Advertisement

Both Ultrasound Features and Nuclear Atypia are Associated with Malignancy in Thyroid Nodules with Atypia of Undetermined Significance

  • Naseem Eisa
  • Ahsan Khan
  • Mutaal Akhter
  • Molly Fensterwald
  • Saba Saleem
  • Ghaneh Fananapazir
  • Michael J. Campbell
Endocrine Tumors
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The optimal management of thyroid nodules that undergo fine-needle aspiration (FNA) with findings of atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) is unclear. Categorizing nodules by AUS subtype and ultrasound characteristics may improve risk stratification. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the association between AUS subtype and ultrasound features on risk of malignancy (ROM).

Methods

We performed a review of all patients with a thyroid nodule who underwent an FNA at our institution between January 2010 and November 2015. Patients with AUS were divided into groups with (1) nuclear atypia, (2) architectural atypia, or (3) Hurthle cell atypia. Their ultrasound features were assessed using the American Thyroid Association (ATA) thyroid nodule sonographic patterns. We conducted a univariate and multivariable analysis to determine the association between AUS subtype and other variables of interest with ROM.

Results

Of the 3428 thyroid nodules that underwent FNA, 237 (6.9%) had AUS. Of the 97 surgically resected nodules, 67 (69%) were benign and 30 (31%) were malignant. On univariate analysis nuclear atypia (p < 0.01) was associated with a thyroid malignancy. On multivariable analysis, both ATA high-risk ultrasound features (p = 0.04, odds ratio [OR] 3.68) and nuclear atypia (p < 0.01, OR 11.8) were independently associated with a final diagnosis of thyroid carcinoma.

Conclusions

Nuclear atypia and ATA high-risk ultrasound features are useful in identifying patients with AUS that are at a higher risk of thyroid malignancy. Surgeons should take these factors into consideration when evaluating patients with AUS.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Dr. Alison Semrad and Dr. Kent Ishihara for their help reviewing and providing critical feedback on this manuscript. We would also like to thank Dr. Sandra Taylor for statistical assistance.

Funding

Department funds were used for incidental expenses.

Disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Tan GH, Gharib H. Thyroid incidentalomas: management approaches to nonpalpable nodules discovered incidentally on thyroid imaging. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(3):226–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2016;26(1):1–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cibas ES, Ali SZ. The Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132(5):658–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kholová I, Ludvíková M. Thyroid atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance: an indispensable Bethesda 2010 diagnostic category or waste garbage? Acta Cytol. 2014;58(4):319–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Thyroid Carcinoma (Version 2.2017) https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/thyroid_blocks.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2018.
  6. 6.
    Cibas ES, Ali SZ. The 2017 Bethesda system for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. Thyroid. 2017;27(11):1341–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim SJ, Roh J, Baek JH, et al. 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. 2017;28(1):65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olson MT, Clark DP, Erozan YS, et al. Spectrum of risk of malignancy in subcategories of “atypia of undetermined significance.” Acta Cytol. 2011;55:518–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gao LY, Wang Y, Jiang YX, et al. Ultrasound is helpful to differentiate Bethesda class III thyroid nodules: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(16):e6564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee JH, Han K, Kim EK, et al. Risk stratification of thyroid nodules with atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS) cytology using ultrasonography patterns defined by the 2015 ATA Guidelines. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2017;126(9):625–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim DW, Lee EJ, Jung SJ, et al. Role of sonographic diagnosis in managing Bethesda class III nodules. Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(11):2136–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Onder S, Firat P, Ates D, et al. The Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology: an institutional experience of the outcome of indeterminate categories. Cytopathology. 2014;25(3):177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Renshaw AA. Should “atypical follicular cells” in thyroid fine needle aspirates be subclassified? Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2010;118:186–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Laan PA, Marqusee E, Krane JF, et al. Usefulness of diagnostic qualifiers for thyroid fine-needle aspirations: with atypia of undetermined significance. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:572–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu HH, Inman A, Cramer HM, et al. Subclassification of “atypia of undetermined significance” in thyroid fine-needle aspirates. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42(1):23–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.23052. Epub 2013 Oct 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horne MJ, Chhieng DC, Theoharis C, et al. Thyroid follicular lesion of undetermined significance: evaluation of the risk of malignancy using the two-tier sub-classification. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2012;40:410–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ho AS, Sarti EE, Jain KS, et al. Malignancy rate in thyroid nodules classified as Bethesda category III (AUS/FLUS). Thyroid. 2014;24(5):832–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Laan PA, Marqusee E and Krane JF. Clinical outcome for atypia of undetermined significance in thyroid fine-needle aspirations: Should repeated FNA be the preferred initial approach? Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135:770–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gweon HM, Son EJ, Youk JH, et al. Thyroid nodules with Bethesda system III cytology: can ultrasonography guide the next step? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(9):3083–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jeong SH, Hong HS, Lee EH, et al Outcome of thyroid nodules characterized as atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance and correlation with ultrasound features and BRAF(V600E) mutation analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(6):W854–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosario PW. Thyroid nodules with atypia or follicular lesions of undetermined significance (Bethesda Category III): importance of ultrasonography and cytological subcategory. Thyroid. 2014;24(7):1115–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yoo WS, Choi HS, Cho SW, et al. The role of ultrasound findings in the management of thyroid nodules with atypia or follicular lesions of undetermined significance. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2014;80(5):735–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim DS, Kim JH, Na DG, et al. Sonographic features of follicular variant papillary thyroid carcinomas in comparison with conventional papillary thyroid carcinomas. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28(12):1685–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee S, Shin JH, Oh YL, et al. Subcategorization of Bethesda System Category III by ultrasonography. Thyroid. 2016;26(6):836–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Park CS, Kim SH, Jung SL, et al. Observer variability in the sonographic evaluation of thyroid nodules. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010;38(6):287–93.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dincer N, Balci S, Yazgan A et al. Follow-up of atypia and follicular lesions of undetermined significance in thyroid fine needle aspiration cytology. Cytopathology. 2013;24(6):385–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gan TR, Nga ME, Lum JH, et al. Thyroid cytology-nuclear versus architectural atypia within the “Atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance” Bethesda category have significantly different rates of malignancy. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125(4):245–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nikiforov, et al. Nomenclature revision for encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. A paradigm shift to reduce overtreatment of indolent tumors. JAMA Oncol.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0386. Published online April 14, 2016. Corrected on May 12, 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mathur A, Najafian A, Schneider EB, et al. Malignancy risk and reproducibility associated with atypia of undetermined significance on thyroid cytology. Surgery. 2014;156(6):1471–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naseem Eisa
    • 1
  • Ahsan Khan
    • 2
  • Mutaal Akhter
    • 2
  • Molly Fensterwald
    • 2
  • Saba Saleem
    • 2
  • Ghaneh Fananapazir
    • 3
  • Michael J. Campbell
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of California, Davis Medical CenterSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.School of MedicineUniversity of California, Davis Medical CenterSacramentoUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of California, Davis Medical CenterSacramentoUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryUniversity of California, Davis Medical CenterSacramentoUSA
  5. 5.University of California, Davis, Comprehensive Cancer CenterSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations