Should We Treat for Subclinical Hypothyroidism?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

In May 2015, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a guideline on screening for thyroid disease that included a systematic evidence review and an update of its 2004 recommendations. The review assessed the effect of treating screen-detected subclinical thyroid dysfunction on health outcomes. It found adequate evidence that treating subclinical hypothyroidism does not provide clinically meaningful improvements in blood pressure, body mass index, bone mineral density, lipid levels, or quality-of-life measures. The review also concluded that evidence was inadequate to determine whether screening for thyroid dysfunction reduced cardiovascular disease or related morbidity and mortality. In separate guidelines, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Thyroid Association advocated aggressive case-finding and recommended screening persons with certain clinical conditions or characteristics rather than the general population. These societies argue that subclinical hypothyroidism adversely affects cardiovascular outcomes and thus merits case-finding. Here, 2 experts discuss their perspectives on whether treating subclinical hypothyroidism reduces morbidity and mortality, whether there are harms of treatment, and how they would balance the benefits and harms of treatment both in general and for a specific patient.

Risk stratification of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules with nondiagnostic or benign cytology on repeat FNA: Implications for molecular testing and surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Evidence guiding the management of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules with nondiagnostic (ND) or benign cytology on repeat fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is limited. This study evaluates the utility of molecular testing and estimates the risk of noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) and cancer among such nodules. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-institution review of thyroid nodules from adults that were classified as atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) or follicular neoplasm (FN) on initial FNA and underwent repeat FNA for cytology and Afirma testing (June 2013-July 2021). The association between repeat FNA cytology and RNA yield for Afirma was determined. Histologic outcomes were integrated with Afirma results to define end points for each nodule. RESULTS: A total of 691 AUS and FN nodules underwent repeat FNA and Afirma testing. Diagnostic Afirma results were obtained in 98% of cases overall and in 91% of nodules with ND cytology on repeat FNA. Using combined molecular and histologic end points, the NIFTP and/or cancer prevalence for nodules with ND cytology on repeat FNA was 9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.042-0.182), falling between those nodules classified as benign (5%; 95% CI, 0.029-0.094) and those classified as AUS or FN (18%; 95% CI, 0.140-0.218) on repeat FNA, although not reaching statistical significance from either subgroup (p = .38 and .10, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: AUS and FN nodules that are ND on repeat FNA have low but nonnegligible risk of NIFTP and/or cancer and may benefit from molecular testing, given the low test failure rate in this subgroup. Conversely, AUS and FN nodules reclassified as benign on repeat FNA have a very low risk of NIFTP and/or cancer and are unlikely to benefit from molecular testing.

Combined molecular and histologic end points inform cancer risk estimates for thyroid nodules classified as atypia of undetermined significance.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid nodules classified as atypia of uncertain significance (AUS) on fine-needle aspiration cytology are heterogeneous. Prior studies reported a higher risk of noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP)/cancer among AUS nodules that had cytologic (AUS-C) versus architectural (AUS-A) atypia; however, such studies were generally confined to resected cohorts, introducing bias into risk calculations. The authors hypothesized that combined histologic and molecular end points would permit clinically meaningful calculations of NIFTP/malignancy risk among AUS nodules. METHODS: The study consisted of 279 thyroid nodules classified as AUS on initial fine-needle aspiration and tested by the Afirma Gene Expression Classifier (GEC) between June 2013 and October 2017. Results of GEC testing and histopathologic diagnoses were stratified by AUS classifiers. The AUS-A category was further subclassified as 1) hypocellular microfollicular or 2) cellular with mixed but predominantly microfollicular architecture. NIFTP/cancer risk was calculated for each subgroup, with the inclusion of unresected nodules that had benign GEC results as low-risk end points comparable to histologically benign nodules. RESULTS: When only histologic end points were considered, there was no difference in NIFTP/cancer risk (25% vs 23%; P = .82). By using molecular and histologic end points, AUS cases with cytologic atypia trended toward higher NIFTP/cancer risk than AUS-A cases (14% vs 6%; P = .06). Furthermore, AUS-A cases showed a trend toward lower NIFTP/cancer risk for hypocellular microfollicular aspirates (3%) compared with cellular samples that had mixed/predominantly microfollicular architecture (13%; P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of unresected benign GEC nodules in risk-of-malignancy calculations provides more accurate results, which may be helpful for informing patient management as well as quality improvement in the cytopathology laboratory.

