Interpretive Errors in Fine-Needle Aspiration of Thyroid: A 13-Year Institutional Experience in Lebanon.

INTRODUCTION: Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is a worldwide established diagnostic tool for the assessment of patients with thyroid nodules. All thyroid FNA interpretive errors (IEs) were reviewed at the American University of Beirut Medical Center over a 13-year period, in order to identify and analyze them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All FNAs and their corresponding pathology results are correlated yearly for quality assurance. Discrepant cases are segregated into sampling errors and IEs. All thyroid FNAs with IEs were collected from 2005 to 2017. FNA and pathology slides were reviewed by trained, board-certified cytopathologists, adhering to the latest Bethesda criteria. Reasons for erroneous diagnoses were studied. RESULTS: There was a total of 11 IEs out of 340 thyroid FNAs followed by surgical resection. Five benign follicular nodules (BFNs) were misinterpreted as suspicious for carcinoma. Focal nuclear atypia in cyst-lining or follicular cells and a monotonous population of macrophages misinterpreted as Hurthle cells (HCs) were the causes of IEs in this category. Four Hashimoto's thyroiditis (HT) cases were misinterpreted as suspicious for malignancy. Innate atypia of HCs and sampling misinterpretation were the causes of IEs in HT. One medullary and 1 follicular carcinoma were misinterpreted as suspicious for follicular neoplasm and BFN, respectively. Nine cases were better classified after review. CONCLUSION: Thyroid FNA IEs can be mitigated by meticulous screening and identification of all elements on FNA smears. Awareness of focal nuclear atypia in reactive cyst-lining and follicular cells in BFN, as well as HCs in HT, is highlighted. Adherence to The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology and consulting experienced cytopathologists significantly decrease IEs.

Clinical, histopathologic, and immunohistochemical features of microglandular adenosis and transition into in situ and invasive carcinoma.

Microglandular adenosis (MGA) of the breast is widely known as a benign lesion that can mimic invasive carcinoma. In situ and invasive carcinomas have been described as arising in MGA, but which cases of MGA will progress to carcinoma is unclear. Criteria for distinguishing uncomplicated MGA, MGA with atypia (AMGA), and carcinoma arising in MGA (MGACA) are not standardized. The primary objective of this study was to illustrate the clinical, histopathologic, and immunophenotypical characteristics of MGA, AMGA, and MGACA in an effort to provide criteria for distinguishing the 3 types. We retrospectively identified 108 cases seen at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center between 1983 and 2007 that had a diagnosis of MGA. Of the 108 cases, 65 cases had available material for review. Inclusion criteria were glands of MGA expressing S-100 protein and lacking myoepithelial layer (smooth muscle actin negative). Eleven out of 65 cases qualified to have an MGA component; myoepithelial layer was detected in the remaining 54 cases and were classified as adenosis. Out of the 11 MGA patients, there were 3 patients with uncomplicated MGA, 2 had AMGA, and 6 had MGACA. Staining indices for the cell cycle markers p53 and Ki-67 were used to compare the 3 tumor categories. Additional staining for other tumor markers [estrogen and progesterone receptors, HER2, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), c-kit, CK5/6, and CK18] were performed. Patient demographics, tumor radiologic features, and clinical follow-up data were collected for all cases. Multiple invasive histologic components were identified in each of the MGACA cases. All invasive MGACAs had a duct-forming component. In addition, basal-like component was present in 2 cases, aciniclike in 2, matrix producing in 4, sarcomatoid in 1, and adenoid cystic in 1. All tumors had strong and diffuse CK8/18 and EGFR expression but no estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2 (ie, triple negative), or CK5/6 expression. C-kit was focally expressed in 2 of the MGACAs. Ki-67 and p53 labeling indices was < 3% in all MGAs, 5% to 10% in the AMGAs, and > 30% in MGACAs. In a follow-up ranging from 14 days to 8 years, none of the MGA cases recurred. One of the AMGA cases recurred as invasive carcinoma in a background of AMGA after 8 years following incomplete excision of the lesion. Three out of 6 MGACA cases (50%) required multiple consecutive resections ending up with mastectomy due to involved margins by invasive or in situ carcinoma. Two out of 6 MGACA cases (34%) developed metastasis and died of disease. Our data showed that Ki-67 and p53 expression, in conjunction with the morphologic features, could be a reliable marker to distinguish MGA from AMGA and MGACA. Although 11 tumors were only included in our study, 64% of the tumors were carcinomas arising in MGA. This high incidence of MGACA may not represent the actual frequency of MGAs progressing into carcinoma and is likely due to referral bias in our institution. Nonetheless, the high association of carcinoma with MGA necessitates complete excision of MGA to rule out invasion. Although all the MGACA cases were triple negative and express EGFR (basal-like features), all the cases in our study showed a luminal type of differentiation by CK8/18 expression, indicating that MGACA may not fit well into the current proposed molecular classification of breast cancer.