Nodule size as predictive factor of efficacy of radiofrequency ablation in treating autonomously functioning thyroid nodules

Figures & data

Table 1. Main baseline characteristics of the study population.

Parameter	Group A	Group B	p
N	15	14
Sex (males/females)	6/9	5/9	ns
Age in years	53 ± 15 (34–75)	50 ± 17 (28–80)	ns
Thyroid nodule volume (mL)	5.2 ± 1.8 (2.8–8.4)	18.3 ± 4.7 (12–29.3)	<0.001
TSH(mIU/mL)	0.2 ± 0.2 (0.01–0.6)	0.1 ± 0.2 (0.01–0.5)	ns
FT3 (pg/mL)	3.71 ± 0.9 (2.2–5.2)	4.4 ± 1.6 (2.2–7.2)	ns
FT4 (pg/mL)	2.1 ± 1.0 (1.4–4.9)	2.6 ± 1.4 (1.4–5.2)	ns
Cosmetic score	0.6 ± 1 (0–3)	1.9 ± 0.7 (1–3)	<0.001
Symptom score	0.07 ± 0.3 (0–1)	2.6 ± 1.7 (0–5)	0.001

p values is related to the difference between group A and group B. Values are reported as mean ± SD (range).

Table 2. US characteristics of the study population.

	Hysoechoic	Spongiform	Hyperechoic
Group A (n)	8	3	4
Group B (n)	7	2	5

p: ns between the groups.

Figure 1. Thyroid function. (a) TSH over the time; ( b) FT3 over the time; (c) FT4 over the time.

Table 3. Thyroid nodule volume over the time.

	Baseline	1 month	6 months	12 months	24 months	p vs baseline
Whole group (n)	29	29	29	29	26
TN vol.	11.5 ± 7.5	5 ± 4.4*	3.9 ± 3.7*	3.4 ± 3.2*	2.9 ± 3.3*	<0.001
TN vol.reduction (%)		61 ± 10	68 ± 15	75 ± 10	77 ± 11	<0.001
Group A (n)	15	15	15	15	15
TN vol.	5.2 ± 1.8	1.7 ± 0.6*	1.3 ± 0.6*	0.9 ± 0.4*	0.8 ± 0.4*	<0.001
TN vol.reduction (%)		68 ± 6	75 ± 8	82 ± 6	84 ± 6	<0.001
Group B (n)	14	14	14	14	11
TN vol.	18.3 ± 4.7	8.6 ± 3.8*	6.6 ± 3.6*	6 ± 2.6*	5.7 ± 3.3*	<0.004
TN vol. reduction (%)		54 ± 8	61 ± 18	67 ± 8	68 ± 11	=0.001

Values are reported as mean ± SD.

* differences statistically significant.

Table 4. Symptom and cosmetic score over the time.

	Baseline	6 Months	12 Months
Whole group (n)	29	29	29
Symptom score	1.3 ± 1.7	0.7 ± 0.9	0.6 ± 0.8
Cosmetic score	1.2 ± 1.1	0.5 ± 0.5	0.3 ± 0.5
Group A (n)	15	15	15
Symptom score	0.1 ± 0.3	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0 ± 0.0
Cosmetic score	0.6 ± 1.0	0.3 ± 0.5	0.1 ± 0.4
Group B (n)	14	14	14
Symptom score	2.6 ± 1.7	1.4 ± 0.9	1.1 ± 0.9
Cosmetic score	1.9 ± 0.7	0.6 ± 0.5	0.4 ± 0.5

Values are reported as mean ± SD.

Table 5. Multivariate logistic regression analysis to explain the relationship between binary variable “responders” and the independent variables “basal volume”.

	Β	S.E.	p	OR [95% CI]
Basal volume	−0.215	0.077	0.005	0.806 [0.693–0.939]
Constant	2.911	1.049	0.006	18.369

The significance level was defined as p ≤ 0.05.