RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC) recommends an upper limit of 10% for atypia of undetermined significance (AUS). Recent data suggest that this category might be overused when the rate of cases with molecular positive results is low. As a quality metric, the AUS and positive call rates for this facility's cytology laboratory and each cytopathologist (CP) were calculated. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all thyroid cytology cases in a 4.5-year period was performed. Cases were stratified by TBSRTC, and molecular testing results were collected for indeterminate categories. The AUS rate was calculated for each CP and the laboratory. The molecular positive call rate (PCR) was calculated with and without the addition of currently negative to the positive results obtained from the ThyroSeq report. RESULTS: A total of 7535 cases were classified as nondiagnostic, 7.6%; benign, 69%; AUS, 17.5%; follicular neoplasm/suspicious for follicular neoplasm, 1.4%; suspicious for malignancy, 0.7%; and malignant, 3.8%. The AUS rate for each CP ranged from 9.9% to 36.8%. The overall PCR was 24% (range, 13%-35.6% per CP). When including cases with currently negative results, the PCR increased to 35.5% for the cytology laboratory (range, 13%-42.6% per CP). Comparison analysis indicates a combination of overcalling benign cases and, less frequently, undercalling of higher TBSRTC category cases. CONCLUSIONS: The AUS rate in the context of PCR is a useful metric to assess cytology laboratory and cytopathologists' performance. Continuous feedback on this metric could help improve the overall quality of reporting thyroid cytology.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To report a case of severe mpox in a newly diagnosed HIV patient concerning for Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome (IRIS) and/or tecovirimat resistance and to describe the management approach in the setting of refractory disease. CASE: 49-year-old man presented with 2 weeks of perianal lesions. He tested positive for mpox PCR in the emergency room and was discharged home with quarantine instructions. Three weeks later, the patient returned with disseminated firm, nodular lesions in the face, neck, scalp, mouth, chest, back, legs, arms, and rectum, with worsening pain and purulent drainage from the rectum. The patient reported being on 3 days of tecovirimat treatment, which was prescribed by the Florida department of health (DOH). During this admission, he was found to be HIV positive. A pelvic CT scan revealed a 2.5 cm perirectal abscess. Treatment with tecovirimat was continued for 14 days, along with an empiric course of antibiotics for treatment of possible superimposed bacterial infection upon discharge. He was seen in the outpatient clinic and initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) with TAF/emtricitabine/bictegravir. Two weeks after starting ART, the patient was readmitted for worsening mpox rash and rectal pain. Urine PCR also returned positive for chlamydia, for which the patient was prescribed doxycycline. He was discharged on a second course of tecovirimat and antibiotic therapy. Ten days later, the patient was readmitted for the second time due to worsening symptoms and blockage of the nasal airway from progressing lesions. At this point, there were concerns for tecovirimat resistance, and after discussion with CDC, tecovirimat was reinitiated for the third time, with the addition of Cidofovir and Vaccinia, and showed an improvement in his symptoms. He received three doses of cidofovir and two doses of Vaccinia, and the patient was then discharged to complete 30 days of tecovirimat. Outpatient follow-up showed favorable outcomes and near resolution. CONCLUSION: We reported a challenging case of worsening mpox after Tecovirimat treatment in the setting of new HIV and ART initiation concerning IRIS vs. Tecovirimat resistance. Clinicians should consider the risk of IRIS and weigh the pros and cons of initiating or delaying ART. In patients not responding to first-line treatment with tecovirimat, resistance testing should be performed, and alternative options should be considered. Future research is needed to establish guidance on the role of Cidofovir and Vaccinia immune globulin and the continuation of tecovirimat for refractory mpox.
