Early efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for multifocal T1N0M0 papillary thyroid carcinoma: a multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for multifocal papillary thyroid carcinoma (M-PTC) and compare these outcomes with those for unifocal papillary thyroid carcinoma (U-PTC).Methods This retrospective multicenter study included 465 patients (367 women and 98 men) who underwent RFA for either U-PTC (411 patients) or M-PTC (54 patients) between May 2015 and October 2022. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-RFA, then every 6 months in the second year, and annually thereafter. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), local tumor progression rate (LTP), tumor volume, volume reduction rate (VRR), tumor complete response rate (CDR), and complications were evaluated and compared between the M-PTC and U-PTC groups during the follow-up period.Results The median follow-up time was 23 months. The median follow-up time for the U-PTC and M-PTC groups was 23 months and 23.5 months, respectively. The overall local tumor progression rate was 0.9% (4/465), and the overall complication rate was 0.6% (3/465). After PSM, no significant differences were observed between the U-PTC and M-PTC groups regarding tumor volume (p = 0.377), VRR (p = 0.151), CDR (50% vs. 44.2%, p = 0.556), or LTP (1.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.556). Additionally, the complication rates were not significantly different between the groups (1.03% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.343).Conclusion After adequate preoperative evaluation, RFA is an effective and safe treatment for appropriately selected patients with M-PTC, with a prognosis similar to that of U-PTC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".