Cochand-Priollet B, Schmitt F C, Tötsch M, Vielh P
Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.
Acta Cytol. 2011;55(6):507-11. doi: 10.1159/000334687. Epub 2011 Dec 9.
A 2007 conference held at the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., USA, proposed a new terminology for classifying the results of thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) - The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytology (TBSRTC). The need to standardize thyroid FNA terminology was emphasized during the 35th European Congress of Cytology in 2009. An interobserver review study to assess the new terminology for analyzing the results of thyroid FNA was organized by the scientific committee of the European Federation of Cytology Societies.
Four experts in thyroid FNA examined and classified 116 FNAs according to the 6 levels of TBSRTC which are: nondiagnostic (ND); benign; atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS); follicular neoplasm/suspicious for a follicular neoplasm (FN/SFN), with those of Hürthle cell type reported as follicular neoplasm, Hürthle cell type/suspicious for a follicular neoplasm, Hürthle cell type (FNHCT/SFNHCT); suspicious (SUS), and malignant.
The total consensus was 62.1%; the cytopathologists disagreed on 44 cases, including 8 cases of AUS/FLUS and 18 of FN/SFN; 59% of the cases had no consensus. They agreed on 73 and 80% of the cases classified as benign and malignant, respectively, and on 58.3% of the SUS cases. The percentage of no consensus for each expert was between 32 and 39%.
Disagreement regarding the use of TBSRTC terminology for classifying the results of thyroid FNA mainly occurred in the most-often criticized categories of AUS/FLUS and FN/SFN.
2007年在美国马里兰州贝塞斯达的国家癌症研究所召开的一次会议提出了一种用于对甲状腺细针穿刺活检(FNA)结果进行分类的新术语——《甲状腺细胞病理学报告贝塞斯达系统》(TBSRTC)。2009年第35届欧洲细胞学会大会强调了规范甲状腺FNA术语的必要性。欧洲细胞学会联合会科学委员会组织了一项观察者间回顾性研究,以评估用于分析甲状腺FNA结果的新术语。
4位甲状腺FNA专家根据TBSRTC的6个级别对116例FNA进行了检查和分类,这6个级别分别为:无法诊断(ND);良性;意义不明确的非典型性/意义不明确的滤泡性病变(AUS/FLUS);滤泡性肿瘤/可疑滤泡性肿瘤(FN/SFN),其中许特耳细胞型的报告为滤泡性肿瘤,许特耳细胞型/可疑滤泡性肿瘤,许特耳细胞型(FNHCT/SFNHCT);可疑(SUS),以及恶性。
总体一致性为62.1%;细胞病理学家对44例存在分歧,包括8例AUS/FLUS和18例FN/SFN;59%的病例没有达成一致意见。他们分别对73%分类为良性和80%分类为恶性的病例达成了一致意见,对58.3%的SUS病例达成了一致意见。每位专家未达成一致意见的百分比在32%至39%之间。
在使用TBSRTC术语对甲状腺FNA结果进行分类方面的分歧主要发生在最常受到批评的AUS/FLUS和FN/SFN类别中。