PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of core needle biopsy (CNB) for calcified thyroid nodules. METHODS: Between October 2008 and July 2011, 264 patients underwent ultrasound-guided CNB for 272 calcified thyroid nodules at our institution. We retrospectively evaluated the incidence of technical failure, non-diagnostic readings, and the diagnostic performance of CNB, and analysed the relationship between the types of calcification and the CNB results. Finally, the incidence of diagnostic surgery was calculated. RESULTS: The incidence of technical failure was 1.1 % (3/275) and that of non-diagnostic results was 0.7 % (2/272). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CNB were 94.7 %, 89.5 %, 100 %, 100 %, and 90.2 %, respectively. There were no significant differences according to the calcification subtype for either the non-diagnostic results or the incidence of technical failure (P > 0.99 and P > 0.99). CNB could prevent diagnostic surgery for 92.9 % (13/14) of the patients who showed more than two non-diagnostic results in previous FNA. CONCLUSIONS: CNB can minimise the non-diagnostic results as well as diagnostic surgery in patients with calcified thyroid nodules. Therefore, CNB may be used as a first-line diagnostic tool for calcified thyroid nodules rather than FNA. KEY POINTS: CNB results show the low incidence of technical failure (1.1 %, 3/275). • CNB results show the low non-diagnostic rate (0.7 %, 2/272). There were no significant differences according to the calcification subtype. CNB can prevent unnecessary diagnostic surgery in 92.9 % (13/14).
PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of core needle biopsy (CNB) for calcified thyroid nodules. METHODS: Between October 2008 and July 2011, 264 patients underwent ultrasound-guided CNB for 272 calcified thyroid nodules at our institution. We retrospectively evaluated the incidence of technical failure, non-diagnostic readings, and the diagnostic performance of CNB, and analysed the relationship between the types of calcification and the CNB results. Finally, the incidence of diagnostic surgery was calculated. RESULTS: The incidence of technical failure was 1.1 % (3/275) and that of non-diagnostic results was 0.7 % (2/272). The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CNB were 94.7 %, 89.5 %, 100 %, 100 %, and 90.2 %, respectively. There were no significant differences according to the calcification subtype for either the non-diagnostic results or the incidence of technical failure (P > 0.99 and P > 0.99). CNB could prevent diagnostic surgery for 92.9 % (13/14) of the patients who showed more than two non-diagnostic results in previous FNA. CONCLUSIONS: CNB can minimise the non-diagnostic results as well as diagnostic surgery in patients with calcified thyroid nodules. Therefore, CNB may be used as a first-line diagnostic tool for calcified thyroid nodules rather than FNA. KEY POINTS: CNB results show the low incidence of technical failure (1.1 %, 3/275). • CNB results show the low non-diagnostic rate (0.7 %, 2/272). There were no significant differences according to the calcification subtype. CNB can prevent unnecessary diagnostic surgery in 92.9 % (13/14).
Authors: Carrie C Lubitz; Sushruta S Nagarkatti; William C Faquin; Anthony E Samir; Maria C Hassan; Giuseppe Barbesino; Douglas S Ross; Gregory W Randolph; Randall D Gaz; Antonia E Stephen; Richard A Hodin; Gilbert H Daniels; Sareh Parangi Journal: Thyroid Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 6.568
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: Won-Jin Moon; Jung Hwan Baek; So Lyung Jung; Dong Wook Kim; Eun Kyung Kim; Ji Young Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Jeong Hyun Lee; Joon Hyung Lee; Young Hen Lee; Dong Gyu Na; Jeong Seon Park; Sun Won Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2011-01-03 Impact factor: 3.500
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: E J Ha; J H Baek; D G Na; J-h Kim; J K Kim; H S Min; D E Song; K E Lee; Y K Shong Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Miguel Paja; Jose Luis Del Cura; Rosa Zabala; Igone Korta; Aitziber Ugalde; José I López Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 5.315