Diagnostic Efficacy of Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsies of Head and Neck Lesions: A Review of 153 Cases at a Large Academic Medical Center

Context.— Although fine-needle aspiration (FNA) practice by pathologists is now well established, it has been primarily performed by manual palpation. In recent years, pathologists have begun to venture into ultrasound-guided FNAs (UGFNAs). Reports on experiences with this relatively new technique for pathologists have shown promising results. However to date, there have been few studies in the literature comparing pathologist-performed UGFNA with the more traditional pathologist-performed palpation-guided FNA (PGFNA). Objective.— To compare UGFNA to PGFNA by cytopathologists at an academic medical center. Design.— A retrospective study of FNAs performed by cytopathologists within the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) pathology departmental FNA clinic was performed. Data collected included performance technique (UGFNA versus PGFNA), lesion site and size, adequacy status (nondiagnostic rate), and number of passes per procedure. Corresponding surgical pathology/flow cytometric/cytogenetic result follow-up was compared to FNA results. Findings between UGFNA and PGFNA cases were compared. Results.— Of 1029 FNA cases during the study period, there were 449 UGFNA cases (43.6%) and 580 PGFNA cases (56.4%). Nondiagnostic rates with UGFNA and PGFNA were 6.7% (30 of 449 cases) and 20.7% (120 of 580 cases), respectively. Nondiagnostic rate was also significantly lower with UGFNA than with PGFNA for lesions within the thyroid (6.0% versus 33.3%), head and neck (6.6% versus 21.2%), and salivary gland (6.2% versus 17.1%), and across all nodule sizes. A total of 495 of 1029 FNA cases (48.1%) had follow-up. Discordance rate was significantly lower with UGFNA than with PGFNA (5.4% versus 12.8%). Conclusions.— This study shows improved performance characteristics of cytopathologist-performed UGFNA versus PGFNA.

Download Full-text

An Independent Study of a Gene Expression Classifier (Afirma) in the Evaluation of Cytologically Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism ◽

10.1210/jc.2013-3584 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 99 (11) ◽

pp. 4069-4077 ◽

Cited By ~ 136

Author(s):

Bryan McIver ◽

M. Regina Castro ◽

John C. Morris ◽

Victor Bernet ◽

Robert Smallridge ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gene Expression ◽

Medical Center ◽

Academic Medical Center ◽

Needle Aspiration ◽

Follicular Neoplasm ◽

Fine Needle ◽

Academic Medical ◽

Gene Expression Classifier ◽

Thyroid Fine Needle Aspiration ◽

Undetermined Significance

Context: Molecular markers hold the promise of improved diagnostic yield in thyroid fine-needle biopsy. The Afirma gene expression classifier (GEC), available commercially, reports a negative predictive value of 94% in the diagnosis of benign nodules after indeterminate cytology. However, there are currently no independent studies of the performance of this assay. Objective: The aim was to assess the performance of the Afirma GEC in an academic medical center. Design: Samples for the GEC were collected according to the manufacturer's recommended protocol from patients undergoing thyroid fine-needle aspiration. We requested GEC analysis on nodules reported cytologically as follicular neoplasm or atypia or follicular lesion of undetermined significance from patients willing to defer surgery. Patients: All patients undergoing thyroid fine-needle aspiration during the study period, whose cytology was reported as follicular neoplasm or atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance, were offered access to the test and recruited to this study. Intervention: Patients whose GEC was “benign” were offered ultrasound follow-up in lieu of surgery. Those with a “suspicious” GEC were advised to undergo diagnostic lobectomy. Setting: The study was conducted at a large academic medical center. Main Outcome Measure: We measured the rate of benign and suspicious calls from the Afirma GEC and histological diagnosis after surgery. Results: A total of 72 nucleic acid samples were sent for GEC analysis. In 12 (17%) of these samples, there was insufficient mRNA, leaving 60 Afirma results for analysis. Of these, 16 (27%) were benign, whereas 44 (73%) were suspicious. The rate of confirmed malignancy in GEC-suspicious nodules was only 17%. Conclusion: The Afirma GEC demonstrates a lower than expected rate of benign reports in follicular or Hürthle cell neoplasm and a lower than anticipated malignancy rate within GEC-suspicious nodules. These data suggest that the positive predictive value of the GEC is lower than previously reported and call into question the performance of the test when applied in the context of specialized academic cytopathology.

Download Full-text