Assessment of three different radioiodine doses for ablation therapy of thyroid remnants: Efficiency, complications and patient comfort.

I-131 radioiodine (RAI) ablation removes postoperative residual tissue and facilitates follow-up in low- and intermediate-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). Although low doses have been reported to be as effective as higher doses for ablation, the doses administered still vary depending on the patient and the practitioner. We aimed to evaluate the ablation efficiency, complications, and length of stay (LOS) of patients with DTC treated with 3 different doses for ablation. Patients with DTC who received RAI therapy were retrospectively reviewed. One hundred thirty patients with low-intermediate-risk, according to American Thyroid Association classification, without known lymph nodes or distant metastases were included. Patients were divided into 3 groups as 30 to 50 mCi, 75 mCi, and 100 mCi. Residue thyroid and salivary glands were evaluated from 9 to 12 months post-RAI I-131 scans. No significant difference was found between groups regarding ablation success (P = .795). In multivariable analyses, pretreatment thyroglobulin (hazard ratio = 0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.601-0.952, P = .017) and anti- thyroglobulin antibody (hazard ratio = 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.967-0.998, P = .024) were 2 independent predictors of ablation success. The mean LOS was 2.1 ±â€…0.3, 2.6 ±â€…0.6, and 2.9 ±â€…0.4 days, respectively, (P = .001). LOS rates of ≥ 3 days were 13.2%, 54.3%, and 84.8%, respectively. Mild decreases in hemoglobin, white blood cell (WBC), and platelet counts were observed in all groups after 6 weeks without any clinically significant findings. A lower rate of change in WBC counts was observed in the 30 to 50 mCi group compared to others. There was no dose-dependent difference regarding the early complaints questioned. Ablation with 30 to 50 mCi provides benefits such as shorter LOS, better patient comfort, less salivary gland dysfunction, and less WBC suppression, thus reducing costs without decreasing efficacy.