ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Malignancy risk in AUS thyroid lesions: comparison between FNA and CNB with implications for NIFTP diagnosis.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacies and roles of core-needle biopsy (CNB) and repeat fine-needle aspiration (rFNA) in diagnosing thyroid nodules initially diagnosed as atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) by FNA. Additionally, we aimed to investigate the potential of CNB in diagnosing non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) and other follicular neoplasms (FNs), addressing its advantages over FNA in overcoming the diagnostic limitations of FNA. Methods: Overall, 635 nodules (7.3%) initially diagnosed as AUS were retrospectively reviewed from among 8,670 thyroid FNAs that were performed between 2018 and 2021. Malignancy rates were calculated as upper and lower limit estimates. rFNA was performed on 315 AUS nodules, and CNB was conducted on 62 patients. Results: Comparing the outcomes, CNB showed significantly fewer non-diagnostic results than rFNA (0% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.008) and a higher rate of FN diagnosis (11.3% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001). In the AUS category, CNB demonstrated higher diagnostic rates for FNs, including NIFTP and follicular variant papillary thyroid carcinoma (50% vs. 18%). CNB significantly reduced the rate of insufficient diagnoses and increased the rate of diagnosing FNs. Moreover, CNB proved more effective than rFNA in diagnosing FNs, including NIFTP, within the AUS category, ensuring accurate detection without underdiagnosis. Conclusion: CNB may serve as a more reliable diagnostic tool for cases initially classified as AUS, particularly when repeat insufficient results are obtained or when diagnosing FNs and NIFTP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.