Seon Min Jung1, Hye Ryoung Koo2, Ki Seok Jang3, Min Sung Chung4, Chang Myeon Song1, Yong Bae Ji1, Jeong Seon Park5, Kyung Tae6. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, Republic of Korea. jsp@hanyang.ac.kr. 6. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, Republic of Korea. kytae@hanyang.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy (CNB) with repeat fine-needle aspiration (rFNA) cytology in thyroid nodules with inconclusive results in initial fine-needle aspiration cytology. METHODS: We studied 402 patients who required a repeat biopsy of thyroid nodules using ultrasound-guided CNB (n = 192) or rFNA (n = 210) because of inconclusive results in initial FNA, corresponding to categories I, III, and IV of the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. If repeat biopsy results were benign (category II), suspicious malignancy (category V), or malignancy (category VI), they were defined as "diagnostic results". The diagnostic yield and performances of repeat biopsy were analyzed and compared between the rFNA and CNB groups. RESULTS: The diagnostic results were obtained significantly higher in the CNB group than in the rFNA group (72.4% vs. 52.4%; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the diagnostic results were significantly higher in the CNB group than in the rFNA group for patients of categories I and III (P < 0.001 in both) in initial FNA. However, in patients with category IV nodules, there were no significant differences in diagnostic results between the two groups (P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Compared to rFNA, ultrasound-guided CNB is useful and effective as a repeat biopsy option for thyroid nodules with non-diagnostic results (category I) and atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) or follicular lesion of undetermined significance (FLUS) (category III) in initial FNA.
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy (CNB) with repeat fine-needle aspiration (rFNA) cytology in thyroid nodules with inconclusive results in initial fine-needle aspiration cytology. METHODS: We studied 402 patients who required a repeat biopsy of thyroid nodules using ultrasound-guided CNB (n = 192) or rFNA (n = 210) because of inconclusive results in initial FNA, corresponding to categories I, III, and IV of the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. If repeat biopsy results were benign (category II), suspicious malignancy (category V), or malignancy (category VI), they were defined as "diagnostic results". The diagnostic yield and performances of repeat biopsy were analyzed and compared between the rFNA and CNB groups. RESULTS: The diagnostic results were obtained significantly higher in the CNB group than in the rFNA group (72.4% vs. 52.4%; P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the diagnostic results were significantly higher in the CNB group than in the rFNA group for patients of categories I and III (P < 0.001 in both) in initial FNA. However, in patients with category IV nodules, there were no significant differences in diagnostic results between the two groups (P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Compared to rFNA, ultrasound-guided CNB is useful and effective as a repeat biopsy option for thyroid nodules with non-diagnostic results (category I) and atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) or follicular lesion of undetermined significance (FLUS) (category III) in initial FNA.
Authors: Israel B Orija; Maria Piñeyro; Charles Biscotti; S Sethu K Reddy; Amir H Hamrahian Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Erik K Alexander; Jenny P Heering; Carol B Benson; Mary C Frates; Peter M Doubilet; Edmund S Cibas; Ellen Marqusee Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 5.958
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: Eun Ju Ha; Sae Rom Chung; Dong Gyu Na; Hye Shin Ahn; Jin Chung; Ji Ye Lee; Jeong Seon Park; Roh-Eul Yoo; Jung Hwan Baek; Sun Mi Baek; Seong Whi Cho; Yoon Jung Choi; Soo Yeon Hahn; So Lyung Jung; Ji-Hoon Kim; Seul Kee Kim; Soo Jin Kim; Chang Yoon Lee; Ho Kyu Lee; Jeong Hyun Lee; Young Hen Lee; Hyun Kyung Lim; Jung Hee Shin; Jung Suk Sim; Jin Young Sung; Jung Hyun Yoon; Miyoung Choi Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 3.500