bethesda系统中甲状腺吸入细胞学报告的发病率和恶性肿瘤诊断率:一个机构经验。

Korean Journal of Pathology Pub Date : 2014-04-01 Epub Date: 2014-04-28 DOI:10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2014.48.2.133
Ji Hye Park, Sun Och Yoon, Eun Ju Son, Hye Min Kim, Ji Hae Nahm, SoonWon Hong
{"title":"bethesda系统中甲状腺吸入细胞学报告的发病率和恶性肿瘤诊断率:一个机构经验。","authors":"Ji Hye Park,&nbsp;Sun Och Yoon,&nbsp;Eun Ju Son,&nbsp;Hye Min Kim,&nbsp;Ji Hae Nahm,&nbsp;SoonWon Hong","doi":"10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2014.48.2.133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (BSRTC) uses six diagnostic categories to standardize communication of thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) interpretations between clinicians and cytopathologists. Since several studies have questioned the diagnostic accuracy of this system, we examined its accuracy in our hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We calculated the incidences and malignancy rates of each diagnostic category in the BSRTC for 1,730 FNAs that were interpreted by four cytopathologists in Gangnam Severance Hospital between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The diagnostic incidences of categories I-VI were as follows: 13.3%, 40.6%, 9.1%, 0.4%, 19.3%, and 17.3%, respectively. Similarly, the malignancy rates of these categories were as follows: 35.3%, 5.6%, 69.0%, 50.0%, 98.7%, and 98.9%, respectively. In categories II, V, and VI, there were no statistically significant differences in the ranges of the malignancy rates among the four cytopathologists. However, there were significant differences in the ranges for categories I and III.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that institutions that use the BSRTC should regularly update their diagnostic criteria. We also propose that institutions issue an annual report of incidences and malignancy rates to help other clinicians improve the case management of patients with thyroid nodules.</p>","PeriodicalId":49936,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Pathology","volume":"48 2","pages":"133-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2014.48.2.133","citationCount":"51","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incidence and malignancy rates of diagnoses in the bethesda system for reporting thyroid aspiration cytology: an institutional experience.\",\"authors\":\"Ji Hye Park,&nbsp;Sun Och Yoon,&nbsp;Eun Ju Son,&nbsp;Hye Min Kim,&nbsp;Ji Hae Nahm,&nbsp;SoonWon Hong\",\"doi\":\"10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2014.48.2.133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (BSRTC) uses six diagnostic categories to standardize communication of thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) interpretations between clinicians and cytopathologists. Since several studies have questioned the diagnostic accuracy of this system, we examined its accuracy in our hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We calculated the incidences and malignancy rates of each diagnostic category in the BSRTC for 1,730 FNAs that were interpreted by four cytopathologists in Gangnam Severance Hospital between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The diagnostic incidences of categories I-VI were as follows: 13.3%, 40.6%, 9.1%, 0.4%, 19.3%, and 17.3%, respectively. Similarly, the malignancy rates of these categories were as follows: 35.3%, 5.6%, 69.0%, 50.0%, 98.7%, and 98.9%, respectively. In categories II, V, and VI, there were no statistically significant differences in the ranges of the malignancy rates among the four cytopathologists. However, there were significant differences in the ranges for categories I and III.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that institutions that use the BSRTC should regularly update their diagnostic criteria. We also propose that institutions issue an annual report of incidences and malignancy rates to help other clinicians improve the case management of patients with thyroid nodules.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49936,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Pathology\",\"volume\":\"48 2\",\"pages\":\"133-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2014.48.2.133\",\"citationCount\":\"51\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2014.48.2.133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2014/4/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2014.48.2.133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 51

摘要

背景:Bethesda甲状腺细胞病理学报告系统(BSRTC)使用六种诊断类别来规范临床医生和细胞病理学家之间关于甲状腺细针穿刺(FNA)解释的交流。由于一些研究质疑该系统的诊断准确性,我们在我院检查了其准确性。方法:计算2011年10月1日至2011年12月31日,江南Severance医院4名细胞病理学家分析的1730例FNAs在BSRTC中各诊断类别的发病率和恶性肿瘤发生率。结果:I-VI类的诊断率分别为13.3%、40.6%、9.1%、0.4%、19.3%、17.3%。恶性肿瘤发生率依次为35.3%、5.6%、69.0%、50.0%、98.7%、98.9%。在II类、V类和VI类中,4位细胞病理学家的恶性肿瘤发生率范围无统计学差异。然而,第一类和第三类的范围有显著差异。结论:我们的研究结果表明,使用BSRTC的机构应定期更新其诊断标准。我们还建议各机构发布年度发病率和恶性肿瘤率报告,以帮助其他临床医生改善甲状腺结节患者的病例管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Incidence and malignancy rates of diagnoses in the bethesda system for reporting thyroid aspiration cytology: an institutional experience.

Background: The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (BSRTC) uses six diagnostic categories to standardize communication of thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) interpretations between clinicians and cytopathologists. Since several studies have questioned the diagnostic accuracy of this system, we examined its accuracy in our hospital.

Methods: We calculated the incidences and malignancy rates of each diagnostic category in the BSRTC for 1,730 FNAs that were interpreted by four cytopathologists in Gangnam Severance Hospital between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011.

Results: The diagnostic incidences of categories I-VI were as follows: 13.3%, 40.6%, 9.1%, 0.4%, 19.3%, and 17.3%, respectively. Similarly, the malignancy rates of these categories were as follows: 35.3%, 5.6%, 69.0%, 50.0%, 98.7%, and 98.9%, respectively. In categories II, V, and VI, there were no statistically significant differences in the ranges of the malignancy rates among the four cytopathologists. However, there were significant differences in the ranges for categories I and III.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that institutions that use the BSRTC should regularly update their diagnostic criteria. We also propose that institutions issue an annual report of incidences and malignancy rates to help other clinicians improve the case management of patients with thyroid nodules.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Korean Journal of Pathology
Korean Journal of Pathology 医学-病理学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the uterus with lung metastasis. Lymphoepithelioma-like Carcinoma of the Renal Pelvis: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Supratentorial hemangioblastoma with unusual features. A rare case of mesothelioma showing micropapillary and small cell differentiation with aggressive behavior. Hybrid granular cell tumor/perineurioma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1