Operation rate and cancer prevalence among thyroid nodules with FNAC report of suspicious for malignancy (TIR4) or malignant (TIR5) according to Italian classification system: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Carcinoma
Fine-needle aspiration (FNA)
Nodules
Risk of malignancy
Thyroid
Journal
Endocrine
ISSN: 1559-0100
Titre abrégé: Endocrine
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9434444
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
received:
13
06
2022
accepted:
04
08
2022
pubmed:
21
8
2022
medline:
17
9
2022
entrez:
20
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the Italian system for reporting thyroid cytology (ICCRTC), nodules suspicious for (TIR4) and consistent with (TIR5) malignancy are thought being 5% and 4-8% of all biopsies and having risk of malignancy of 60-80% and >95%, respectively. However, no evidence-based data exist about these figures. The present systematic review aimed at achieving solid estimates about TIR4 and TIR5 also considering potential influencing factors. The review was conducted according to MOOSE. Databases of Google Scholar and Cochrane were searched. No language restriction was used. The last search was performed on February 26th 2022. Quality assessment was performed. Proportion meta-analyses were performed using random-effect model. Statistical analyses were performed using OpenMeta [Analyst]. The online search retrieved 271 articles and 16 were finally included for quantitative analysis. The risk of bias was generally low. The pooled cancer prevalence in TIR4 was 92.5% (95%CI 89.4-95.6%) with unexplained moderate heterogeneity. The pooled cancer rate among TIR5 was 99.7% (95%CI 99.3-100%) without heterogeneity. The resection rate in TIR4 and TIR5 showed heterogeneity, being the latter explained when using their prevalence among biopsies: the higher the prevalence, the higher the operation rate. The pooled risk difference between TIR5 and TIR4 was significant (OR 11.153). These figures can form the basis for the next updated version of ICCRTC. Any institution using ICCRTC should revise its series of TIR4/TIR5 to calculate the cancer rate, and, importantly, consider the modifiers of the risk of malignancy. A cross check among institutions is advised.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the Italian system for reporting thyroid cytology (ICCRTC), nodules suspicious for (TIR4) and consistent with (TIR5) malignancy are thought being 5% and 4-8% of all biopsies and having risk of malignancy of 60-80% and >95%, respectively. However, no evidence-based data exist about these figures. The present systematic review aimed at achieving solid estimates about TIR4 and TIR5 also considering potential influencing factors.
METHODS
The review was conducted according to MOOSE. Databases of Google Scholar and Cochrane were searched. No language restriction was used. The last search was performed on February 26th 2022. Quality assessment was performed. Proportion meta-analyses were performed using random-effect model. Statistical analyses were performed using OpenMeta [Analyst].
RESULTS
The online search retrieved 271 articles and 16 were finally included for quantitative analysis. The risk of bias was generally low. The pooled cancer prevalence in TIR4 was 92.5% (95%CI 89.4-95.6%) with unexplained moderate heterogeneity. The pooled cancer rate among TIR5 was 99.7% (95%CI 99.3-100%) without heterogeneity. The resection rate in TIR4 and TIR5 showed heterogeneity, being the latter explained when using their prevalence among biopsies: the higher the prevalence, the higher the operation rate. The pooled risk difference between TIR5 and TIR4 was significant (OR 11.153).
CONCLUSIONS
These figures can form the basis for the next updated version of ICCRTC. Any institution using ICCRTC should revise its series of TIR4/TIR5 to calculate the cancer rate, and, importantly, consider the modifiers of the risk of malignancy. A cross check among institutions is advised.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35986840
doi: 10.1007/s12020-022-03165-x
pii: 10.1007/s12020-022-03165-x
pmc: PMC9474526
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
24-31Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Cytopathology. 2019 Sep;30(5):460-467
pubmed: 30875124
Cytopathology. 2017 Dec;28(6):503-508
pubmed: 28913847
Pathologica. 2010 Oct;102(5):405-8
pubmed: 21361121
Endocrine. 2020 May;68(2):458-465
pubmed: 32232767
Horm Metab Res. 2019 Sep;51(9):559-567
pubmed: 31505702
Endocr Pathol. 2020 Mar;31(1):57-66
pubmed: 31811566
J Endocrinol Invest. 2014 Jun;37(6):593-9
pubmed: 24789536
J Endocrinol Invest. 2022 Jan;45(1):181-188
pubmed: 34282552
Endocr Pathol. 2020 Mar;31(1):52-56
pubmed: 31898282
Endocr Pract. 2010 May-Jun;16 Suppl 1:1-43
pubmed: 20497938
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2014 Jul;81 Suppl 1:1-122
pubmed: 24989897
Endocr Pathol. 2020 Sep;31(3):301-306
pubmed: 32621106
Thyroid. 2016 Jan;26(1):1-133
pubmed: 26462967
Cancer Cytopathol. 2020 Apr;128(4):238-249
pubmed: 31883438
Cancer Cytopathol. 2020 Mar;128(3):177-189
pubmed: 31821747
J Endocrinol Invest. 2019 Feb;42(2):157-166
pubmed: 29704233
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Endocr Pathol. 2014 Sep;25(3):288-96
pubmed: 24997780
Metabolomics. 2018 Oct 10;14(10):141
pubmed: 30830426
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2019 Dec;91(6):851-859
pubmed: 31483883
Cytopathology. 2016 Apr;27(2):115-21
pubmed: 25810099
Eur J Endocrinol. 2019 Jul 01;181(1):1-11
pubmed: 31042674
Cancer Cytopathol. 2020 Jan;128(1):36-42
pubmed: 31722134
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Feb 22;13(4):
pubmed: 33671494
Ann Oncol. 2022 Jul;33(7):674-684
pubmed: 35491008
Cancer Cytopathol. 2016 Oct;124(10):699-710
pubmed: 27717284
Cancers (Basel). 2021 May 06;13(9):
pubmed: 34066485