Show simple item record

The clinical and diagnostic impact of using standard criteria of adequacy assessment and diagnostic terminology on thyroid nodule fine needle aspiration

dc.contributor.authorJing, Xinen_US
dc.contributor.authorMichael, Claire W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPu, Robert T.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2008-03-06T19:13:47Z
dc.date.available2009-03-04T14:20:46Zen_US
dc.date.issued2008-03en_US
dc.identifier.citationJing, Xin; Michael, Claire W.; Pu, Robert T. (2008). "The clinical and diagnostic impact of using standard criteria of adequacy assessment and diagnostic terminology on thyroid nodule fine needle aspiration." Diagnostic Cytopathology 36(3): 161-166. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/58042>en_US
dc.identifier.issn8755-1039en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0339en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/58042
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=18231997&dopt=citation
dc.description.abstractThe study was aimed to investigate the impact of using standard criteria for assessing specimen adequacy and diagnostic terminology (CAST) on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) diagnosis and clinical management of thyroid nodules. The study included similar numbers of FNAs performed in 2 year before (group A) and 1.5 year after (group B) implementing the standard CAST. In comparison to group A, group B showed a significantly lower rate of nondiagnostic specimens (RND) (16.1% vs. 21.6%, P ≤ 0.01) and rate of descriptive diagnoses (RDD) (3.8% vs. 14.5%, P ≤ 0.001) and greater non-neoplastic (70.0% vs. 64.1%, P < 0.05) and follicular cell lesions (7.4% vs. 4.3%, P < 0.05) but a similar percentage of neoplastic diagnoses. The rate of surgical follow-up (RSF) was significantly higher in group B than in group A, overall (21.6% vs. 17.0%, P < 0.05), or in subgroups of non-neoplastic (12.6% vs. 5.4%, P < 0.01) and neoplastic categories (81.0% vs. 61.0%, P < 0.05). The rate of cytohistologic concordance was higher in group B although the difference was not statistically significant. We concluded that use of the standard CAST on FNA diagnosis of thyroid nodules significantly reduced RND and RDD, providing more consistent diagnoses among the pathologists as well as better and more uniform communication between the pathologists and the clinicians. Furthermore, the cytohistological concordance was slightly better after CAST implementation, indicating that the improvement of diagnostic consistency among pathologists did not sacrifice the diagnostic accuracy. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2008;36:161–166. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.en_US
dc.format.extent75919 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherLife and Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherCancer Research, Oncology and Pathologyen_US
dc.titleThe clinical and diagnostic impact of using standard criteria of adequacy assessment and diagnostic terminology on thyroid nodule fine needle aspirationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPathologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, 2G332 UH, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0054en_US
dc.identifier.pmid18231997
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58042/1/20762_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dc.20762en_US
dc.identifier.sourceDiagnostic Cytopathologyen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.