High-grade differentiated thyroid carcinoma (HGDTC) is a recently recognized entity in the 2022 World Health Organization classification, representing a more aggressive subtype of differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Previously, high-grade features such as increased mitotic activity and tumor necrosis were often overlooked, despite being important independent prognostic factors. Although rare, HGDTC carries significant diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Data remain limited in Indonesia. Methods: This retrospective descriptive study reviewed 565 thyroid carcinoma cases diagnosed at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital from 2019 to 2024. Eleven cases (1.9%) met HGDTC criteria. Clinicopathological characteristics, histologic subtypes, Ki-67 proliferation index, molecular alterations, treatment modalities, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: Patients had a mean age of 54.6 years, with a female-to-male ratio of 2.7:1. Papillary thyroid carcinoma was the main type (90.9%), with the tall cell subtype predominating. Mean tumor size was 6.4 cm. Lymphatic invasion, vascular invasion, and extrathyroidal extension were present in 54.5%, 18.2%, and 45.5% of cases, respectively. All tumors showed necrosis. Mean mitotic count was 3 per 2 mm². The Ki-67 index ranged from 5% to 45% (median, 14%). BRAFV600E and TERT promoter mutations were detected in 18.2% and 36.4% of cases, respectively, with co-mutations in 18.2%. Six cases (54.5%) had metastases at time of diagnosis. During a mean follow-up of 20.5 months, one patient (9.1%) developed new vertebral metastases and all patients (100%) remained alive. Conclusions: HGDTC presents with more aggressive characteristics and a worse prognosis. Accurate diagnosis, molecular profiling, and long-term monitoring are essential for optimal management.

Background: Core needle biopsy (CNB) improves diagnostic accuracy by providing precise tissue sampling for histopathological evaluation, overcoming the limitation of inconclusive fine-needle aspiration results. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of CNB in assessing thyroid nodules, with additional analysis of the benefits of BRAF V600E and RAS Q61R immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled patients with thyroid nodules who underwent CNB at Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, from July 2022 to July 2024. CNB diagnoses were classified using the Korean Thyroid Association Criteria. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated for neoplastic and malignant lesions, both independently and with BRAF V600E and RAS Q61R IHC. The correlation between nodule size and postoperative diagnosis was also analyzed. Results: A total of 338 thyroid nodule samples was included, and 52.7% were classified as CNB category II. In the 104 samples with postoperative diagnoses, category IV was the most prevalent (39.4%). CNB demonstrated a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 100% for neoplastic lesions and 23.8% sensitivity and 100% specificity for malignant lesions. Combining CNB with BRAF V600E and RAS Q1R IHC increased the sensitivity to 77% for neoplastic lesions and 28.8% for malignant lesions. Larger nodules (>3 cm) were significantly associated with neoplastic (p = .005) and malignant lesions (p = .004). Conclusions CNB performs well in identifying neoplastic lesions, with or without BRAF V600E and RAS Q61R IHC, but its low sensitivity for malignant lesions warrants caution. While CNB categories V–VI indicate malignancy, the possibility of malignancy in categories I–IV should not be overlooked.

Background: Core needle biopsy (CNB) improves diagnostic accuracy by providing precise tissue sampling for histopathological evaluation, overcoming the limitation of inconclusive fine-needle aspiration results. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of CNB in assessing thyroid nodules, with additional analysis of the benefits of BRAF V600E and RAS Q61R immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled patients with thyroid nodules who underwent CNB at Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, from July 2022 to July 2024. CNB diagnoses were classified using the Korean Thyroid Association Criteria. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated for neoplastic and malignant lesions, both independently and with BRAF V600E and RAS Q61R IHC. The correlation between nodule size and postoperative diagnosis was also analyzed. Results: A total of 338 thyroid nodule samples was included, and 52.7% were classified as CNB category II. In the 104 samples with postoperative diagnoses, category IV was the most prevalent (39.4%). CNB demonstrated a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 100% for neoplastic lesions and 23.8% sensitivity and 100% specificity for malignant lesions. Combining CNB with BRAF V600E and RAS Q1R IHC increased the sensitivity to 77% for neoplastic lesions and 28.8% for malignant lesions. Larger nodules (>3 cm) were significantly associated with neoplastic (p = .005) and malignant lesions (p = .004). Conclusions CNB performs well in identifying neoplastic lesions, with or without BRAF V600E and RAS Q61R IHC, but its low sensitivity for malignant lesions warrants caution. While CNB categories V–VI indicate malignancy, the possibility of malignancy in categories I–IV should not be overlooked.

