Fazeli Roghayeh, Schneider Eric B, Ali Syed Z, Zeiger Martha A, Olson Matthew T
Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md., USA.
Acta Cytol. 2015;59(3):225-32. doi: 10.1159/000379738. Epub 2015 May 28.
Diagnostic frequency ratios such as the atypia of undetermined significance (AUS):malignant ratio are touted to be useful for laboratory precision benchmarking. We therefore sought to examine their reproducibility and usefulness at a tertiary hospital.
We reviewed thyroid fine-needle aspirates (FNA) submitted to our institution from outside laboratories and evaluated the ability of diagnostic frequency ratios to capture the complexity of The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC). Specifically, we evaluated the ability of the AUS:malignant ratio to describe the frequencies of the other TBSRTC diagnoses.
A total of 2,784 cases from 19 laboratories were included. The use of the AUS category varied the most. There was insufficient reflection of the non-AUS nonmalignant TBSRTC diagnostic frequencies in our analysis, and these results do not appear to arise from observer variability in the outside laboratories.
Diagnostic frequency ratios are not reproducible in our experience and fail to describe the other TBSRTC categories. As such, they are unlikely to prove sufficient for benchmarking laboratory precision with TBSRTC.
诸如意义不明确的非典型性(AUS)与恶性肿瘤的诊断频率比等指标被认为对实验室精准度基准测试有用。因此,我们试图在一家三级医院检验其可重复性和实用性。
我们回顾了从外部实验室提交至本机构的甲状腺细针穿刺抽吸活检(FNA)样本,并评估诊断频率比反映《甲状腺细胞病理学报告贝塞斯达系统》(TBSRTC)复杂性的能力。具体而言,我们评估了AUS与恶性肿瘤的比例描述其他TBSRTC诊断频率的能力。
共纳入了来自19个实验室的2784例病例。AUS类别的使用差异最大。在我们的分析中,非AUS非恶性TBSRTC诊断频率的反映不足,且这些结果似乎并非源于外部实验室的观察者变异性。
根据我们的经验,诊断频率比不可重复,也无法描述其他TBSRTC类别。因此,它们不太可能足以用于以TBSRTC为基准的实验室精准度评估。