Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
I read with great interest the recently published manuscript in Endocrine from Hescot et al. [1] in which they report similar results to what we had already reported in 2018 [2].
In this investigation, the authors showed that after comparing those pathological reports which had a second-opinion diagnosis, these histopathological modifications led to changes in the ATA 2015 risk stratification classification in 31% of patients. In our investigation, after reviewing historical pathological reports, this situation happened in 25% of our cases which led to a better refining of the prediction of the initial structural or excellent response to treatment. We are happy that our idea was similarly replicated in Europe with very comparable results.
References
S. Hescot, H. Sheikh-Alard, M. Kordahi, et al. Impact of expert review of histological diagnosis of papillary and follicular thyroid cancer. Endocrine (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-020-02531-x
F. Pitoia, F. Jerkovich, C. Urciuoli, F. Falcón, A.P. Lima, Impact of historic histopathologic sample review on the risk of recurrence in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer. Arch. Endocrinol. Metab. 62(2), 157–163 (2018). https://doi.org/10.20945/2359-3997000000020
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pitoia, F. Histopathological sample review and its impact on the risk of recurrence classification in patients with thyroid cancer. Endocrine 71, 528 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-020-02575-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-020-02575-z