Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sistema di refertazione globale della citologia tiroidea: confronto tra il sistema italiano 2014 e il sistema US Bethesda 2017

  • RASSEGNA
  • Published:
L'Endocrinologo Aims and scope

Sommario

La Classificazione Italiana SIAPEC-AIT 2014 e The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytology 2017 rappresentano i sistemi di refertazione più in uso fra i clinici e i patologi allo scopo di diagnosticare citologicamente, stimare il potenziale rischio di malignità (ROM) e definire il trattamento più idoneo per un paziente portatore di un nodulo tiroideo. Nonostante entrambi i sistemi utilizzino 6 categorie diagnostiche e criteri morfologici sovrapponibili, essi si differenziano in base ai criteri di inclusione nelle categorie citologiche che possono, a loro volta, condizionare il ROM di una determinata categoria e la gestione clinica del paziente, in particolare per quanto riguarda le categorie “indeterminate”. L’obiettivo di questa rassegna è di analizzare le principali differenze che emergono tra i due sistemi e suggerire delle possibili soluzioni per proporre un sistema di refertazione globale che integri e armonizzi tutti i criteri della Classificazione italiana e del sistema Bethesda tenendo anche in considerazione l’impatto che la nuova entità tumorale Non Invasive Follicular Tumor with Papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) che ha sostituito la forma non invasiva della variante follicolare del carcinoma papillare, ha avuto sulla rimodulazione dei rischi di malignità.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliografia

  1. Gharib H (2004) Changing trends in thyroid practice: understanding nodular thyroid disease. Endocr Pract 10:31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ross DS (2002) Nonpalpable thyroid nodules managing an epidemic. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87:1938–1940

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Poller DN, Baloch ZW, Fadda G et al. (2016) Thyroid FNA: new classifications and new interpretations. Cancer Cytopathol 124(7):457–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Straccia P, Rossi ED, Bizzarro T et al. (2015) A meta-analytic review of The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology: has the rate of malignancy in indeterminate lesions been underestimated? Cancer Cytopathol 123:713–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pusztaszeri M, Rossi ED, Auger M et al. (2016) The Bethesda System for reporting thyroid cytopathology: proposed modifications and updates for the second edition from an international panel. Acta Cytol 60:399–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nardi F, Basolo F, Crescenzi A et al. (2014) Italian consensus for the Classification and reporting of thyroid cytology. J Endocrinol Invest 37:593–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Van der Laan PA, Marqusee E, Krane JF (2011) Usefulness of diagnostic qualifiers for thyroid fine-needle aspirations with atypia of undetermined significance. Am J Clin Pathol 136(4):572–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson DN, Cavallo AB, Uraizee I et al. (2019) A proposal for separation of nuclear atypia and architectural atypia in Bethesda Category III (AUS/FLUS) based on differing rates of thyroid malignancy. Am J Clin Pathol 151(1):86–94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ali SZ, Cibas ES (2018) The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Trimboli P, Crescenzi A, Castellana M et al. (2019) Italian consensus for the classification and reporting of thyroid cytology: the risk of malignancy between indeterminate lesions at low or high risk. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endocrine 63:430–438

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Straccia P, Santoro A, Rossi ED et al. (2017) Incidence, malignancy rates of diagnoses and cyto-histological correlations in the new Italian Reporting System for Thyroid Cytology: an institutional experience. Cytopathology 28(6):503–508

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Renshaw AA (2011) Subclassification of atypical cells of undetermined significance in direct smears of fine-needle aspirations of the thyroid: distinct patterns and associated risk of malignancy. Cancer Cytopathol 119:322–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haugen BR, Sawka AM, Alexander EK et al. (2017) American Thyroid Association Guidelines on the Management of Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer Task Force review and recommendation on the proposed renaming of encapsulated follicular variant papillary thyroid carcinoma without invasion to noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features. Thyroid 27:481–483

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Haugen BR, Alexander E, Bible KC et al. (2016) American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines taskforce on thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. 2015 American Thyroid Association management guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid 26(1):1–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sahli ZT, Smith PW, Umbricht CB, Zeiger MA (2018) Preoperative molecular markers in thyroid nodules. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 9:179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nicholson KJ, Roberts MS, McCoy KL et al. (2019) Molecular testing versus diagnostic lobectomy in Bethesda III/IV thyroid nodules: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Thyroid 29:1237–1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Giorgadze T, Rossi ED, Fadda G et al. (2004) Does the fine-needle aspiration diagnosis of “Hürthlecell neoplasm/follicular neoplasm with oncocytic features” denote increased risk of malignancy? Diagn Cytopathol 31(5):307–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Parente DN, Kluijfhout WP, Bongers PJ et al. (2018) Clinical safety of renaming encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma: is NIFTP truly benign? World J Surg 42:321–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nikiforov YE, Seethala RR, Tallini G et al. (2016) Nomenclature revision for encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma: a paradigm shift to reduce overtreatment of indolent tumors. JAMA Oncol 2:1023–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Strickland KC, Howitt BE, Marqusee E et al. (2015) The impact of noninvasive follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma on rates of malignancy for fine-needle aspiration diagnostic categories. Thyroid 25(9):2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kopczyński J, Suligowska A, Niemyska K et al. (2020) Did introducing a new category of thyroid tumors (non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features) decrease the risk of malignancy for the diagnostic categories in the Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology? Endocr Pathol 31:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ventura M, Melo M, Fernandes G, Carrilho F (2019) Risk of malignancy in thyroid cytology: the impact of the reclassification of noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features. (NIFTP). Endocr Pract 25:642–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lloyd RV, Osamura RY, Klöppel G, Rosai J (2017) WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs, 4th edn. IARC, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fadda G, Rossi ED, Raffaelli M et al. (2011) Follicular thyroid neoplasms can be classified as low- and high-risk according to HBME-1 and Galectin-3 expression on liquid-based fine-needle cytology. Eur J Endocrinol 165(3):447–453

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(6):425–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Patologia Umana, dell’Adulto e dell’Età Evolutiva “Gaetano Barresi”, Università di Messina, Messina, Italia

    Gaetano Militi, Francesca Mazzeo, Cristina Pizzimenti, Desideria Coco, Giovanni Tuccari, Antonio Ieni & Guido Fadda

Authors
  1. Gaetano Militi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesca Mazzeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cristina Pizzimenti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Desideria Coco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giovanni Tuccari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Antonio Ieni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Guido Fadda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido Fadda.

Ethics declarations

Conflitto di interesse

Gli autori Gaetano Militi, Francesca Mazzeo, Cristina Pizzimenti, Desideria Coco, Giovanni Tuccari, Antonio Ieni e Guido Fadda dichiarano di non avere conflitti di interesse.

Consenso informato

Lo studio presentato in questo articolo non ha richiesto sperimentazione umana.

Studi sugli animali

Gli autori di questo articolo non hanno eseguito studi sugli animali.

Additional information

Proposto da Rosaria M. Ruggeri.

Nota della casa editrice

Springer Nature rimane neutrale in riguardo alle rivendicazioni giurisdizionali nelle mappe pubblicate e nelle affiliazioni istituzionali.

Informazioni Supplementari

I link al materiale elettronico supplementare sono elencati qui sotto.

(DOC 34 kB)

(DOC 32 kB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Militi, G., Mazzeo, F., Pizzimenti, C. et al. Sistema di refertazione globale della citologia tiroidea: confronto tra il sistema italiano 2014 e il sistema US Bethesda 2017. L'Endocrinologo 22, 509–513 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40619-021-00979-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40619-021-00979-1

Parole chiave

Search

Navigation