UTILITY OF AFIRMA GENE EXPRESSION CLASSIFIER FOR EVALUATION OF INDETERMINATE THYROID NODULES AND CORRELATION WITH ULTRASOUND RISK ASSESSMENT: SINGLE INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE.

Objective: We assessed our experience with Afirma gene expression classifier (GEC) combined with sono-graphic risk assessment, using both the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and the Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) in evaluating indeterminate thyroid nodules. Methods: We identified 98 patients with 101 nodules who had a second fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNA) between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2017, and sent to Veracyte for cytopathology and subsequent Afirma GEC testing. A second FNA biopsy was performed if the initial cytopathology was either Bethesda III or IV (n = 94) or nondiagnostic (n = 7). We correlated cytopathology, histopathology, and Afirma GEC results with sonographic risk assessment using both the ATA system and TI-RADS. Results: The mean age of the cohort was 57.4 ± 12.3 years; 84% women and 60% white. Repeat FNA was benign in 51 of 101 nodules, and of the remaining 50 nodules, 18 (36%) were GEC-benign and 32 (64%) GEC-suspicious. Eighteen of the 32 GEC-suspicious nodules underwent surgery with the following results: 7 benign (39%), 1 follicular thyroid carcinoma (6%), 6 follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer (33%), and 4 noninvasive follicular tumor with papillary-like nuclear features (22%). The malignancy rate among the surgical cohort was 39% (without noninvasive follicular tumor with papillary-like nuclear features [NIFTP]) and 61% (with NIFTP) and about 50% and 20% of this group scored in the high suspicion category by ATA and TR5 by TI-RADS, respectively. Conclusion: Afirma GEC was useful in avoiding surgery in one-third of indeterminate nodules and performed similarly to ATA and TI-RADS. However, the use of echogenicity in scoring may underestimate the risk of malignancy in patients with indeterminate nodules. Abbreviations: ATA = American Thyroid Association; AUS = Atypia of Undetermined Significance; FLUS = Follicular Lesion of Undetermined Significance; FN = follicular neoplasm; FNA = fine needle aspiration; FTC = follicular thyroid cancer; FVPTC = follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer; GEC = Gene Expression Classifier; ND = nondiagnostic; NIFTP = noninvasive follicular tumor with papillary-like nuclear features; TI-RADS = Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System; TR = TI-RADS.

New-onset diabetes after kidney transplantation: an application of 2003 International Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The 2003 International Consensus Guidelines defined new-onset diabetes after transplantation. This study determined the risk of new-onset diabetes following kidney transplantation using these criteria. METHODS: Consecutive nondiabetic patients who received kidney transplantation between August 2001 and March 2003 (recent, n=61) and before August 2001 (earlier, n=61) were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 74% in the recent group and 56% in the earlier group developed diabetes by 1 year posttransplant. Median time to diabetes development was 23 days in the recent vs. 134 days in the earlier group (P=0.0304). Most patients developed diabetes within 60 days after transplantation. Immunosuppression was the strongest correlate of diabetes development; tacrolimus and cyclosporine A treatments were associated with increased risk. The rate of development was also greater when rapamycin was added to tacrolimus, compared to when it was not. The risk was double in African-Americans compared to whites. Age, body mass index, family history of diabetes, and etiology of renal failure did not predict diabetes; however, the mean age of patients was greater than previously reported. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients are at risk of developing new-onset diabetes within a short time after kidney transplantation. The risk may be due to preexisting risk factors, immunosuppressive agents, or older age. The significance of these findings is not clear, but demands appropriate follow-up studies related to glycemia, end-organ complications, and graft function. It remains to be determined whether the 2003 International Consensus Guidelines are adequate to appropriately diagnose diabetes in the posttransplant time period, with special emphasis on the first 3 months.