Department of Radiology, Human Medical Imaging and Intervention Center, 101 Daehangno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Thyroid. 2012 May;22(5):468-75. doi: 10.1089/thy.2011.0185. Epub 2012 Feb 3.
Thyroid nodules with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) readings of nondiagnostic or atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), also referred to as follicular lesion of undetermined significance (FLUS) are problematic for their optimal management. The usefulness of performing a core-needle biopsy (CNB) to clarify whether these nodules are benign or malignant has not been established. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether CNB provides better diagnostic information than repeat FNA (rFNA) in thyroid nodules having nondiagnostic or AUS/FLUS readings.
The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology was used for FNA readings and for CNB readings. The study included 225 thyroid nodules from 220 consecutive patients who previously had nondiagnostic (Group N-DIAG, n=64) or AUS/FLUS (Group AF, n=161) FNA readings. All patients simultaneously underwent rFNA and CNB of each nodule. The nondiagnostic and AUS/FLUS readings by rFNA and by CNB were compared. The diagnostic sensitivities of rFNA and CNB for malignancy in thyroid nodules were also assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using a McNemar's test.
In N-DIAG Group, the nondiagnostic readings for the CNBs were lower than that those for rFNAs (1.6% vs. 28.1%, p<0.001). In the AF Group, the AUS/FLUS readings for the CNBs were lower than those for the rFNAs (23.6% vs. 39.8%, p<0.001). The inconclusive diagnoses (nondiagnostic or AUS/FLUS) for the CNBs were lower than those for the rFNAs in Group N-DIAG (12.5% vs. 45.3%, p<0.001) and Group AF (26.7% vs. 49.1%, p<0.001). The sensitivity of CNB for thyroid malignancy was higher than that of rFNA in Group N-DIAG (100% vs. 71.4%, p=0.125) and Group AF (78.5% vs. 55.4%, p<0.001).
After patients have had one FNA of a thyroid nodule yielding inconclusive diagnostic results (nondiagnostic or AUS/FLUS), CNB is more useful than rFNA for reducing the frequency of inconclusive diagnostic results. CNB will improve the diagnostic performance for malignancy more than rFNA in thyroid nodules that on the first FNA had nondiagnostic or AUS/FLUS readings.
甲状腺结节细针穿刺抽吸术(FNA)结果为非诊断性或意义未明的非典型性(AUS),也称为滤泡性病变意义未明(FLUS),其最佳管理存在问题。进行核心针活检(CNB)以明确这些结节是良性还是恶性的有效性尚未确定。本研究的目的是确定 CNB 是否比重复 FNA(rFNA)在具有非诊断性或 AUS/FLUS 读数的甲状腺结节中提供更好的诊断信息。
使用 Bethesda 甲状腺细胞病理学报告系统进行 FNA 读数和 CNB 读数。该研究包括 220 名连续患者的 225 个甲状腺结节,这些患者先前的 FNA 读数为非诊断性(组 N-DIAG,n=64)或 AUS/FLUS(组 AF,n=161)。所有患者同时对每个结节进行 rFNA 和 CNB。比较 rFNA 和 CNB 的非诊断性和 AUS/FLUS 读数。还评估了 rFNA 和 CNB 对甲状腺结节恶性的诊断敏感性。使用 McNemar 检验进行统计分析。
在 N-DIAG 组中,CNB 的非诊断性读数低于 rFNA(1.6% vs. 28.1%,p<0.001)。在 AF 组中,CNB 的 AUS/FLUS 读数低于 rFNA(23.6% vs. 39.8%,p<0.001)。CNB 的不确定诊断(非诊断性或 AUS/FLUS)低于 rFNA,在 N-DIAG 组(12.5% vs. 45.3%,p<0.001)和 AF 组(26.7% vs. 49.1%,p<0.001)。CNB 对甲状腺恶性肿瘤的敏感性高于 rFNA,在 N-DIAG 组(100% vs. 71.4%,p=0.125)和 AF 组(78.5% vs. 55.4%,p<0.001)。
在患者对甲状腺结节进行一次 FNA 检查后,结果为不确定诊断(非诊断性或 AUS/FLUS),CNB 比 rFNA 更有助于减少不确定诊断结果的频率。在第一次 FNA 检查结果为非诊断性或 AUS/FLUS 的甲状腺结节中,CNB 将比 rFNA 更能提高恶性肿瘤的诊断性能。