Journal of clinical pathology · 2013
A core needle biopsy provides more malignancy-specific results than fine-needle aspiration biopsy in thyroid nodules suspicious for malignancy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hakala T, Kholová I, Sand J, Saaristo R, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The most commonly used diagnostic method for the preoperative diagnosis of thyroid nodules is ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNA), which often yields non-diagnostic or non-definitive results and seldom produces definite malignant diagnoses. To improve upon the malignancy-specific sensitivity, we tested core needle biopsies (CNBs) of thyroid lesions taken from surgical specimens.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 52 consecutive patients with malignant or malignant-suspicious thyroid nodules were referred to Tampere University Hospital between May 2010 and December 2011. Preoperative FNAs were categorised as follicular neoplasm (48%), suspicion for malignancy (46%) or malignancy (6%). Intraoperative FNA and CNB samples were acquired from surgical specimens removed during surgery. The results of the needle biopsies were compared with the final pathological diagnosis.
RESULTS: CNBs had a high definitive sensitivity for malignancy (61%, CI 41% to 78%) whereas the definitive sensitivity for malignancy of FNAs was significantly lower (22%, CI 10% to 42%). CNB was not beneficial in the diagnosis of follicular thyroid lesions. When all suspected follicular tumours were excluded, the definitive sensitivity of CNB rose to 70% (CI 48% to 86%).
CONCLUSIONS: CNB may be beneficial for the diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma and other non-follicular thyroid lesions. CNB may be considered as an additional diagnostic procedure in cases with FNA suspicious for malignancy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 52 consecutive patients with malignant or malignant-suspicious thyroid nodules were referred to Tampere University Hospital between May 2010 and December 2011. Preoperative FNAs were categorised as follicular neoplasm (48%), suspicion for malignancy (46%) or malignancy (6%). Intraoperative FNA and CNB samples were acquired from surgical specimens removed during surgery. The results of the needle biopsies were compared with the final pathological diagnosis.
RESULTS: CNBs had a high definitive sensitivity for malignancy (61%, CI 41% to 78%) whereas the definitive sensitivity for malignancy of FNAs was significantly lower (22%, CI 10% to 42%). CNB was not beneficial in the diagnosis of follicular thyroid lesions. When all suspected follicular tumours were excluded, the definitive sensitivity of CNB rose to 70% (CI 48% to 86%).
CONCLUSIONS: CNB may be beneficial for the diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma and other non-follicular thyroid lesions. CNB may be considered as an additional diagnostic procedure in cases with FNA suspicious for malignancy.