Sivan Saraph1, Hector Cohen2, Ohad Ronen3,4. 1. Azrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Safed, Israel. 2. Department of Pathology, Galilee Medical Center, Nahariya, Israel. 3. Azrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Safed, Israel. ohadr@gmc.gov.il. 4. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Galilee Medical Center, Nahariya, Israel. ohadr@gmc.gov.il.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Thyroid Bethesda classification system provides 6 diagnostic categories, the first being a sample deemed non-diagnostic or insufficient and requiring a subsequent second biopsy. Our objective was to evaluate differences in non-diagnostic fine needle aspiration (FNA) of thyroid nodules conducted with a 23-gauge(G) needle vs. those conducted with a 25 G needle. METHODS: Data from 298 aspiration procedures using either 23 G or 25 G needles were collected, including cytological findings, ultrasound characteristics and patient demographics. The samples were classified as diagnostic or non-diagnostic according to final cytology. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the 25 G and 23 G needles in terms of non-diagnostic rates (35.7%, 31.9%; p = 0.494). Nodules defined as cystic had higher non-diagnostic rates (p < 0.05). Older patients as well as cystic nodules were associated with a higher non-diagnostic rate (OR = 1.018, p = 0.047, OR = 13.533, p = 0.0001, respectively), while nodule size was associated with lower non-diagnostic rates (OR = 0.747, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: The use of 25 G needle did not produce a lower non-diagnostic rate when compared to 23 G needle. Larger nodules might increase diagnostic rates, while older patients and cystic nodules are prone to inadequate samples. Patients and caregivers should be aware that FNA of small or cystic nodules as well as nodules in older patients may result in a higher non-diagnostic rate. Further research comparing other needles gauges should be conducted.
PURPOSE: Thyroid Bethesda classification system provides 6 diagnostic categories, the first being a sample deemed non-diagnostic or insufficient and requiring a subsequent second biopsy. Our objective was to evaluate differences in non-diagnostic fine needle aspiration (FNA) of thyroid nodules conducted with a 23-gauge(G) needle vs. those conducted with a 25 G needle. METHODS: Data from 298 aspiration procedures using either 23 G or 25 G needles were collected, including cytological findings, ultrasound characteristics and patient demographics. The samples were classified as diagnostic or non-diagnostic according to final cytology. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the 25 G and 23 G needles in terms of non-diagnostic rates (35.7%, 31.9%; p = 0.494). Nodules defined as cystic had higher non-diagnostic rates (p < 0.05). Older patients as well as cystic nodules were associated with a higher non-diagnostic rate (OR = 1.018, p = 0.047, OR = 13.533, p = 0.0001, respectively), while nodule size was associated with lower non-diagnostic rates (OR = 0.747, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: The use of 25 G needle did not produce a lower non-diagnostic rate when compared to 23 G needle. Larger nodules might increase diagnostic rates, while older patients and cystic nodules are prone to inadequate samples. Patients and caregivers should be aware that FNA of small or cystic nodules as well as nodules in older patients may result in a higher non-diagnostic rate. Further research comparing other needles gauges should be conducted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fine needle aspiration; Needle gauge; Non-diagnostic rates; Thyroid nodule
Authors: Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Sung Il Park; Byung Moon Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Soo Jin Kim; Ji Hyun Youk; Sung Hee Park Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
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: William J Moss; Andrey Finegersh; John Pang; Joseph A Califano; Charles S Coffey; Ryan K Orosco; Kevin T Brumund Journal: Thyroid Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Thomas J T Anderson; Michael K Atalay; David J Grand; Grayson L Baird; John J Cronan; Michael D Beland Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Juhyun Oh; Tae Yeon Yoo; Talia M Saal; Lisa Tsay; William C Faquin; Jonathan C T Carlson; Daniel G Deschler; Sara I Pai; Ralph Weissleder Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 4.264