AI Article Synopsis
- The study identifies varying risks of cancer in different subgroups of atypia, particularly focusing on the categories of AUS/FLUS.
- A meta-analysis of existing literature revealed that the cellular atypia group had a significantly higher risk of malignancy that was distinct from the other subgroups.
- It concludes that cytologic atypia poses a notably greater risk than architectural atypia, suggesting it should be categorized separately for better risk assessment.
Article Abstract
Background: As heterogeneous findings are included in the atypia of undetermined significance (AUS)/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (FLUS) category, differing risks of malignancy in subgroups have been reported in several articles.
Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of full-text publications written in English found in the Embase and PubMed databases.
Results: The 4-tiered subgroup proportion meta-analysis showed that the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the risk of malignancy in the cellular atypia group did not overlap with the other 3 subgroups and demonstrated a significant difference. Two-tiered analysis using the cytologic and architectural atypia groups showed that cytologic atypia group had a 2.64-fold increase in the risk of malignancy compared with the architectural atypia group.
Conclusion: The cytologic atypia had a significantly higher risk of malignancy than the architectural atypia group, and it should be considered as a separate category.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hed.24768 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!