4.2 Review

Cytomorphologic, Imaging, Molecular Findings, and Outcome in Thyroid Follicular Lesion of Undetermined Significance/Atypical Cell of Undetermined Significance (AUS/FLUS): A Mini-Review

期刊

ACTA CYTOLOGICA
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 1-9

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000493908

关键词

Follicular lesion of undetermined significance; Atypical cell of undetermined significance; Fine-needle aspiration; The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytology; Afirma; Molecular and ancillary studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Since the introduction of the entity of Atypical cell of undetermined significance /follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS) by The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytology (TBSRTC) in 2007, there have been many published studies about the cytomorphologic criteria, subclassification, outcome, and management of patients with the diagnosis of AUS/FLUS. There have been many studies in different aspects of this indeterminate category, i.e., cytologic and molecular findings, ultrasonographic findings, and in some instances even core-needle biopsy to address a better and safer way of the management of patients with this fine-needle aspiration cytology diagnosis. The second edition of TBSRTC and the 2015 American Thyroid Association guidelines provide an update on the follow-up and management of AUS/FLUS. A multidisciplinary team consisting of pathologists, endocrinologists, surgeons, and radiologists should be involved in the diagnosis and management of AUS/FLUS, and all of them should be aware of the heterogeneity of this lesion for the prediction of the treatment and outcome. Study Design: In this review, we consider different research platforms (2008-2017) to find the best and key reports for the above-mentioned challenging aspects of AUS/FLUS. Conclusion: AUS/FLUS is now a well-defined group of thyroid lesions, which can be most accurately diagnosed and managed with cytomorphology, molecular, and ancillary studies. (c) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据