ArticleThyroid research2026
Panel-negative strategy for suspected fusion-driven papillary thyroid carcinoma.
Article in Thyroid research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Molecular testing in thyroid nodules and papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is not required for every case, but it becomes clinically important when the result may influence diagnostic confidence, surgical planning, including the extent of surgery, or systemic therapy options. Representative scenarios include indeterminate thyroid cytology, clinically advanced or metastatic disease, and recurrent or progressive PTC. In these settings, the key question is not simply whether a common hotspot mutation is present, but whether clinically relevant drivers, including RET and NTRK fusions, have been adequately assessed. Fusion-inclusive molecular testing is preferable when molecular information is required for thyroid nodules or PTC, particularly when the clinical question includes the possibility of a fusion-driven tumor. However, in routine practice, limited or mutation-focused assays, such as BRAF V600E testing or hotspot DNA panels, may already have been performed because of limitations in access, reimbursement, specimen availability, or institutional workflow. Negative results from such assays can be misread as definitive exclusion of clinically relevant fusions, despite pre-analytic constraints and incomplete fusion coverage. This Correspondence does not advocate a hotspot-first workflow, nor does it propose serial add-on testing as a preferred strategy. Rather, we propose a pragmatic "panel-negative" communication and decision-making framework for situations in which limited testing has already been performed and morphologic or clinical suspicion for fusion-driven PTC persists. The approach emphasizes (i) selecting a thyroid-appropriate molecular assay from the outset whenever feasible, (ii) explicitly documenting residual suspicion and the scope of the performed assay in pathology reports, (iii) using pan-TRK immunohistochemistry only as an optional triage tool rather than a rule-out test, and (iv) considering RNA-based or other fusion-optimized assays only when the original clinical question remains unresolved and the result is clinically relevant. This framework is intended to reduce false reassurance from negative limited panels while reinforcing the need for appropriate molecular testing in the correct clinical scenario.
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.