The new molecular markers DDIT3, STT3A, ARG2 and FAM129A are not useful in diagnosing thyroid follicular tumors

Preoperative characterization of thyroid follicular lesions is challenging. Fine-needle aspiration specimens cannot differentiate follicular carcinomas from benign follicular neoplasias. Recently, promising markers have been detected using modern molecular techniques. We conducted a retrospective study to confirm the usefulness of immunohistochemical staining for the protein markers, DDIT3, STT3A (ITM1), ARG2 and FAM129A (C1orf24) in separating benign and malignant thyroid follicular lesions. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded thyroid tissue from 30 in-house cases (15 follicular carcinomas and 15 follicular adenomas), as well as 8 follicular carcinomas and 21 follicular adenomas on tissue microarray slides were stained immunohistochemically for DDIT3, STT3A, ARG2 and FAM129A expression. Control tissue consisted of thyroid parenchyma adjacent to the tumors and 11 separate cases of normal thyroid parenchyma. All in-house cases of follicular adenomas, follicular carcinomas and adjacent normal thyroid tissue showed positive immunostaining with anti-DDIT3 and anti-STT3A. Anti-ARG2 and anti-FAM129A polyclonal antibodies showed positive staining in 20 and 60% of in-house follicular adenomas, and 40 and 87% of in-house follicular carcinomas, respectively. Monoclonal anti-FAM129A demonstrated positive staining in 13 and 33% of in-house follicular adenomas and follicular carcinomas, respectively. Polyclonal anti-DDIT3, -STT3A and -FAM129A antibodies showed positive staining in all tissue microarray slides of follicular carcinoma and in 76, 85 and 81% of the follicular adenomas, respectively. Monoclonal anti-STT3A stained 81% of the follicular adenoma cores. Anti-ARG2 stained positive in 13% of follicular carcinomas and 10% of follicular adenomas on the tissue microarray slides. In conclusion, DDIT3, STT3A, ARG2 and FAM129A immunohistochemistry does not appear to be useful in the diagnosis of thyroid follicular neoplasias, as they do not reliably distinguish follicular thyroid carcinoma from follicular thyroid adenoma

Diagnostic terminology for reporting thyroid fine needle aspiration cytology: European Federation of Cytology Societies thyroid working party symposium, Lisbon 2009

G. Kocjan, B. Cochand-Priollet, P. P. de Agustin, C. Bourgain, A. Chandra, Y. Daneshbod, A. Deery, J. Duskova, C. Ersoz, G. Fadda, A. Fassina, P. Firat, B. Jimenez-Ayala, P. Karakitsos, O. Koperek, N. Matesa, D. Poller, L. Thienpont, A. Ryska, U. Schenck, T. Sauer, F. Schmitt, E. Tani, T. Toivonen, M. Tötsch, G. Troncone, L. Vass and P. Vielh Diagnostic terminology for reporting thyroid fine needle aspiration cytology: European Federation of Cytology Societies thyroid working party symposium, Lisbon 2009 A European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) working party of 28 members from 14 European countries met at the European Congress of Cytology in Lisbon in September 2009, with two observers from the USA, to discuss the need for standardising thyroid FNA nomenclature in the light of the National Institute of Cancer (NCI) recommendations resulting from the State of the Science conference in Bethesda in 2007. The data were obtained through two questionnaires sent by email and a transcript of the live discussion at the congress, which is presented in full. The surveys and discussion showed that there were currently no national terminologies for reporting thyroid FNA in the different European countries except in Italy and the UK. Personal, 'local', surgical pathology and descriptive terminologies were in use. All but one of the working party members agreed that thyroid FNA reporting should be standardised. Whilst almost a third would adopt the NCI Bethesda terminology, which offers the advantages of a 'risk of cancer' correlation and is linked to clinical recommendations, more than half favoured a translation of local terminology as the first step towards a unified nomenclature, as has been done recently in the UK. There was some disagreement about the use of: a) the six-tiered as opposed to four or five-tiered systems, b) the use of an indeterminate category and c) the 'follicular neoplasm' category, which was felt by some participants not to be different from the 'suspicious of malignancy' category. The conclusions will be passed to the different national societies of cytology for discussion, who will be asked to map their local terminologies to the Bethesda classification, observe its acceptance by clinicians and audit its correlation with outcome. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Diagnostic terminology for reporting thyroid fine needle aspiration cytology:European Federation of Cytology Societies thyroid working party symposium, Lisbon 2009

A European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) working party of 28 members from 14 European countries met at the European Congress of Cytology in Lisbon in September 2009, with two observers from the USA, to discuss the need for standardising thyroid FNA nomenclature in the light of the National Institute of Cancer (NCI) recommendations resulting from the State of the Science conference in Bethesda in 2007. The data were obtained through two questionnaires sent by email and a transcript of the live discussion at the congress, which is presented in full. The surveys and discussion showed that there were currently no national terminologies for reporting thyroid FNA in the different European countries except in Italy and the UK. Personal, 'local', surgical pathology and descriptive terminologies were in use. All but one of the working party members agreed that thyroid FNA reporting should be standardised. Whilst almost a third would adopt the NCI Bethesda terminology, which offers the advantages of a 'risk of cancer' correlation and is linked to clinical recommendations, more than half favoured a translation of local terminology as the first step towards a unified nomenclature, as has been done recently in the UK. There was some disagreement about the use of: a) the six-tiered as opposed to four or five-tiered systems, b) the use of an indeterminate category and c) the 'follicular neoplasm' category, which was felt by some participants not to be different from the 'suspicious of malignancy' category. The conclusions will be passed to the different national societies of cytology for discussion, who will be asked to map their local terminologies to the Bethesda classification, observe its acceptance by clinicians and audit its correlation with outcome