Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Bethesda Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Classification System: Year 1 at an Academic Institution

Theoharis, Constantine G.A., Schofield, Kevin M., Hammers, Lynwood, Udelsman, Robert, Chhieng, David C.·2009·Thyroid

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) may be the procedure of choice in the preoperative evaluation of thyroid nodules, yet it suffers as a modality both because of its inherent limitations as well as variability in its diagnostic terminology. The National Cancer Institute recently proposed a classification system. The objective of this study was to report our experience in using this new reporting system to review the distribution of diagnosis categories and to evaluate the specificity of the system based on the cytologic-histologic correlation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 3207 thyroid nodules underwent FNA, that is, 3207 FNAs from 2468 patients were examined at our institution between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008. All FNAs were classified prospectively into unsatisfactory, benign, indeterminate (cells of undetermined significance), follicular neoplasm (FN), suspicious for malignancy, and positive for malignancy. RESULTS: The distribution of these categories from 3207 evaluated nodules was as follows: 11.1% unsatisfactory, 73.8% benign, 3.0% indeterminate, 5.5% FN, 1.3% suspicious, and 5.2% malignant. Of the 2468 sampled patients, 378 (15%) underwent thyroidectomy. The distribution of diagnoses of patients who underwent surgery was as follows: 10% unsatisfactory, 4.6% benign, 30.3% indeterminate, 61.4% FN, 76.9% suspicious, and 77.2% malignant. There was an excellent association between the categories and in predicting benign versus malignant thyroid nodules (p < 0.0001). However, the false-negative rate cannot be calculated because only a small number of patients with benign diagnosis underwent surgery. The false-positive rate was 2.2%; all were diagnosed as suspicious cytologically. Given that only 15% of the patients underwent surgery, at this time the sensitivity of thyroid FNA for diagnosing malignant thyroid nodules cannot be calculated, nor can the sensitivity of thyroid FNA as a screening test for all neoplasms be accurately estimated. The specificity for diagnosing malignant thyroid nodules was 93%, whereas the specificity as a screening test for all neoplasms was 68%. The positive predictive values for an FN, suspicious, and positive cytologic diagnosis were 34%, 87%, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that the recently proposed classification system is excellent for reporting thyroid FNAs. Each diagnostic category conveys specific risks of malignancy, which offers guidance for patient management.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/thy.2009.0155

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 354

Metadata

Authors
Theoharis, C. G. A., Schofield, K. M., Hammers, L., Udelsman, R., & Chhieng, D. C.
Venue
Thyroid
Published
2009-11
Volume
19
Issue
11
Pages
1215-1223
ISSN
  • 1050-7256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9077
OpenAlex
W2095159278
Cited by
354
References
0
FWCI
18.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Bethesda Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Classification System: Year 1 at an Academic Institution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/thy.2009.0155
The paper
Theoharis, C. G. A., Schofield, K. M., Hammers, L., Udelsman, R., & Chhieng, D. C. (2009). The Bethesda Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Classification System: Year 1 at an Academic Institution. Thyroid. https://doi.org/10.1089/thy.2009.0155

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.