Abstract
Purpose
Materials and Methods
Results
Notes
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS:
Conceptualization: Jin Young Kwak and Ilah Shin.
Data curation: Jin Young Kwak and Ilah Shin.
Formal analysis: Hye Sun Lee.
Investigation: Ilah Shin, Si Eun Lee, Eun-Kyung Kim, Hee Jung Moon, Jung Hyun Yoon, and Vivian Youngjean Park.
Methodology: Ilah Shin and Hye Sun Lee.
Project administration: Jin Young Kwak.
Resources: Eun-Kyung Kim, Hee Jung Moon, Jung Hyun Yoon, Vivian Youngjean Park, and Si Eun Lee.
Software: Ilah Shin and Hye Sun Lee.
Supervision: Jin Young Kwak and Eun-Kyung Kim.
Validation: Eun-Kyung Kim, Hee Jung Moon, Jung Hyun Yoon, and Vivian Youngjean Park.
Visualization: Ilah Shin and Si Eun Lee.
Writing—original draft: Jin Young Kwak and Ilah Shin.
Writing—review and editing: Eun-Kyung Kim, Hee Jung Moon, Jung Hyun Yoon, Vivian Youngjean Park, and Si Eun Lee.
Approval of final manuscript: All authors.
References
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Supplementary Fig. 1
Supplementary Fig. 2
Fig. 1
US images of a 35-year-old female with a papillary thyroid carcinoma, conventional type, which was diagnosed as “malignancy” on fine-needle aspiration and “nondiagnostic” on core-needle biopsy detected at an outside clinic. A 1.3-cm solid hypoechoic nodule (arrows) with microlobulated margins and mixed calcifications was seen on the axial (A) and longitudinal (B) scans of US. US, ultrasonography.
![ymj-61-161-g001](/upload/SynapseXML/0069ymj/thumb/ymj-61-161-g001.jpg)
Table 1
Demographic Data of 320 Nodules in 320 Patients
![ymj-61-161-i001](/upload/SynapseXML/0069ymj/thumb/ymj-61-161-i001.jpg)
Table 2
Diagnostic Criteria
![ymj-61-161-i002](/upload/SynapseXML/0069ymj/thumb/ymj-61-161-i002.jpg)
Criteria | Test-negative | Test-positive |
---|---|---|
Criteria 112324 | Benign | SUSP, malignancy |
Criteria 2124 | Benign | FN/SFN, SUSP, malignancy |
Criteria 31824 | Nondiagnostic, benign, AUS/FLUS | FN/SFN, SUSP, malignancy |
Criteria 41414 | Nondiagnostic, benign, AUS/FLUS, FN/SFN | SUSP, malignancy |
Criteria 5816 | Nondiagnostic, benign, AUS/FLUS, FN/SFN, SUSP | Malignancy |
Table 3
Final Surgical Diagnosis According to FNA and CNB Results
![ymj-61-161-i003](/upload/SynapseXML/0069ymj/thumb/ymj-61-161-i003.jpg)
FNA, fine-needle aspiration; CNB, core-needle biopsy; AUS/FLUS, atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance, FN/SFN, follicular neoplasm or suspicious for follicular neoplasm; AH, adenomatous hyperplasia; FA, follicular adenoma; HCA, Hürthle cell adenoma; MTC, medullary thyroid carcinoma; NIFTP, noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features; PTC FV, papillary thyroid carcinoma, follicular variant; PTC conv, papillary thyroid carcinoma, conventional; SAT, subacute granulomatous thyroiditis; SUSP, suspicious for malignancy; FC MI, follicular carcinoma, minimally invasive.
Data in parentheses are number of nodules.
*One nodule was “malignancy” on FNA and “SUSP” on CNB. On the pathologic sample, there was no residual cancer. However, central lymph node metastases were seen on the pathologic samples. Therefore, the nodule was considered as a cancer in this study.
Table 4
Diagnostic Performance of FNA versus CNB According to Nodule Size
![ymj-61-161-i004](/upload/SynapseXML/0069ymj/thumb/ymj-61-161-i004.jpg)
FNA, fine-needle aspiration; CNB, core-needle biopsy; TP, true-positive; TN, true-negative; FP, false-positive; FN, false-negative; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; NA, not applicable; SUSP, suspicious for malignancy; FN/SFN, follicular neoplasm or suspicious for follicular neoplasm; AUS/FLUS, atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance.
Values are numbers or percentages (95% confidence intervals). In Criteria 1, “benign” was considered as test-negative, and “SUSP” and “malignancy” were considered as test-positive. In Criteria 2, “benign” was considered as test-negative, and “FN/SFN,” “SUSP” and “malignancy” were considered as test-positive. In Criteria 3, “nondiagnostic,” “benign,” and “AUS/FLUS” were considered as test-negative, and the remaining categories were considered as test-positive. In Criteria 4, “SUSP” and “malignancy” were considered as test-positive, and the remaining categories were considered as test-negative. In Criteria 5, “malignancy” was considered as test-positive, and the remaining categories were considered as test-negative.