Evidence Hub

Radiofrequency Ablation of Low-Risk Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study Including Patients with More than 10 Years of Follow-up

So Yeong Jeong, S. M. Baek, Suyoung Shin, Jung-Min Son, Hyunsoo Kim, J. H. Baek

Thyroid, 2025

65 participants · 22 citations

Abstract

Background: The longest reported follow-up for thermal ablation of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC) is 5 years. We evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with low-risk PTMC with clinical follow-up of more than 10 years. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we included patients with low-risk PTMC who had more than 10 years of follow-up after ultrasound (US)-guided RFA (performed between May 2008 and December 2013). Sixty-five consecutive patients with 71 low-risk PTMCs who were unsuitable for surgery or declined surgery were included. Before RFA, all patients underwent US and thyroid computerized tomography. Repeat RFA for staged ablation was performed when the first RFA did not secure sufficient safety margins because of the tumor closely abutting the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Follow-up US imaging was performed at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, every 6 months until 2 years, and then annually afterward. Primary outcomes were the respective cumulative rates of disease progression (defined by local tumor progression, lymph node, or distant metastasis), newly developed thyroid cancer, and conversion surgery. Secondary outcomes were serial volume reduction rate (VRR), complete disappearance rate of ablated PTMC, and adverse events associated with procedures. Results: Of 65 patients included in the study, 60 had unifocal and 5 had multifocal PTMCs. The mean number of RFA sessions per tumor was 1.2, and the median…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 65 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free