Repeat Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology Refines the Selection of Thyroid Nodules for Afirma Gene Expression Classifier Testing.

Background: Molecular testing (MT) refines risk stratification for thyroid nodules that are indeterminate for cancer by fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytology. Criteria for selecting nodules for MT vary and remain largely untested, raising questions about the best strategy for maximizing the usefulness of MT while minimizing the harms of overtesting. We used a unique data set to examine the effects of repeat FNA cytology-based criteria for MT on management decisions and nodule outcomes. Methods: This was a study of adults (age 25-90 years; 281 women and 72 men) with cytologically indeterminate (Bethesda III/IV) thyroid nodules who underwent repeat FNA biopsy and Afirma Gene Expression Classifier (GEC) testing (N = 363 nodules from 353 patients) between June 2013 and October 2017 at a single institution, with follow-up data collected until December 2019. Subgroup analysis was performed based on classification of repeat FNA cytology. Outcomes of GEC testing, clinical/sonographic surveillance of unresected nodules, and histopathologic diagnoses of thyroidectomies were compared between three testing approaches: (i) Reflex (MT sent on the basis of the initial Bethesda III/IV FNA), (ii) SemiRestrictive (MT sent if repeat FNA is Bethesda I-IV), and (iii) Restrictive (MT sent only if repeat FNA is Bethesda III/IV) testing approaches. Results: Restricting MT to nodules that remain Bethesda III/IV on repeat FNA would have missed 4 low-risk cancers and 3 noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasms with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) (collectively 2% of the test population) but would have avoided diagnostic surgery for 42 benign nodules (12% of the test population). The Restrictive testing strategy was more specific (delta 0.126 confidence interval [CI 0.093 to 0.159] and 0.129 [CI 0.097 to 0.161], respectively) but less sensitive (delta -0.339 [CI -0.424 to -0.253] and -0.340 [CI -0.425 to -0.255], respectively) than the Reflex and SemiRestrictive approaches for detecting NIFTP or cancer. Conclusions: Repeat FNA cytology can guide the selection of cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules that warrant MT. The Restrictive model of performing Afirma GEC only on nodules with two separate biopsies showing Bethesda III/IV cytology would reduce the rate of diagnostic surgery for histologically benign nodules while missing only rare low-risk tumors. Given the low but nontrivial risks of thyroidectomy, the higher specificity of the Restrictive testing approach disproportionately outweighs the potential harms.

Synchronous parathyroid carcinoma, parathyroid adenoma, and papillary thyroid carcinoma in a patient with severe and long-standing hyperparathyroidism.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a patient presenting with the rare constellation of synchronous parathyroid carcinoma, parathyroid adenoma, and papillary thyroid carcinoma. METHODS: We summarize the clinical presentation, diagnostic work-up, surgical management, and pathologic features of our patient and review the pertinent literature. RESULTS: The patient was a 59-year-old man who presented with severe clinical manifestations of long-standing primary hyperparathyroidism, a serum calcium concentration of 14.4 mg/dL, and a parathyroid hormone level of 2,023 pg/mL. He was found to have a 3.4-cm parathyroid carcinoma on the left side and a 3.2-cm papillary carcinoma in the right thyroid lobe. In addition, a 917-mg parathyroid adenoma was found on the right side. CONCLUSION: Synchronous parathyroid and thyroid carcinomas are extremely rare. To our knowledge, our patient is the first documented case with a parathyroid adenoma in addition to synchronous parathyroid and thyroid carcinomas. The presence of concurrent parathyroid carcinoma and parathyroid adenoma can cause diagnostic confusion and should be considered in patients presenting with severe hyperparathyroidism. Any concomitant thyroid nodules must be investigated to rule out thyroid carcinoma.