Castro, M. Regina

SummaryBackgroundThyroid ultrasound to assess for nodular growth is commonly performed during the follow‐up of patients with benign thyroid nodules, with the goal of identifying patients with a missed diagnosis of thyroid cancer. The objective of this study was to summarize the evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of growth during follow‐up of benign thyroid nodules for thyroid cancer.MethodsWe searched multiple electronic databases using a search strategy designed by an experienced medical librarian from inception to March 2015. Eligible studies included patients with benign thyroid nodules assessed for growth during follow‐up and evaluated for thyroid cancer either by surgical histology or a repeat fine needle aspiration biopsy. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate recorded data and assessed each study.ResultsThe seven eligible studies lacked safeguards against bias and generated results that were imprecise with wide confidence intervals and inconsistent across studies. This warrants very low confidence in these results. The odds of nodule growth in patients with thyroid cancer on histopathology over these odds in patients without thyroid cancer (diagnostic odds ratio) was 0·58 (95% CI: 0·26–1·3); the diagnostic odds ratio was 2·2 (95% CI: 0·26–18) when an abnormal repeat biopsy was the reference standard.ConclusionThe body of evidence linking nodule growth with thyroid cancer during the follow‐up of benign nodules warrants very low confidence. In the era of high‐value health care, the commonplace practice of following benign thyroid nodules with serial ultrasound assessment of growth to diagnose cancer can be questioned, calling for imminent evaluation.

Background: The best treatment option for patients with Graves' disease (GD) depends on each person's situation and how the differences between the treatment options matter to them in bringing resolution to their illness. The objective of this study was to develop and test an encounter decision tool (GD Choice) for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making about the treatment of GD. Methods: GD Choice was developed using an iterative process based on the principles of interaction design and participatory action research. To evaluate the impact of the tool, a controlled before–after study was conducted, assessing the use of GD Choice versus usual care (UC). Results: Sixty-eight patients were enrolled, 37 to UC and 31 to GD Choice. At baseline, the groups were similar. Treatment discussion length was similar in both arms. After their visit, patients in both groups had similar knowledge about the options, except for GD Choice patients knowing significantly more about the complications of treatment (correctly answered by 83% vs. 55%; p = 0.04). Compared with UC, patients in the GD Choice arm had greater involvement in decision making observed on video recordings of clinical encounters (mean OPTION scale score, 35% vs. 30%; p = 0.02), but reported similar levels of decisional comfort and participation in shared decision making. Conclusions: GD Choice increases engagement in the decision-making process and knowledge regarding intervention complications without increasing the length of consultation. These promising results support the conduct of a randomized trial of GD Choice versus UC in a large multicenter trial.

Context: Molecular markers hold the promise of improved diagnostic yield in thyroid fine-needle biopsy. The Afirma gene expression classifier (GEC), available commercially, reports a negative predictive value of 94% in the diagnosis of benign nodules after indeterminate cytology. However, there are currently no independent studies of the performance of this assay. Objective: The aim was to assess the performance of the Afirma GEC in an academic medical center. Design: Samples for the GEC were collected according to the manufacturer's recommended protocol from patients undergoing thyroid fine-needle aspiration. We requested GEC analysis on nodules reported cytologically as follicular neoplasm or atypia or follicular lesion of undetermined significance from patients willing to defer surgery. Patients: All patients undergoing thyroid fine-needle aspiration during the study period, whose cytology was reported as follicular neoplasm or atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance, were offered access to the test and recruited to this study. Intervention: Patients whose GEC was “benign” were offered ultrasound follow-up in lieu of surgery. Those with a “suspicious” GEC were advised to undergo diagnostic lobectomy. Setting: The study was conducted at a large academic medical center. Main Outcome Measure: We measured the rate of benign and suspicious calls from the Afirma GEC and histological diagnosis after surgery. Results: A total of 72 nucleic acid samples were sent for GEC analysis. In 12 (17%) of these samples, there was insufficient mRNA, leaving 60 Afirma results for analysis. Of these, 16 (27%) were benign, whereas 44 (73%) were suspicious. The rate of confirmed malignancy in GEC-suspicious nodules was only 17%. Conclusion: The Afirma GEC demonstrates a lower than expected rate of benign reports in follicular or Hürthle cell neoplasm and a lower than anticipated malignancy rate within GEC-suspicious nodules. These data suggest that the positive predictive value of the GEC is lower than previously reported and call into question the performance of the test when applied in the context of specialized academic cytopathology.

Background: Medullary thyroid cancer, although most commonly sporadic, may be part of the multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN2) syndromes, generally due to mutations in the RET proto-oncogene. The majority of these mutations are located in exons 10, 11, and 13–16. More rarely, mutations in other exons have been described. We report for the first time a family from the United States with a rare mutation involving exon 8 of the RET proto-oncogene, corresponding to a p.Gly533Cys substitution (G533C) leading to the development of MEN2A syndrome in several affected family members. This mutation had only been previously described in a large family in Brazil and in 7.75% of patients with apparently sporadic medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) in Greece. Methods: Given a strong index of suspicion, a genetic analysis to evaluate for uncommon mutations in the RET proto-oncogene identified the presence of the G533C missense mutation, despite initial negative screening for common mutations. We describe a family with a total of 47 individuals from five generations with multiple members affected with this mutation. Results: Our data suggest that in patients with this mutation, pheochromocytoma is more common than previously reported, and that in some cases this mutation may be associated with a more aggressive phenotype than initially described. Conclusions: MEN2A due to the G533C mutation in exon 8 may be more common and more aggressive than previously recognized. In patients with medullary thyroid cancer with negative screening for common mutations in the RET oncogene but a strong index of suspicion, DNA sequence analysis of less commonly involved exons should be considered.