Show simple item record

Group consensus review minimizes the diagnosis of “follicular lesion of undetermined significance” and improves cytohistologic concordance

dc.contributor.authorJing, Xinen_US
dc.contributor.authorKnoepp, Stewart M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRoh, Michael H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHookim, Kimen_US
dc.contributor.authorPlacido, Jeremiahen_US
dc.contributor.authorDavenport, Robertsonen_US
dc.contributor.authorRasche, Rodolfoen_US
dc.contributor.authorMichael, Claire W.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-12-11T17:37:25Z
dc.date.available2014-02-03T16:21:44Zen_US
dc.date.issued2012-12en_US
dc.identifier.citationJing, Xin; Knoepp, Stewart M.; Roh, Michael H.; Hookim, Kim; Placido, Jeremiah; Davenport, Robertson; Rasche, Rodolfo; Michael, Claire W. (2012). "Group consensus review minimizes the diagnosis of “follicular lesion of undetermined significance” and improves cytohistologic concordance." Diagnostic Cytopathology 40(12): 1037-1042. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/94484>en_US
dc.identifier.issn8755-1039en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0339en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/94484
dc.description.abstractWe conducted a group consensus review of thyroid aspirates that were previously interpreted as “atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance” (AUS/FLUS) and followed by surgical interventions. The study aimed to investigate if consensus review would minimize the diagnosis of AUS/FLUS with an optimal interobserver agreement and also promote a better cytohistologic concordance. A group of reviewers who were blinded to the corresponding histologic findings simultaneously evaluated a total of 50 aspirates at a multiheaded light microscope. Using the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology as a guideline, a consensus interpretation was reached upon review of each aspirate. Interobserver agreement was calculated and recorded. The cytohistologic correlation was then performed between the consensus interpretation and the corresponding histologic diagnosis. The consensus review reclassified 26 (52%) aspirates as non‐neoplasia/benign, 10 (20%) as follicular neoplasm/suspicious for a follicular neoplasm, 1 (2%) as papillary thyroid carcinoma, and 2 (4%) as nondiagnostic. Eleven (22%) aspirates remained AUS/FLUS. The interobserver agreement across the five diagnostic categories ranged from 71.6% to 100% with an average level of 88.8%. Cytohistologic concordance was achieved in 24 of 26 (92.3%) and 9 of 11 (81.8%) aspirates that were reclassified as non‐neoplasia/benign and neoplasia/malignancy, respectively. A diagnostic accuracy of 89.2% (33/37) was obtained in reclassified cases. In conclusion, the group consensus review minimized AUS/FLUS, offered an optimal level of interobserver agreement, and most importantly, promoted excellent cytohistologic concordance in reclassified cases and, therefore, could play a substantial role in the future in reducing reaspiration and/or unnecessary surgeries. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2012. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Incen_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherThyroiden_US
dc.subject.otherCytohistologic Concordanceen_US
dc.subject.otherFollicular Lesion of Undetermined Significanceen_US
dc.subject.otherFNAen_US
dc.subject.otherConsensus Reviewen_US
dc.titleGroup consensus review minimizes the diagnosis of “follicular lesion of undetermined significance” and improves cytohistologic concordanceen_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, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, 2G332 UH, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐0054en_US
dc.identifier.pmid21538963en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94484/1/21702_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/dc.21702en_US
dc.identifier.sourceDiagnostic Cytopathologyen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHolleman F, Hoekstra JB, Ruitenberg HM. Evaluation of fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytology in the diagnosis of thyroid nodules. Cytopathology 1995; 6: 168 – 175.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePoller DN, Ibrahim AK, Cummings MH, Mikel JJ, Boote D, Perry M. Fine‐needle aspiration of the thyroid. Cancer 2000; 90: 239 – 244.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBusseniers AE, Oertel YC. “Cellular adenomatoid nodules” of the thyroid: Review of 219 fine‐needle aspirates. Diagn Cytopathol 1993; 9: 581 – 589.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZagorianakou P, Malamou‐Mitsi V, Zagorianakou N, Stefanou D, Tsatsoulis A, Agnantis NJ. The role of fine‐needle aspiration biopsy in the management of patients with thyroid nodules. In Vivo 2005; 19: 605 – 609.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMandreker SR, Nadkarni NS, Pinto RG, Menezes S. Role of fine needle aspiration cytology as the initial modality in the investigation of thyroid lesions. Acta Cytol 1995; 39: 898 – 904.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGharib H. Fine‐needle aspiration biopsy of thyroid nodules: Advantages, limitations, and effect. Mayo Clin Proc 1994; 69: 44 – 49.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNikiforova MN, Nikiforov YE. Molecular diagnostics and predictors in thyroid cancer. Thyroid 2009; 19: 1351 – 1361.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNikiforov YE, Steward DL, Robinson‐Smith TM, et al. Molecular testing for mutations in improving the fine‐needle aspiration diagnosis of thyroid nodules. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009; 94: 2092 – 2098.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaloch ZW, Sack MJ, Yu GH, Livolsi VA, Gupta PK. Fine‐needle aspiration of thyroid: An institutional experience. Thyroid 1998; 8: 565 – 569.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShi Y, Ding X, Klein M, et al. Thyroid fine‐needle aspiration with atypia of undetermined significance: A necessary or optional category?. Cancer Cytopathol 2009; 117: 298 – 304.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClary KM, Condel JL, Liu Y, Johnson DR, Grzybicki DM, Raab SS. Interobserver variability in the fine needle aspiration biopsy diagnosis of follicular lesions of the thyroid gland. Acta Cytol 2005; 49: 378 – 382.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLayfield LJ, Morton MJ, Cramer HM, Hirschowitz S. Implications of the proposed thyroid fine‐needle aspiration category of “follicular lesion of undetermined significance”: A five‐year multi‐institutional analysis. Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 37: 710 – 714.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJing X, Roh MH, Knoepp SM, Zhao L, Michael CW. Minimizing the diagnosis of “follicular lesion of undetermined significance” and identifying predictive features for neoplasia. Diagn Cytopathol. DOI: 10.1002/dc.21459 [Epub ahead of print].en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrane JF, Nayar R, Renshaw AA. Atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance. In: Ali SZ, Cibas ES, editors. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. New York: Springer; 2010. p 37.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreaves TS, Olvera M, Florentine BD, et al. Follicular lesions of thyroid: A 5‐year fine‐needle aspiration experience. Cancer 2000; 90: 335 – 341.en_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.