TABLE 2: THYROID SURGERIES, 1985-1987
Identification
Number & Group
Age at
Diagnosis
67 - Rongelap
822 - Comparison
-
Sex
Year of
Surgery
45
F
1985
Papillary/follicular carcinoma
plus occult papillary carcinoma
Consensus Diagnosis*
44
M
1985
Normal]
2172 - Utirik
45
F
1985
Follicular adenoma
.
2172 - Utirik
34
F
1985
Occult papillary carcinoma
2225 - Utirik
39
F
1985
Adenomatous nodule
2251 - Utirik
37
F
1986
Follicular adenoma plus occult
papillary carcinoma
* Majority diagnoses, based on interpretations by: Dr. L.V. Ackerman, Health Sciences Center, SUNY, Stony .
Brook, NY; Dr. W.A. Meissner, formerly with New England Deaconess Hospital, Boston, MA; Dr. A.L. Vickery,
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Dr. L.B. Woolner, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
TABLE 3: THYROID NODULES DIAGNOSED AT
SURGERY THROUGH 1987
Adenomatous
nodules
Rongelap (67)*
Ailingnae (19)*
Utirik (167)*
Comparison (227)**
17
Adenomas
Papillary
cancers
Follicular
cancers
2
5
-
Occult
cancers
l
4
-
-
-
]
1]
4
4
4
1
2
1***
.
5
Qaeee
NOT INCLUDED arethe following unoperated (and therefore unconfirmed) nodules: Rongelap — 1; Ailingnae’
— 1]; Utirik — 1; Comparison — 5.
INCLUDED areall consensus diagnosesof a panel of consultantpathologists; two different lesions were detected
in one person from Rongelap, one from Ailingnae, and two from Utirik.
* Numberof persons (including those in utero} who were originally exposed.
** This numberincludesall persons who have been in the Comparison group since 1957 (see page 18}. Some
have not been seen for many years; others were added as recently as 1976.
*** Equally divided opinion in one case; follicular carcinoma vs. atypical adenoma.
**** Majority opinion in one case; occult papillary carcinoma vs. follicular carcinoma. The same patient had
Iyvmphocytie thyroiditis.
10