...
首页> 外文期刊>Cancer: A Journal of the American Cancer Society >The Atypia of Undetermined Significance/Follicular Lesion of Undetermined Significance:Malignant Ratio A Proposed Performance Measure for Reporting in The Bethesda System for Thyroid Cytopathology
【24h】

The Atypia of Undetermined Significance/Follicular Lesion of Undetermined Significance:Malignant Ratio A Proposed Performance Measure for Reporting in The Bethesda System for Thyroid Cytopathology

机译:未确定意义的非典型性/未确定意义的滤泡性病变:恶性比率在Bethesda系统中进行甲状腺细胞病理学报告的拟议性能指标

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: The Bethesda System (TBS) for reporting thyroid cytopathology introduced the atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS) category, but did not provide adequate guidance for the appropriate use of this diagnosis. In the current study, the authors sought to identify an appropriate measure for AUS use based on experience to date with TBS. METHODS: The authors reviewed 8 series, including their own laboratory experiences, with a total of 30,466 thyroid aspirates classified within TBS. RESULTS: The median AUS rate was 9.9% with a range of 3.0% to 18.0%. Use of the individual diagnostic categories within TBS varied up to 12.7-fold. The ratio of "suspicious for follicular neoplasm" plus "suspicious for malignancy" to "malignant" (M) diagnoses varied the least (1.8-fold). The AUS:M ratio provided a suitable measure of assessing AUS use, with a median ratio of 2.0 and a range of 0.5 to 4.9. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available studies, an AUS:M ratio of 1.0 to 3.0 is recommended. AUS:M ratios > 3.0 are likely because of overdiagnosis of AUS or underdiagnosis of M. AUS:M ratios < 1.0 are mostly due to low AUS rates, at the likely expense of sensitivity.
机译:背景:用于报告甲状腺细胞病理学的Bethesda系统(TBS)引入了未定意义的非典型性/未定意义的卵泡病变(AUS)的非典型性,但没有为正确使用该诊断提供足够的指导。在当前的研究中,作者试图根据迄今为止TBS的经验来确定适合AUS使用的措施。方法:作者回顾了8个系列,包括他们自己的实验室经验,在TBS中共归类了30,466例甲状腺抽吸物。结果:中位AUS率为9.9%,范围为3.0%至18.0%。 TBS中各个诊断类别的使用变化高达12.7倍。诊断为“可疑滤泡性肿瘤”加“可疑恶性肿瘤”与“恶性”(M)的比率变化最小(1.8倍)。 AUS:M比率提供了评估AUS使用情况的合适方法,中位数比率为2.0,范围为0.5至4.9。结论:基于现有研究,推荐AUS:M比为1.0至3.0。 AUS:M比率> 3.0可能是由于对AUS的过度诊断或M的诊断不足所致。AUS:M比率<1.0主要是由于AUS率低,以敏感性为代价。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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