Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 3;52(3):171–178. doi: 10.4132/jptm.2018.04.03

Table 4.

Comparison of diagnostic categories between conventional PTC, NIFTP/EFVPTC, and infiltrative FVPTC

FNAC diagnostic category Conventional PTC NIFTP/EFVPTC Infiltrative FVPTC p-valuea p-valueb p-valuec
Non-diagnostic 32 (2.2) 5 (7.1) 5 (7.7) .025 1.000 .016
Benign 6 (0.4) 9 (12.9) 1 (1.6) < .001 .019 .259
AUS 144 (10.0) 31 (44.3) 25 (40.3) < .001 .646 < .001
 AUS-NA 135 (9.3) 20 (28.6) 21(33.9) < .001 .511 < .001
 AUS-MF 3 (0.2) 10 (14.3) 4 (6.4) < .001 .167 < .001
 AUS-HC 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1.000 1.000 1.000
 AUS-others 6 (0.4) 1 (1.4) 0 (0) .282 1.000 1.000
Follicular neoplasm 0 (0) 4 (5.7) 1 (1.6) < .001 .370 .041
Suspicious for malignancy 339 (23.5) 13 (18.6) 14 (22.6) .344 .569 .873
Malignant 924 (63.9) 8 (11.4) 16 (25.8) < .001 .033 < .001

Values are presented as number (%).

PTC, papillary thyroid carcinoma; NIFTP, noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features; EFVPTC, encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma; FVPTC, follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma; FNAC, fine-needle aspiration cytology; AUS, atypia of undetermined significance; NA, nuclear atypia; MF, microfollicles; HC, Hurthle cells.

a

Conventional PTC vs. NIFTP/EFVPTC;

b

NIFTP/EFVPTC vs. infiltrative FVPTC;

c

Conventional PTC vs. infiltrative FVPTC.