Consistency in the Distribution of Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytology Categories Over 9 Years: A Single Institute, Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (BSRTC) has evolved since it was first introduced in 2009 to become a worldwide accepted cytologic analysis reference, due to its simplicity and reproducibility. To date, the consistency of BSRTC throughout time has yet to be investigated. METHODS: Retrospective single institution case series with chart review of all patients who underwent fine-needle aspirations for a thyroid nodule in our institution between the years 2010 and 2018 with a documented BSRTC classification. Data collection included demographics, risk factors, sonographic evaluation, nodule size, and final pathology when feasible. The main outcome is the difference in the rates of BSRTC categories benign, atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), follicular neoplasm, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant (BSRTC II-VI, respectively) between the study years. RESULTS: A total of 2830 thyroid nodules were included. BSRTC II-VI distribution was 83.9% (2373), 8.2%, (232), 2.7% (75), 3.3% (93), and 2.0% (57), respectively. There was no significant change in the overall trend of each BSRTC category distribution throughout the study. There was a significant increase in the benign cytology rate (BSRTC II) in 2011 compared to 2015 and 2018 (76.4% compared to 88.7% and 87.6%, respectively. P < .005) alongside a significant decline in the AUS category rate (BSRTC III) between the same years (13.0% compared to 4.8% and 5.5%, respectively. P < .005). CONCLUSION: BSRTC showed consistency throughout the study across all observed categories. An overlap between AUS and benign may exist, possibly due to the heterogenic definition of AUS as reflected in the 2023 BSRTC subclassification for AUS.

A Modified Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing Evaluating Esophageal Dysphagia by a Capsule: A Pilot Study.

While functional endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is the most useful diagnostic test for the evaluation of dysphagia, it cannot evaluate the esophageal phase of swallowing. To evaluate if a modification for the FEES exam by swallowing an empty capsule and screening of the upper esophagus could be used for early detection of esophageal dysphagia. A prospective, single-center, pilot study. At the end of a standard FEES exam, the patients were asked to swallow an empty capsule. Fifteen seconds later, the endoscope was inserted into the upper esophagus. A pathological capsule test was defined when the capsule was seen in the esophagus. In such cases, the patient was advised to undergo a gastroscopy, MBS, or esophageal manometry, which were compared to the results of the capsule test. The capsule test was utilized in 109 patients. A pathological capsule test was found in 55 patients (57.8%). In 48 patients (87.3%), an isolated or combined esophageal dysphagia was seen. The accuracy value of the capsule test compared to gastroenterology tests was 83.3%, sensitivity 88.46%, specificity 75%, PPV 85%, and NPV 80%. A modification of the standard FEES exam by including an empty capsule swallow test with an upper esophagus examination may provide a useful screening tool for esophageal dysphagia.