Na Dong Gyu, Min Hye Sook, Lee Hunkyung, Won Jae-Kyung, Seo Hyo Bin, Kim Ji-Hoon
Department of Radiology, Human Medical Imaging and Intervention Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Eur Thyroid J. 2015 Sep;4(3):189-96. doi: 10.1159/000437051. Epub 2015 Jul 15.
The role of repeat fine-needle aspiration (RFNA) or core needle biopsy (CNB) has not been established in nodules categorized as atypia/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS).
The purpose of this study was to retrospectively determine whether CNB is more useful for management decisions than RFNA at each subcategory of AUS/FLUS nodules.
This study included 158 AUS/FLUS nodules (≥1 cm) from 153 consecutive patients who underwent both RFNA and CNB. The AUS/FLUS nodules were subcategorized into nuclear atypia (NA) and follicular lesions with other atypia (FOA). The diagnostic results and rate of determined management by RFNA and CNB were compared at each subcategory. The diagnostic values of RFNA and CNB for malignancy were evaluated in nodules with final diagnoses.
CNB showed a lower rate of AUS/FLUS diagnosis, higher rates of benign and follicular neoplasm or suspicious for a follicular neoplasm (FN/SFN) diagnoses (p ≤ 0.038), and marginally higher rates of malignant diagnosis than RFNA in the NA subcategory. CNB showed a higher rate of FN/SFN (p = 0.007) than RFNA in the FOA subcategory. CNB also demonstrated a higher rate of surgery decision than RFNA in both the NA subcategory (20.2 vs. 9.6%, p < 0.001) and FOA subcategory (20.8 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.007), and a higher rate of observation decision only in the NA subcategory (48.1 vs. 35.6%, p = 0.035). CNB demonstrated a higher diagnostic performance for malignancy overall in the nodules compared with RFNA.
CNB may be more useful for management decisions than RFNA in both the NA and FOA subcategories, and has the potential to be a first-line alternative diagnostic tool in initially diagnosed AUS/FLUS nodules.
对于分类为意义不明确的非典型性/滤泡性病变(AUS/FLUS)的结节,重复细针穿刺抽吸(RFNA)或粗针活检(CNB)的作用尚未明确。
本研究的目的是回顾性确定在AUS/FLUS结节的每个亚类中,CNB在管理决策方面是否比RFNA更有用。
本研究纳入了153例连续患者的158个AUS/FLUS结节(≥1 cm),这些患者均接受了RFNA和CNB。AUS/FLUS结节被细分为核非典型性(NA)和伴有其他非典型性的滤泡性病变(FOA)。比较了每个亚类中RFNA和CNB的诊断结果及确定的管理率。在最终诊断的结节中评估了RFNA和CNB对恶性肿瘤的诊断价值。
在NA亚类中,CNB显示出较低的AUS/FLUS诊断率、较高的良性和滤泡性肿瘤或可疑滤泡性肿瘤(FN/SFN)诊断率(p≤0.038),以及略高于RFNA的恶性诊断率。在FOA亚类中,CNB显示出比RFNA更高的FN/SFN率(p = 0.007)。在NA亚类(20.2%对9.6%,p < 0.001)和FOA亚类(20.8%对5.6%,p = 0.007)中,CNB做出手术决策的比率也高于RFNA,且仅在NA亚类中观察决策的比率更高(48.1%对35.6%,p = 0.035)。与RFNA相比,CNB在结节中对恶性肿瘤的总体诊断性能更高。
在NA和FOA亚类中,CNB在管理决策方面可能比RFNA更有用,并且有可能成为初诊AUS/FLUS结节的一线替代诊断工具。