BACKGROUND: Fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of the thyroid categorized as atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS) is a newly defined category according to the recent Bethesda guidelines. We sought to assess the characteristics and treatment of patients with an AUS/FLUS FNAB at our institution. Additionally, we evaluated the utility of the recommended 3-month timing of repeat FNAB. METHODS: A retrospective study of all patients with an FNAB categorized as AUS/FLUS at an academic tertiary-care center. Clinical, cytological, and ultrasound variables were compared among management groups. Differences in patients receiving repeat FNAB before or after a 3-month interval were compared. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients of the 5,391 FNABs performed at our institution met the Bethesda criteria for AUS/FLUS; 62% were sent directly to surgery, 25% had a repeat FNAB, and 13% were observed. Younger (p=0.006) and male patients (p=0.04) were more likely to go directly to surgery. Microcalcifications, irregular margins, and marked hypoechogenicity on ultrasound did not appear to influence the decision to repeat the FNAB, observe the patient, or refer the patient for surgery. Timing of repeat FNAB (<3 months or ≥3 months) did not alter the diagnostic results of the second FNAB (p=0.73). The overall rate of malignancy in patients undergoing surgery was 15.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Gender and age, not ultrasound characteristics, appear to influence the decision for surgery in AUS/FLUS patients. Timing of repeat biopsy did not alter management, repeat FNAB diagnosis, or rate of malignancy in our cohort.
BACKGROUND: Fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of the thyroid categorized as atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS) is a newly defined category according to the recent Bethesda guidelines. We sought to assess the characteristics and treatment of patients with an AUS/FLUS FNAB at our institution. Additionally, we evaluated the utility of the recommended 3-month timing of repeat FNAB. METHODS: A retrospective study of all patients with an FNAB categorized as AUS/FLUS at an academic tertiary-care center. Clinical, cytological, and ultrasound variables were compared among management groups. Differences in patients receiving repeat FNAB before or after a 3-month interval were compared. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients of the 5,391 FNABs performed at our institution met the Bethesda criteria for AUS/FLUS; 62% were sent directly to surgery, 25% had a repeat FNAB, and 13% were observed. Younger (p=0.006) and male patients (p=0.04) were more likely to go directly to surgery. Microcalcifications, irregular margins, and marked hypoechogenicity on ultrasound did not appear to influence the decision to repeat the FNAB, observe the patient, or refer the patient for surgery. Timing of repeat FNAB (<3 months or ≥3 months) did not alter the diagnostic results of the second FNAB (p=0.73). The overall rate of malignancy in patients undergoing surgery was 15.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Gender and age, not ultrasound characteristics, appear to influence the decision for surgery in AUS/FLUS patients. Timing of repeat biopsy did not alter management, repeat FNAB diagnosis, or rate of malignancy in our cohort.
Authors: David S Cooper; Gerard M Doherty; Bryan R Haugen; Bryan R Hauger; Richard T Kloos; Stephanie L Lee; Susan J Mandel; Ernest L Mazzaferri; Bryan McIver; Furio Pacini; Martin Schlumberger; Steven I Sherman; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle Journal: Thyroid Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: N Paul Ohori; Marina N Nikiforova; Karen E Schoedel; Shane O LeBeau; Steven P Hodak; Raja R Seethala; Sally E Carty; Jennifer B Ogilvie; Linwah Yip; Yuri E Nikiforov Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Lester J Layfield; Jacki Abrams; Beatrix Cochand-Priollet; Doug Evans; Hossein Gharib; Frank Greenspan; Michael Henry; Virginia LiVolsi; Maria Merino; Claire W Michael; Helen Wang; Samuel A Wells Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: A M Marchevsky; A E Walts; S Bose; R Gupta; X Fan; D Frishberg; K Scharre; J Zhai Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: Yuri E Nikiforov; David L Steward; Toni M Robinson-Smith; Bryan R Haugen; Joshua P Klopper; Zhaowen Zhu; James A Fagin; Mercedes Falciglia; Katherine Weber; Marina N Nikiforova Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Jae Won Kim; In Suh Park; Bo Mook Kim; Young Mo Kim; Young Chae Chu; Young Up Cho Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Zubair W Baloch; Edmund S Cibas; Douglas P Clark; Lester J Layfield; Britt-Marie Ljung; Martha Bishop Pitman; Andrea Abati Journal: Cytojournal Date: 2008-04-07 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Ji Young Park; Wook Youn Kim; Tae Sook Hwang; Sang Sook Lee; Hyunkyung Kim; Hye Seung Han; So Dug Lim; Wan Seop Kim; Young Bum Yoo; Kyoung Sik Park Journal: Endocr Pathol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.943
Authors: Allen S Ho; Evan E Sarti; Kunal S Jain; Hangjun Wang; Iain J Nixon; Ashok R Shaha; Jatin P Shah; Dennis H Kraus; Ronald Ghossein; Stephanie A Fish; Richard J Wong; Oscar Lin; Luc G T Morris Journal: Thyroid Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Tae Sook Hwang; Wook Youn Kim; Hye Seung Han; So Dug Lim; Wan-Seop Kim; Young Bum Yoo; Kyoung Sik Park; Seo Young Oh; Suk Kyeong Kim; Jung Hyun Yang Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 3.411