Indolent behavior of malignant Bethesda III nodules compared to Bethesda V/VI nodules.


Journal

The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism
ISSN: 1945-7197
Titre abrégé: J Clin Endocrinol Metab
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0375362

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Feb 2024
Historique:
received: 29 10 2023
revised: 15 02 2024
accepted: 24 02 2024
medline: 28 2 2024
pubmed: 28 2 2024
entrez: 28 2 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The Bethesda System classifies all fine needle aspiration specimens into one of six categories. We speculated that cancers within each Bethesda category would have distinct clinical behavior. This is a retrospective analysis of patients from a single academic medical center with a histologic diagnosis of thyroid cancer who had an initial diagnosis of Bethesda III, IV, V, or VI cytology. A total of 556 cases were included, with 87 cases of Bethesda III, 109 cases of IV, 120 cases of V, and 240 cases of VI. Bethesda III showed similarities with V/VI compared to IV with predominance of papillary thyroid cancer. The interval from diagnosis to surgery was longer in Bethesda III compared to Bethesda V/VI (median 78 vs. 41 days, p<0.001) (Figure 1). Yet, patients with Bethesda III had a higher probability of achieving remission (62 vs.46 %, p<0.03), a lower possibility of recurrence (8 vs. 24%, p<0.001) and a shorter interval to achieve remission (median 1218 vs.1682 days p = 0.02) compared to Bethesda V/VI which did not change after adjusting for age, gender, radioactive iodine therapy, mode of surgery and tumor size. More than 70% of Bethesda III that later presented with recurrence had T3/T4 disease or distant metastasis. Cancers with Bethesda III cytology had a less aggressive clinical phenotype with better prognosis compared to V/VI despite histological similarities. The time to remission was shorter in Bethesda III despite a longer interval between diagnosis and surgery. The initial cytological diagnosis may guide management.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The Bethesda System classifies all fine needle aspiration specimens into one of six categories. We speculated that cancers within each Bethesda category would have distinct clinical behavior.
METHODS METHODS
This is a retrospective analysis of patients from a single academic medical center with a histologic diagnosis of thyroid cancer who had an initial diagnosis of Bethesda III, IV, V, or VI cytology.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 556 cases were included, with 87 cases of Bethesda III, 109 cases of IV, 120 cases of V, and 240 cases of VI. Bethesda III showed similarities with V/VI compared to IV with predominance of papillary thyroid cancer. The interval from diagnosis to surgery was longer in Bethesda III compared to Bethesda V/VI (median 78 vs. 41 days, p<0.001) (Figure 1). Yet, patients with Bethesda III had a higher probability of achieving remission (62 vs.46 %, p<0.03), a lower possibility of recurrence (8 vs. 24%, p<0.001) and a shorter interval to achieve remission (median 1218 vs.1682 days p = 0.02) compared to Bethesda V/VI which did not change after adjusting for age, gender, radioactive iodine therapy, mode of surgery and tumor size. More than 70% of Bethesda III that later presented with recurrence had T3/T4 disease or distant metastasis.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Cancers with Bethesda III cytology had a less aggressive clinical phenotype with better prognosis compared to V/VI despite histological similarities. The time to remission was shorter in Bethesda III despite a longer interval between diagnosis and surgery. The initial cytological diagnosis may guide management.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38415340
pii: 7615482
doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgae108
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

Mayumi Endo (M)

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, The Ohio State University and Arthur G. James Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Nutrition, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Jing Peng (J)

Division of Human Genetics, The Ohio State University and Arthur G. James Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Fadi A Nabhan (FA)

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, The Ohio State University and Arthur G. James Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Pamela Brock (P)

Center for Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Irina Azaryan (I)

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, The Ohio State University and Arthur G. James Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Clarine Long (C)

Department of Internal Medicine, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY.

Laura E Ryan (LE)

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, The Ohio State University and Arthur G. James Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Matthew D Ringel (MD)

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, The Ohio State University and Arthur G. James Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Jennifer A Sipos (JA)

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, The Ohio State University and Arthur G. James Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Classifications MeSH