Observational studyEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
The malignancy risk of thyroid incidentalomas detected by [
Observational study in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Author's Reply.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe widespread use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]FDG PET/CT) has led to increased detection of thyroid incidentalomas (TIs). Current guidelines cite malignancy rates of 31–33% for [18F]FDG-positive thyroid nodules, but population-based data remain limited. This study aimed to assess the malignancy risk and cytological distribution of [18F]FDG PET TIs in a nationwide cohort.
methodsThis retrospective observational study analyzed data from the Dutch nationwide pathology databank (Palga) for all patients who underwent thyroid fine-needle aspiration between January 2012 and December 2019, with follow-up until December 2022. Patients were classified as [18F]FDG PET TI based on documentation of [18F]FDG PET positivity in pathology reports. The primary outcome was malignancy risk compared between [18F]FDG PET TI and control groups. Secondary outcomes included distribution across Bethesda System categories and histological subtypes.
resultsAmong 64,706 patients analyzed, 3,938 (6.1%) underwent fine-needle aspiration for [18F]FDG PET thyroid incidentalomas. [18F]FDG PET TI detection increased 128% between 2012 (n = 281) and 2019 (n = 641). Patients with [18F]FDG PET TIs were older (median 64 vs. 52 years, p < 0.001) and more likely male (30.8% vs. 19.1%, p < 0.001). The overall malignancy rate was significantly higher in [18F]FDG PET TIs compared with controls (19.4% vs. 8.8%, p < 0.001). [18F]FDG PET TIs demonstrated higher proportions of suspicious cytological categories: atypia of undetermined significance (Bethesda III) (13.1% vs. 6.5%), follicular neoplasm (Bethesda IV) (10.2% vs. 4.3%), suspicious for malignancy (Bethesda V) (7.3% vs. 2.9%), and malignant cytology (Bethesda VI) (6.8% vs. 2.1%) (all p < 0.001). Among patients with indeterminate cytology, 36% of Bethesda IV and 29% of Bethesda V cases did not undergo surgery. Papillary thyroid carcinoma was the predominant malignant subtype (52.3%), with no anaplastic carcinomas observed.
conclusionsThis largest population-based study demonstrates that [18F]FDG PET TIs have a malignancy rate of 19.4%, which is lower than the 31–33% cited in current guidelines. The substantial proportion of cytologically suspicious nodules that do not proceed to surgery suggests potential inefficiency in current diagnostic approaches. These findings support more selective FNA strategies and enhanced risk stratification to optimize patient care while minimizing unnecessary interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41501540What 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.