Evaluation of the Italian cytological subclassification of thyroid indeterminate nodules into TIR-3A and TIR-3B: a retrospective study of 290 cases with histological correlation from a single institution
The Italian consensus to classify thyroid cytology has provided a standardized reporting scheme, including the subdivision of indeterminate for malignancy TIR-3 category into TIR-3A (low-risk) and TIR-3B (high-risk). We aimed to present our experience on this subclassification by evaluating risks of malignancy and the validity in sorting nodules with dissimilar risks. Another aim was to compare our performance against the Bethesda system.
Fine-needle aspirates of 290 TIR-3 that underwent thyroid surgery at our hospital (2008–2013) were reviewed and divided into TIR-3A or TIR-3B, and AUS/FLUS or FN/SFN. Cytological diagnoses were then correlated to histology. Results were evaluated using univariate analysis.
The subclassification into TIR-3A and TIR-3B differentiated hyperplastic nodules (p = 0.000) but not adenomas (p = 0.090). Rates of malignancy were significantly different between TIR-3A (10.2%) and TIR-3B (43.8%); TIR-3B malignancies were often papillary carcinomas (83%). TIR-3A/TIR-3B accounted for high sensitivity (84.5%; CI 79.7–88.4%), accuracy (64.1%; CI 58.6–69.6%) and NPV (89.8%; CI 85.6–93.0%) as opposed to modest specificity (55.8%; CI 49.9–61.6%) and PPV (43.8%; CI 38.1–49.8%). The rate of malignancy in AUS-FLUS was higher than in TIR-3A (p = 0.007), whereas it was not different between FN/SFN and TIR-3B (p = 0.337). Sensitivity of the Bethesda system was significantly lower respect to the Italian system.
The study supports the Italian consensus showing a different risk of malignancy for TIR-3A as compared to TIR-3B. TIR-3A/TIR-3B subclassification is valid to sort out benign nodules (high NPV) and malignancies (high sensitivity) but not adenomas (modest specificity, low PPV). In our experience, sensitivity is the main difference between Italian and Bethesda systems.
KeywordsThyroid cancer Thyroid nodule Indeterminate fine-needle aspiration cytology Classification
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
For this type of study, archival material was used so that formal consent is not required. The study was designated as exempt by the ethics committee due to its retrospective nature; moreover, no protected health information was used.
Consent to submit the article has been received explicitly from all co-authors, as well as from the responsible authorities at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out.
No funding sources were received/used for this study.
- 2.Cross P, Chandra A, Giles T et al (2016) Guidance on the reporting of thyroid cytology specimens. R. Coll. Pathol, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 5.Baloch ZW, LiVolsi VA, Asa SL et al (2008) Diagnostic terminology and morphologic criteria for cytologic diagnosis of thyroid lesions: a synopsis of the national cancer institute thyroid fine-needle aspiration state of the science conference. Diagn Cytopathol 36:425–437. doi: 10.1002/dc.20830 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Pagni F, Prada M, Goffredo P et al (2014) “Indeterminate for malignancy” (Tir3/Thy3 in the Italian and British systems for classification) thyroid fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytology reporting: morphological criteria and clinical impact. Cytopathology 25:170–176. doi: 10.1111/cyt.12085 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kim SJ, Roh J, Baek JH et al (2017) Risk of malignancy according to sub-classification of the atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS) category in the Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology. Cytopathology 28:65–73. doi: 10.1111/cyt.12352 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Baloch ZW, Seethala RR, Faquin WC et al (2016) Noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP): a changing paradigm in thyroid surgical pathology and implications for thyroid cytopathology. Cancer Cytopathol 124:616–620. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21744 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar