Comparison of Core Needle Biopsy and Repeat Fine-Needle Aspiration in Avoiding Diagnostic Surgery for Thyroid Nodules Initially Diagnosed as Atypia/Follicular Lesion of Undetermined Significance
- Author:
Leehi JOO
1
;
Dong Gyu NA
;
Ji-hoon KIM
;
Hyobin SEO
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology 2022;23(2):280-288
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare core needle biopsy (CNB) and repeat fine-needle aspiration (rFNA) to reduce the rate of diagnostic surgery and prevent unnecessary surgery in nodules initially diagnosed as atypia/follicular lesions of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS).
Materials and Methods:This study included 231 consecutive patients (150 female and 81 male; mean age ± standard deviation, 51.9 ± 11.7 years) with 235 thyroid nodules (≥ 1 cm) initially diagnosed as AUS/FLUS, who later underwent both rFNA and CNB. The nodules that required diagnostic surgery after the biopsy were defined using three different scenarios according to the rFNA and CNB results: criterion 1, surgery for low-risk indeterminate (categories I and III); criterion 2, surgery for high-risk indeterminate (categories IV and V); and criterion 3, surgery for all indeterminate nodules (categories I, III, IV, and V). We compared the expected rates of diagnostic surgery between CNB and rFNA in all 235 nodules using the three surgical criteria. In addition, the expected rates of unnecessary surgery (i.e., surgery for benign pathology) were compared in a subgroup of 182 nodules with available final diagnoses.
Results:CNB showed significantly lower rates of nondiagnostic, AUS/FLUS, and suspicious for malignancy diagnoses (p ≤ 0.016) and higher rates of follicular neoplasm or suspicious for a follicular neoplasm (p < 0.001) and malignant diagnoses (p = 0.031). CNB showed a significantly lower expected rate of diagnostic surgery than rFNA for criterion 1 (29.8% vs. 48.1%, p < 0.001) and criterion 3 (46.4% vs. 55.3%, p = 0.029), and a significantly higher rate for criterion 2 (16.6% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.001). CNB showed a significantly lower expected rate of unnecessary surgery than rFNA for criterion 1 (18.7% vs. 29.7%, p = 0.024).
Conclusion:CNB was superior to rFNA in reducing the rates of potential diagnostic surgery and unnecessary surgery for nodules initially diagnosed as AUS/FLUS in a scenario where nodules with low-risk indeterminate results (categories I and III) would undergo surgery.
