BACKGROUND: At present, thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens are diagnosed using a tiered classification scheme, with the most popular of these being the 5-tiered and 6-tiered systems. In this study, the authors present their institutional experiences using these 2 different systems and evaluate their efficacy based on the surgical follow-up. METHODS: Thyroid FNA specimens and their corresponding surgical resection specimens were collected between 2007 and 2009. The following diagnostic categories are used in both systems: unsatisfactory/nondiagnostic, benign, follicular neoplasm/suspicious for follicular neoplasm, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant. An additional category termed atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance was used for atypical cases in the 6-tiered system. Statistical analysis was performed by comparing the different diagnostic categories. RESULTS: The case cohort included a total of 7686 thyroid FNA specimens representing 3962 nodules and 3724 nodules, respectively, in the 5-tiered and 6-tiered systems. Negative predictive values for the benign categories (96.9% vs 97.5%; P = 1) and positive predictive values for both the follicular neoplasm categories (26.5% vs 32.1%; P = .2531) and the malignant categories (99.1% vs 99.4%; P = 1) were similar. The most significant differences between the 5-tiered and 6-tiered systems were the percentage of cases classified as benign (83.9% vs 55.4%; P < .0001) and as follicular neoplasms (4.6% vs 23.8%; P < .0001). It is interesting to note that fewer patients were referred for surgery in the 5-tiered system compared with the 6-tiered one (9.1% vs 36.5%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of either the 5-tiered or 6-tiered reporting systems for thyroid FNA specimens can potentially affect the clinical management of patients with thyroid nodules.
BACKGROUND: At present, thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens are diagnosed using a tiered classification scheme, with the most popular of these being the 5-tiered and 6-tiered systems. In this study, the authors present their institutional experiences using these 2 different systems and evaluate their efficacy based on the surgical follow-up. METHODS: Thyroid FNA specimens and their corresponding surgical resection specimens were collected between 2007 and 2009. The following diagnostic categories are used in both systems: unsatisfactory/nondiagnostic, benign, follicular neoplasm/suspicious for follicular neoplasm, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant. An additional category termed atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance was used for atypical cases in the 6-tiered system. Statistical analysis was performed by comparing the different diagnostic categories. RESULTS: The case cohort included a total of 7686 thyroid FNA specimens representing 3962 nodules and 3724 nodules, respectively, in the 5-tiered and 6-tiered systems. Negative predictive values for the benign categories (96.9% vs 97.5%; P = 1) and positive predictive values for both the follicular neoplasm categories (26.5% vs 32.1%; P = .2531) and the malignant categories (99.1% vs 99.4%; P = 1) were similar. The most significant differences between the 5-tiered and 6-tiered systems were the percentage of cases classified as benign (83.9% vs 55.4%; P < .0001) and as follicular neoplasms (4.6% vs 23.8%; P < .0001). It is interesting to note that fewer patients were referred for surgery in the 5-tiered system compared with the 6-tiered one (9.1% vs 36.5%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of either the 5-tiered or 6-tiered reporting systems for thyroid FNA specimens can potentially affect the clinical management of patients with thyroid nodules.
Authors: Bryan R Haugen; Erik K Alexander; Keith C Bible; Gerard M Doherty; Susan J Mandel; Yuri E Nikiforov; Furio Pacini; Gregory W Randolph; Anna M Sawka; Martin Schlumberger; Kathryn G Schuff; Steven I Sherman; Julie Ann Sosa; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle; Leonard Wartofsky Journal: Thyroid Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Samantha Ly; Mary C Frates; Carol B Benson; Hope E Peters; Frederick D Grant; Laura A Drubach; Stephan D Voss; Henry A Feldman; Jessica R Smith; Justine Barletta; Monica Hollowell; Edmund S Cibas; Francis D Moore; Biren Modi; Robert C Shamberger; Stephen A Huang Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Naykky Singh Ospina; Juan P Brito; Spyridoula Maraka; Ana E Espinosa de Ycaza; Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez; Michael R Gionfriddo; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Khalid Benkhadra; Alaa Al Nofal; Patricia Erwin; John C Morris; M Regina Castro; Victor M Montori Journal: Endocrine Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 3.633