首页> 外文期刊>Thyroid: official journal of the American Thyroid Association >Core-needle biopsy is more useful than repeat fine-needle aspiration in thyroid nodules read as nondiagnostic or atypia of undetermined significance by the bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology
【24h】

Core-needle biopsy is more useful than repeat fine-needle aspiration in thyroid nodules read as nondiagnostic or atypia of undetermined significance by the bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology

机译:对于报告甲状腺细胞病理学的贝塞斯达系统,对于未诊断或意义不明的非典型性甲状腺结节,穿刺穿刺活检比重复细针穿刺活检更为有用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Background: 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. Materials and Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusion: 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.
机译:背景:甲状腺结节的细针穿刺(FNA)读数对未确诊或意义不明的非典型性异型(AUS),也称为未确诊的卵泡病变(FLUS),存在其最佳管理的问题。尚未进行进行穿刺活检(CNB)以阐明这些结节是良性还是恶性的有用性。本研究的目的是确定在具有非诊断性或AUS / FLUS读数的甲状腺结节中,CNB是否比重复FNA(rFNA)提供更好的诊断信息。材料和方法:Bethesda报告甲状腺细胞病理学系统用于FNA读数和CNB读数。该研究包括来自220位连续患者的225个甲状腺结节,这些患者先前没有诊断(N-DIAG组,n = 64)或AUS / FLUS(AF组,n = 161)FNA读数。所有患者同时接受每个结节的rFNA和CNB。比较了rFNA和CNB的非诊断性读数和AUS / FLUS读数。还评估了rFNA和CNB对甲状腺结节恶性肿瘤的诊断敏感性。使用McNemar检验进行统计分析。结果:在N-DIAG组中,CNB的非诊断性读数低于rFNA的非诊断性读数(1.6%对28.1%,p <0.001)。在AF组中,CNB的AUS / FLUS读数低于rFNA的读数(23.6%对39.8%,p <0.001)。 N-DIAG组(12.5%vs. 45.3%,p <0.001)和AF组(26.7%vs. 49.1%,p )对CNBs的不确定性诊断(非诊断性或AUS / FLUS)低于rFNAs。 0.001)。在N-DIAG组(100%对71.4%,p = 0.125)和AF组中,CNB对甲状腺恶性肿瘤的敏感性高于rFNA(78.5%对55.4%,p <0.001)。结论:患者甲状腺结节的FNA产生不确定的诊断结果(非诊断性或AUS / FLUS)后,CNB比rFNA更加有用,可减少不确定性诊断结果的发生频率。对于第一个FNA没有诊断或AUS / FLUS读数的甲状腺结节,CNB会比rFNA更好地改善恶性肿瘤的诊断性能。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号