical management of intermediate-risk unilateral DTC to evaluate risk factors for recurrence and to identify a group of patients to whom propose a total thyroidectomy (TT) vs. hemithyroidectomy (HT). Among 1896 patients operated for thyroid cancer between January 2017 and December 2019, we evaluated 564 (29.7%) patients with unilateral intermediate-risk DTC (1–4 cm) without contralateral nodular lesions on the preoperative exams, chronic autoimmune thyroiditis, familiarity or radiance exposure. Data were collected retrospectively from the clinical register from 16 referral centers. The patients were followed for at least 14 months (median time 29.21 months). In our cohort 499 patients (88.4%) underwent total thyroidectomy whereas 65 patients (11.6%) underwent hemithyroidectomy. 151 (26.8%) patients had a multifocal DTC of whom 57 (10.1%) were bilateral. 21/66 (32.3%) patients were reoperated within 2 months from the first intervention (completion thyroidectomy). Three patients (3/564) developed regional lymph node recurrence 2 years after surgery and required a lymph nodal neck dissection. The single factor related to the risk of reoperation was the histological diameter (HR = 1.05 (1.00–1-09), p = 0.026). Risk stratification is the key to differentiating treatment options and achieving better outcomes. According to the present study, tumor diameter is a strong predictive risk factor to proper choose initial surgical management for intermediate‐risk DTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives This paper deals with the problem of surgical waiting lists and is aimed, in particular, at comparing two different prioritization approaches: (1) the clinical assessment of treatment urgency aimed at categorizing patients into urgency-related groups (URGs) with a given recommended maximum waiting time for treatment; and (2) the implementation of an original prioritization scoring algorithm aimed at determining the relative priority of each patient in the waiting list and the corresponding order of admission. Methods A modelling exercise based on a cohort of 236 patients enrolled on the waiting list of a surgical department in an Italian public university hospital, from 1 January to 30 June 2004, is presented. The comparison is based on a measure called need-adjusted-waiting-days, which allows to take into proper account both urgency and priority. Results The results show that both methods should be implemented simultaneously for increasing the department’s performance in terms of both efficiency– outcome gained from a given amount of resources – and equity– how patients are admitted according to their need. Conclusions Waiting list prioritization should not be limited to classifying patients into URGs, but to using a scoring system as well, in order to schedule patient admissions in an explicit and transparent way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]