Aida Taye1, Dillon Gurciullo1, Brett A Miles2, Ashita Gupta3, Randall P Owen1, William B Inabnet1, Jessica N Beyda4, Jennifer L Marti5. 1. Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 3. Department of Endocrinology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 4. Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 5. Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. Electronic address: jem9080@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Molecular testing with the Thyroseq v2 next generation sequencing panel ("Thyroseq") is used to estimate the risk of cancer in indeterminate thyroid nodules. METHODS: We analyzed 156 indeterminate thyroid nodules evaluated with Thyroseq, across 3 institutions. Thyroseq data and surgical pathology were matched via pathologic re-review. A result was considered Thyroseq positive if molecular alterations were annotated on the report with malignancy probability >30%. Performance characteristics were estimated using Bayes theorem. RESULTS: The Thyroseq-negative call rate was 65% (102/156). On surgical pathology, 16% (10/63) of nodules were malignant. The positive predictive value of a Thyroseq-positive result was 22% (8/37; if 2 noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features are counted as malignant, 27%, 10/37). There was 1 false-negative result (negative predictive value 96%, 22/23). The most common mutation was NRAS (19/37) with a positive predictive value of 7% (1/15). The positive predictive value of all RAS mutations (HRAS, KRAS, NRAS) was 9% (2/22). The second most common mutation, BRAF V600E, had positive predictive value of 100% (3/3). CONCLUSION: We report an external analysis of Thyroseq performance in the evaluation of indeterminate thyroid nodules. These data indicate that Thyroseq is likely to offer high negative predictive value but low positive predictive value. Many genetic alterations appear to be nonspecific for malignancy, and positive results should be interpreted with caution. These findings have implications for the management of indeterminate thyroid nodules profiled with Thyroseq.
BACKGROUND: Molecular testing with the Thyroseq v2 next generation sequencing panel ("Thyroseq") is used to estimate the risk of cancer in indeterminate thyroid nodules. METHODS: We analyzed 156 indeterminate thyroid nodules evaluated with Thyroseq, across 3 institutions. Thyroseq data and surgical pathology were matched via pathologic re-review. A result was considered Thyroseq positive if molecular alterations were annotated on the report with malignancy probability >30%. Performance characteristics were estimated using Bayes theorem. RESULTS: The Thyroseq-negative call rate was 65% (102/156). On surgical pathology, 16% (10/63) of nodules were malignant. The positive predictive value of a Thyroseq-positive result was 22% (8/37; if 2 noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features are counted as malignant, 27%, 10/37). There was 1 false-negative result (negative predictive value 96%, 22/23). The most common mutation was NRAS (19/37) with a positive predictive value of 7% (1/15). The positive predictive value of all RAS mutations (HRAS, KRAS, NRAS) was 9% (2/22). The second most common mutation, BRAFV600E, had positive predictive value of 100% (3/3). CONCLUSION: We report an external analysis of Thyroseq performance in the evaluation of indeterminate thyroid nodules. These data indicate that Thyroseq is likely to offer high negative predictive value but low positive predictive value. Many genetic alterations appear to be nonspecific for malignancy, and positive results should be interpreted with caution. These findings have implications for the management of indeterminate thyroid nodules profiled with Thyroseq.
Authors: Pablo Valderrabano; Laila Khazai; Zachary J Thompson; Kristen J Otto; Julie E Hallanger-Johnson; Christine H Chung; Barbara A Centeno; Bryan McIver Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Andrea R Marcadis; Pablo Valderrabano; Allen S Ho; Justin Tepe; Christina E Swartzwelder; Serena Byrd; Wendy L Sacks; Brian R Untch; Ashok R Shaha; Bin Xu; Oscar Lin; Ronald A Ghossein; Richard J Wong; Jennifer L Marti; Luc G T Morris Journal: Surgery Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: John Woody Sistrunk; Alexander Shifrin; Marc Frager; Ricardo H Bardales; Johnson Thomas; Norman Fishman; Philip Goldberg; Richard Guttler; Edward Grant Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: Whitney S Goldner; Trevor E Angell; Sallie Lou McAdoo; Joshua Babiarz; Peter M Sadow; Fadi A Nabhan; Christian Nasr; Richard T Kloos Journal: Thyroid Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Zeyad T Sahli; Philip W Smith; Christopher B Umbricht; Martha A Zeiger Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Vincent L Biron; Ashlee Matkin; Morris Kostiuk; Jordana Williams; David W Cote; Jeffrey Harris; Hadi Seikaly; Daniel A O'Connell Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-09-24