4.6 Article

The 2017 Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology

Journal

THYROID
Volume 27, Issue 11, Pages 1341-1346

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2017.0500

Keywords

thyroid; cytopathology; fine-needle aspiration; terminology; Bethesda; follicular neoplasm; noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP); molecular testing

Funding

  1. International Academy of Cytology (IAC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC) established a standardized, category-based reporting system for thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens. The 2017 revision reaffirms that every thyroid FNA report should begin with one of six diagnostic categories, the names of which remain unchanged since they were first introduced: (i) nondiagnostic or unsatisfactory; (ii) benign; (iii) atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) or follicular lesion of undetermined significance (FLUS); (iv) follicular neoplasm or suspicious for a follicular neoplasm; (v) suspicious for malignancy; and (vi) malignant. There is a choice of two different names for some of the categories. A laboratory should choose the one it prefers and use it exclusively for that category. Synonymous terms (e.g., AUS and FLUS) should not be used to denote two distinct interpretations. Each category has an implied cancer risk that ranges from 0% to 3% for the benign'' category to virtually 100% for the malignant'' category, and, in the 2017 revision, the malignancy risks have been updated based on new (post 2010) data. As a function of their risk associations, each category is linked to updated, evidence-based clinical management recommendations. The recent reclassification of some thyroid neoplasms as noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) has implications for the risk of malignancy, and this is accounted for with regard to diagnostic criteria and optional notes. Such notes can be useful in helping guide surgical management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available