ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Active surveillance in thyroid cancer: a paradigm shift requiring critical appraisal and caution.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent inclusion of active surveillance (AS) for selected patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) in the 2025 American Thyroid Association guidelines represents a potential paradigm shift in clinical management. While AS has gained acceptance in other oncologic settings, its application to DTC raises several unresolved conceptual and practical issues. In this Letter, we critically appraise the definition, indications, and monitoring strategies proposed for AS in DTC, highlighting limitations related to preoperative risk stratification, imaging accuracy, and follow-up standardization. Particular attention is given to the implications for nuclear medicine practice and multidisciplinary decision-making. We also compare the evidence supporting AS in DTC with that available for other malignancies, underscoring the current lack of robust prospective data. We argue that, until stronger evidence becomes available, AS in DTC should be applied with caution and within a well-defined multidisciplinary framework, ensuring transparent communication with patients regarding uncertainties and potential risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41915039What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.