Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 362

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Large Multicenter Correlation Study of Thyroid Nodule Cytopathology and Histopathology

Open access
Wang, Chung-Che Charles, Friedman, Lyssa, Kennedy, Giulia C., Wang, Hui, Kebebew, Electron, Steward, David L., Zeiger, Martha A., Westra, William H., Wang, Yongchun, Khanafshar, Elham, Fellegara, Giovanni, Rosai, Juan, LiVolsi, Virginia, Lanman, Richard B.·2011·Thyroid
DOI 10.1089/thy.2010.0243
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsies are the cornerstone of preoperative evaluation of thyroid nodules, but FNA diagnostic performance has varied across different studies. In the course of collecting thyroid FNA specimens for the development of a molecular diagnostic test, local cytology and both local and expert panel surgical pathology results were reviewed. METHODS: Prospective FNAs were collected at 21 clinical sites. Banked FNAs were collected from two academic centers. Cytology and corresponding local and expert panel surgical pathology results were compared to each other and to a meta-review of 11 recently published U.S.-based thyroid FNA studies. RESULTS: FNA diagnostic performance was comparable between the study specimens and the meta-review. Histopathology malignancy rates for prospective clinic FNAs were 34% for cytology indeterminate cases and 98% for cytology malignant cases, comparable to the figures found in the meta-review (34% and 97%, respectively). However, histopathology malignancy rates were higher for cytology benign cases in the prospective clinic FNA subcohort (11%) than in the meta-review (6%, with meta-review rates of 10% at community sites and 2% at academic centers, p < 0.0001). Resection rates for prospective clinic FNAs were also comparable to the meta-review for both cytology indeterminate cases (62% vs. 59%, respectively) and cytology malignant cases (82% vs. 81%, respectively). Surgical pathology categorical disagreement (benign vs. malignant diagnosis) was higher between local pathology and a consensus of the two expert panelists (11%) than between the two expert panelists both pre- (8%) and postconferral (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although recent guidelines for FNA biopsy and interpretation have been published, the rates of false-positive and false-negative results remain a challenge. Two-thirds of cytology indeterminate cases were benign postoperatively and may decrease with the development of an accurate molecular diagnostic test. High disagreement rates between local and expert panel histopathology diagnosis suggests that central review for surgical diagnoses should be used when developing diagnostic tests based on resected thyroid specimens.

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.2010.0243

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 362

Metadata

Authors
Wang, C.-C. C., Friedman, L., Kennedy, G. C., Wang, H., Kebebew, E., Steward, D. L., Zeiger, M. A., Westra, W. H., Wang, Y., Khanafshar, E., Fellegara, G., Rosai, J., LiVolsi, V., & Lanman, R. B.
Venue
Thyroid
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-03
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
243-251
ISSN
  • 1050-7256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9077
DOI
10.1089/thy.2010.0243
OpenAlex
W1996421956
Cited by
362
References
27
FWCI
12.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

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.