4.4 Review

Testing for BRAF (V600E) Mutation in Thyroid Nodules with Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Read as Suspicious for Malignancy (Bethesda V, Thy4, TIR4): a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

ENDOCRINE PATHOLOGY
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 57-66

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12022-019-09596-z

关键词

BRAF; FNA; Cytology; Suspicious for malignancy; Histology; Thyroid cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) report of suspicious for malignancy (SFM), both lobectomy and thyroidectomy might be considered. BRAF mutation analysis could guide towards accurate surgical therapy. The primary outcome was the reliability of BRAF (V600E) in detecting malignancy in nodules with FNA reading of SFM. The secondary outcome was to analyze its positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) considering the surgical histology as gold standard. A literature search of online databases was performed in June 2019. BRAF prevalence among thyroid nodules with FNA read as SFM according to the most popular classification systems (i.e., Bethesda V, Thy4, TIR4 category) was searched. The random-effects model was used. Three hundred sixty original articles were identified and 34 were finally included in the study. There were 1428 thyroid nodules with FNA read as SFM and 1287 (90.1%) lesions underwent surgery with a cancer rate 89.6%. The pooled prevalence of BRAF (V600E) mutation among all nodules with SFM cytology was 47% (95% CI = 40 to 54, I2 = 85.5%). Pooled PPV and NPV of BRAF testing were 99% (95% CI, 97-99) and 24% (95% CI, 16-32), respectively. BRAF (V600E) mutation was found in about one in two nodules with thyroid FNA read as SFM, its PPV to detect cancers was excellent, and its NPV was very poor. The routine BRAF testing in FNA read as SFM cannot be recommended. BRAF (V600E) test may be useful to extend surgical approach in selected cases with further suspicious clinical/ultrasound features.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据