Background: Core needle biopsy (CNB) improves diagnostic accuracy by providing precise tissue sampling for histopathological evaluation, overcoming the limitation of inconclusive fine-needle aspiration results. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of CNB in assessing thyroid nodules, with additional analysis of the benefits of BRAF V600E and RAS Q61R immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled patients with thyroid nodules who underwent CNB at Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, from July 2022 to July 2024. CNB diagnoses were classified using the Korean Thyroid Association Criteria. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated for neoplastic and malignant lesions, both independently and with BRAF V600E and RAS Q61R IHC. The correlation between nodule size and postoperative diagnosis was also analyzed. Results: A total of 338 thyroid nodule samples was included, and 52.7% were classified as CNB category II. In the 104 samples with postoperative diagnoses, category IV was the most prevalent (39.4%). CNB demonstrated a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 100% for neoplastic lesions and 23.8% sensitivity and 100% specificity for malignant lesions. Combining CNB with BRAF V600E and RAS Q1R IHC increased the sensitivity to 77% for neoplastic lesions and 28.8% for malignant lesions. Larger nodules (>3 cm) were significantly associated with neoplastic (p = .005) and malignant lesions (p = .004). Conclusions CNB performs well in identifying neoplastic lesions, with or without BRAF V600E and RAS Q61R IHC, but its low sensitivity for malignant lesions warrants caution. While CNB categories V–VI indicate malignancy, the possibility of malignancy in categories I–IV should not be overlooked.

Background: The diagnosis of thyroid neoplasms necessitates the identification of distinct histological features. Various education/hospital centers located in cities across Indonesia likely result in discordances among pathologists when diagnosing thyroid neoplasms. Methods: This study examined the concordance among Indonesian pathologists in assessing nuclear features and capsular and vascular invasion of thyroid tumors. Fifteen pathologists from different centers independently assessed the same 14 digital slides of thyroid tumor specimens. All the specimens were thyroid neoplasms with known BRAFV600E and RAS mutational status, from a single center. We evaluated the pre- and post-training agreement using the Fleiss kappa. The significance of the training was evaluated using a paired T-test. Results: Baseline agreement on nuclear features was slight to fair based on a 3-point scoring system (k = 0.14 to 0.28) and poor to fair based on an eight-point system (k = –0.02 to 0.24). Agreements on vascular (κ = 0.35) and capsular invasion (κ = 0.27) were fair, whereas the estimated molecular type showed substantial agreement (κ = 0.74). Following the training, agreement using the eight-point system significantly improved (p = 0.001). Conclusions The level of concordance among Indonesian pathologists in diagnosing thyroid neoplasm was relatively poor. Consensus in pathology assessment requires ongoing collaboration and education to refine diagnostic criteria.

Background: The diagnosis of thyroid neoplasms necessitates the identification of distinct histological features. Various education/hospital centers located in cities across Indonesia likely result in discordances among pathologists when diagnosing thyroid neoplasms. Methods: This study examined the concordance among Indonesian pathologists in assessing nuclear features and capsular and vascular invasion of thyroid tumors. Fifteen pathologists from different centers independently assessed the same 14 digital slides of thyroid tumor specimens. All the specimens were thyroid neoplasms with known BRAFV600E and RAS mutational status, from a single center. We evaluated the pre- and post-training agreement using the Fleiss kappa. The significance of the training was evaluated using a paired T-test. Results: Baseline agreement on nuclear features was slight to fair based on a 3-point scoring system (k = 0.14 to 0.28) and poor to fair based on an eight-point system (k = –0.02 to 0.24). Agreements on vascular (κ = 0.35) and capsular invasion (κ = 0.27) were fair, whereas the estimated molecular type showed substantial agreement (κ = 0.74). Following the training, agreement using the eight-point system significantly improved (p = 0.001). Conclusions The level of concordance among Indonesian pathologists in diagnosing thyroid neoplasm was relatively poor. Consensus in pathology assessment requires ongoing collaboration and education to refine diagnostic criteria.

Background: The diagnosis of thyroid neoplasms necessitates the identification of distinct histological features. Various education/hospital centers located in cities across Indonesia likely result in discordances among pathologists when diagnosing thyroid neoplasms. Methods: This study examined the concordance among Indonesian pathologists in assessing nuclear features and capsular and vascular invasion of thyroid tumors. Fifteen pathologists from different centers independently assessed the same 14 digital slides of thyroid tumor specimens. All the specimens were thyroid neoplasms with known BRAFV600E and RAS mutational status, from a single center. We evaluated the pre- and post-training agreement using the Fleiss kappa. The significance of the training was evaluated using a paired T-test. Results: Baseline agreement on nuclear features was slight to fair based on a 3-point scoring system (k = 0.14 to 0.28) and poor to fair based on an eight-point system (k = –0.02 to 0.24). Agreements on vascular (κ = 0.35) and capsular invasion (κ = 0.27) were fair, whereas the estimated molecular type showed substantial agreement (κ = 0.74). Following the training, agreement using the eight-point system significantly improved (p = 0.001). Conclusions The level of concordance among Indonesian pathologists in diagnosing thyroid neoplasm was relatively poor. Consensus in pathology assessment requires ongoing collaboration and education to refine diagnostic criteria.