. 2020 Feb 12;9(3):R47–R58. doi: 10.1530/EC-19-0566
This work is licensed under a Table 3.
ROM changes in Bethesda categories after reclassification of NIFTP according to Vuong et al. (71) and Bongiovanni et al. (73) in comparison with data reported by Cibas et al. (54).
| Diagnostic category | Data reported by Cibas et al. | Vuong et al. | Bongiovanni et al. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROM if NIFTP = CA (%) | ROM if NIFTP ≠ CA (%) | Absolute ROM decrease (%) | Absolute ROM decrease (%) | Absolute ROM decrease (%) | |
| ND | 5–10 | 5–10 | 0 | 2.2 | – |
| Benign | 0–3 | 0–3 | 0 | 1.6 | – |
| AUS/FLUS | 10–30 | 6–18 | 4–12 | 9.5 | – |
| FN/SFN | 25–40 | 10–40 | 0–15 | 10.6 | – |
| SM | 50–75 | 45–60 | 5–15 | 15.8 | 14 |
| Malignant | 97–99 | 94–96 | 3 | 2.3 | 3 |
AUS/FLUS, atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance; CA, carcinoma; FN/SNF, follicular neoplasm or suspicious for follicular neoplasm; ND, nondiagnostic; NIFTP, noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features; ROM, risk of malignancy; SM, suspicious for malignancy.