Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
OtherLetters to the Editor

Reply: A New Age for Recombinant Human Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone?

R. Michael Tuttle, Richard J. Robbins, Matvey Brokhin and Steven M. Larson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2009, 50 (5) 832-833; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.060400
R. Michael Tuttle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard J. Robbins
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matvey Brokhin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven M. Larson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

REPLY: We thank the reader for the constructive criticism of our recent article describing similar short-term clinical outcomes using either recombinant human thyroid-stimulating hormone (rhTSH) or traditional thyroid hormone withdrawal preparation for radioactive iodine remnant ablation (1). Like the reader, we agree that a short period of thyroid hormone withdrawal followed by moderate administered activities of radioactive iodine is successful in achieving high rates of remnant ablation (in fact, in our study this was the gold standard to which patients prepared with rhTSH were compared). Furthermore, by minimizing the period of thyroid hormone withdrawal, the symptoms of hypothyroid withdrawal (although still present) are certainly less clinically significant than are prolonged periods of thyroid hormone withdrawal before therapy.

Rather than concluding that rhTSH preparation was superior to thyroid hormone withdrawal based on nonrandomized, retrospective data with short-term follow-up, we were careful to conclude that rhTSH-assisted ablation is simply a “safe and effective option” to thyroid hormone withdrawal. We continued by stating that the “choice of preparation for [radioactive iodine remnant ablation] ([thyroid hormone withdrawal] vs. rhTSH) should be made on the basis of patient's quality of life and the ‘cost’ of hypothyroidism versus the cost of rhTSH” (1).

As with any retrospective study there are significant limitations, which we carefully pointed out in the discussion. Even though the differences in age (44 ± 15 y for thyroid hormone withdrawal vs. 48 ± 15 y for rhTSH, P = 0.03) and administered activity (3,811-MBq [103-mCi] median for thyroid hormone withdrawal vs. 4,033-MBq [109-mCi] median for rhTSH, P = 0.01) were statistically significant, we do not consider these to be clinically significant differences. It seems unlikely that these small differences, although statistically significant, would have a meaningful impact on the clinical outcomes. Oftentimes in clinical studies we detect differences that are statistically significant that have little if any clinical meaning. Therefore, it is important to put statistically significant differences in a proper clinical context.

Following standard practice, we reported the overall P values for the contingency tables presented in the article (Tables 5 and 6). Although it is certainly possible to calculate specific P values for each category, these individual values still need to be interpreted in light of the overall contingency analysis. For example, in Table 5, although there were no significant differences overall between rhTSH and thyroid hormone withdrawal with respect to the clinical outcomes, analysis of the individual category described as “no clinical evidence of disease” (vs. all other outcomes) does demonstrate a statistical significance (P = 0.02) between thyroid hormone withdrawal and rhTSH preparation, whereas each of the other individual categories demonstrates no significant individual differences (vs. all other outcomes). In our opinion, one must be careful in attributing significance to individual categories when the overall contingency analysis does not find significant differences. Therefore, we chose not to emphasize the individual category analysis and simply reported the overall P value for the contingency table.

We have similar concerns about reporting specific categoric P values for Table 6, although in this case the overall P value for the contingency analysis is significant and therefore individual category analysis seems more reasonable. To that end, comparing the category of “no clinical evidence of disease” with all other outcomes demonstrates a P value of 0.002, and comparing the category of “persistent disease” with all other outcomes reveals a P value of 0.02, indicating a statistically significant difference within each of those categories when thyroid hormone withdrawal is compared with rhTSH. Therefore, based on both the initial contingency table analysis and this additional individual-category analysis, we continue to conclude that “when the definition of no clinical evidence of disease included a suppressed thyroglobulin level of less than 1 ng/mL and a stimulated thyroglobulin level of less than 2 ng/mL, rhTSH-assisted [radioiodine remnant ablation] was associated with significantly higher rates of no clinical evidence of disease…and significantly lower rates of persistent disease…than was [radioiodine remnant ablation] after [thyroid hormone withdrawal]” (1).

We thank the reader for pointing out the typographic error in Table 7: the total excluding distant metastases at diagnosis should be 371 (rather than 394). The remainder of the data in this table are correct.

In both Table 5 and Table 6, we included as a specific category “thyroid bed uptake only,” defined as persistent uptake in the thyroid bed with no structural evidence of persistent disease and stimulated thyroglobulin values less than 10 ng/mL. This is always a difficult group to categorize. Some of these patients probably have persistent disease, whereas others likely have just normal thyroid remnants. Therefore, we could not with confidence classify them as either no clinical evidence of disease or persistent disease. Since it did not seem reasonable to exclude this group from analysis, we included them as a separate clinical endpoint as we have done in our previous studies (2,3). As with any retrospective study, not all patients received identical follow-up (neck ultrasound, CT scans, MRI scans, 18F-FDG PET scans, or radioactive iodine scans); therefore, we included all patients regardless of the extent of follow-up studies to provide our best disease status classification for each individual patient.

In conclusion, we view rhTSH stimulation as a safe and effective alternative to traditional thyroid hormone withdrawal preparation for routine radioactive iodine remnant ablation. Additional studies are needed to define the minimal administered activity of radioactive iodine that can achieve both successful remnant ablation and acceptable long-term clinical outcomes.

Footnotes

  • COPYRIGHT © 2009 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Tuttle RM, Brokhin M, Omry G, et al. Recombinant human TSH–assisted radioactive iodine remnant ablation achieves short-term clinical recurrence rates similar to those of traditional thyroid hormone withdrawal. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:764–770.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Robbins RJ, Larson SM, Sinha N, et al. A retrospective review of the effectiveness of recombinant human TSH as a preparation for radioiodine thyroid remnant ablation. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1482–1488.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Robbins RJ, Srivastava S, Shaha A, et al. Factors influencing the basal and recombinant human thyrotropin-stimulated serum thyroglobulin in patients with metastatic thyroid carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89:6010–6016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 50 (5)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 50, Issue 5
May 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Supplemental Data
  • Supplemental Data
  • Supplemental Data
  • Supplemental Data
  • Supplemental Data
  • Supplemental Data
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reply: A New Age for Recombinant Human Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Reply: A New Age for Recombinant Human Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone?
R. Michael Tuttle, Richard J. Robbins, Matvey Brokhin, Steven M. Larson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2009, 50 (5) 832-833; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.060400

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Reply: A New Age for Recombinant Human Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone?
R. Michael Tuttle, Richard J. Robbins, Matvey Brokhin, Steven M. Larson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2009, 50 (5) 832-833; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.060400
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Clinical Potential of HER2 PET as a Predictive Biomarker to Guide the Use of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Breast Cancer Patients
  • Reply: Molecular Imaging of Pulmonary Inflammation: Claiming That Vaping Is More Harmful Than Smoking Is Unsupported
  • PSMA PET/CT and Therapy Response Evaluation in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Is It Time to Surpass the Old Way?
Show more Letters to the Editor

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire