Trends in Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology - Results from the Italian Cytopathology Committee National Practice Survey
Résumé fourni par la source
Objective: To understand the state of the art of Italian thyroid cytopathology practice, a survey was sent by the Italian Committee of cytopathology to the 846 registered emails of the Italian society of pathology and cytology (SIAPEC) members. Methods: A survey divided in 4 sections (geographic distribution, pre-analytics, diagnostic work up, molecular testing) was sent to SIAPEC members in April 2023. An additional set of questions regarding molecular analysis was sent to first round participants. Results: A total of 104/846 (12.2%) SIAPEC members replied to the survey. Non-pathologist physicians performed FNA in the majority of cases (78/104, 75%). The Italian Consensus for the Classification and Reporting of Thyroid Cytology (ICCRTC) system is adopted by most centers (94/104 90,38%), although in 32.6% it was used along with other classifications systems. Only 44/104 (42.2%) of the participants performed molecular tests on thyroid FNA, mostly upon requests from the caring physician (25/41, 61.1%). Conclusion: This survey offers a snapshot of the current Italian thyroid FNA practice. The volume of thyroid FNA performed is similar to the pre-Covid workload and the ICCRTC is the most frequently adopted classification system. Molecular tests are performed by a significant minority of participants, with different testing modalities and clinical-pathological indications.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Trends in Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology - Results from the Italian Cytopathology Committee National Practice Survey
- Date Crossref
- 01/10/2025
- Éditeur
- Siapec Servizi Srl
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.