The comparison of the histopathological results of the thyroid fine‐needle aspiration biopsies in the 795 patients with thyroidectomy

Abstract

Background We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of preoperative fine‐needle aspiration biopsies (FNAB) by the postthyroidectomy pathology results. Method Seven hundred and ninety‐five patients with FNAB and following thyroid operations which have been performed between April 2008 and December 2019 were included in this study. By comparing the results of the FNAB and final pathologies, the specificity, sensitivity, FNR, false positivity ratio (FPR), accuracy and also the effect of nodule diameter on these have been evaluated. In Bethesda III subgroup according to FNAB, we investigated the malignancy rates and in whom this risk has been increased more. Results In our study, the sensitivity of FNAB is 73.40%, the specificity is 95.33%, the accuracy is 91.81%, FNR is 26.60% and FPR is 4.67%. In the patients with nodules ≥4 cm and < 4 cm respectively, we calculated the sensitivity 20.0% vs 79.76%, specificity 95.73% vs 95.19%, accuracy 89.82% vs 92.78%, FNR 80.0% vs 20.24%, FPR 4.27% vs 4.8%. Conclusion Thyroid FNAB is an easy procedure with a high specificity and sensitivity. Nevertheless, when the nodule diameter was ≥4 cm, increased FNR and decreased sensitivity should be kept in mind while evaluating the patients.

Analysis of Fine Needle Aspirations of the Thyroid: Cytological-Histopathological Correlation and Outcomes of the Bethesda System

“…Among the other categories of these studies, B1 category was very low in all and B3 category was very low (0.8%) in one of them. Above the mean value there was ten studies in the B5 category but the first one (Yilmaz et al) was significantly higher than the others (21.3%) (32). In this study the authors studied only cases which have thyrodectomies.…”

“…In the B4 category, the study of where the mean was 7.7% (9,10,32). Among the other categories of these studies, B1 category was very low in all and B3 category was very low (0.8%) in one of them.…”

“…The classification systems provides to use the same terminology which predicts the correct malignancy rates. There were numerous study in the literature about the using TBSRTC (1,(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33).…”

“…Three of them had lower rates for B3 and seven of them for B4. The remaining of them were in normal rates (1,(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). The current study's malignancy rates were 6.8% 32.8% (high), 52.1% (high), 66.8% (normal) and 97.5% (normal).…”