4.3 Article

The role of core needle biopsy in the preoperative diagnosis of follicular neoplasm of the thyroid

Journal

APMIS
Volume 122, Issue 10, Pages 993-1000

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/apm.12244

Keywords

Thyroid nodule; core needle biopsy; follicular neoplasm; fine-needle aspiration

Funding

  1. Catholic Medical Center Research Foundation
  2. Korean Thyroid Association
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2013R1A2A2A01068570] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Follicular neoplasm/suspicious for follicular neoplasm (FN/SFN) can often be challenging to diagnose using core needle biopsy (CNB) specimens. We have developed the histologic criteria for the CNB diagnosis of FN and validated the usefulness of CNB. We retrospectively reviewed 184 CNBs and 224 FNACs diagnosed with FN/SFN. CNBs were histologically classified into four subgroups, based on the histologic features of follicular proliferation, fibrous capsulation, and surrounding parenchyma. Among 184 CNBs, 103 (55.9%) had previous FNAC results of non-diagnostic or indeterminate. Overall malignancy rates in FNAC (48%) and CNB (46%) were nearly identical (p > 0.05), and the neoplasm rate was higher in CNB (88%) than FNAC (74%) (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the malignancy rates among the four histologic subgroups. Among the 40 nodules with simultaneous CNB and FNAC, only nine had the FNAC diagnosis of FN/SFN, and others were non-diagnostic, benign, or atypia of undetermined significance. Overall, CNB improved specimen adequacy and achieved better sensitivity of the FN/SFN diagnosis in thyroid nodules that were inconclusive by FNAC. In the preoperative diagnosis of FN/SFN, CNB has no advantage over FNAC in predicting the likelihood of malignancy, but helps to reduce the need for repeat biopsy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available