Classification schemes for reporting thyroid cytology of fine needle aspiration (FNA) of thyroid nodules are largely used in clinical practice, but the level of inter-observer agreement among cytopathologists is poorly acknowledged. The present study aimed to explore the inter-observer agreement among the experienced authors of the 2014 Italian Consensus for Classification and Reporting of Thyroid Cytology (ICCRTC). A stratified randomization was performed in order to obtain a sample homogeneously distributed and representative of all ICCRTC classes. Four high-experience raters were randomly selected among the extensors of the Italian consensus. They independently reviewed 60 FNA samples blindly of the initial cytological report and clinical features. Their overall agreement was evaluated according to Fleiss’ kappa. The overall inter-observer agreement was moderate (κ 0.46). Specifically, a good agreement was found when the samples were consistent for malignancy (TIR5) or were not adequate for diagnosis (TIR1) (κ 0.67 and κ 0.73, respectively). A moderate agreement was present for suspicious-for-malignant category (TIR4), and a fair agreement was recorded in the two intermediate ones (TIR3A and TIR3B) (κ 0.36 and κ 0.35, respectively). For clinical purposes, the agreement was good (κ 0.74) in differentiating cases with surgical indication (TIR4/TIR5) from those in which surgery is not essential or requires limited extension (TIR3B/TIR3A/TIR2). In conclusion, the present study confirms the reliability of ICCRTC. These data represent a reference for cytopathologists using this system and are useful for the practice of clinicians and surgeons.

Exploring the Inter-observer Agreement Among the Members of the Italian Consensus for the Classification and Reporting of Thyroid Cytology

Fadda G.
Ultimo
2020-01-01

Abstract

Classification schemes for reporting thyroid cytology of fine needle aspiration (FNA) of thyroid nodules are largely used in clinical practice, but the level of inter-observer agreement among cytopathologists is poorly acknowledged. The present study aimed to explore the inter-observer agreement among the experienced authors of the 2014 Italian Consensus for Classification and Reporting of Thyroid Cytology (ICCRTC). A stratified randomization was performed in order to obtain a sample homogeneously distributed and representative of all ICCRTC classes. Four high-experience raters were randomly selected among the extensors of the Italian consensus. They independently reviewed 60 FNA samples blindly of the initial cytological report and clinical features. Their overall agreement was evaluated according to Fleiss’ kappa. The overall inter-observer agreement was moderate (κ 0.46). Specifically, a good agreement was found when the samples were consistent for malignancy (TIR5) or were not adequate for diagnosis (TIR1) (κ 0.67 and κ 0.73, respectively). A moderate agreement was present for suspicious-for-malignant category (TIR4), and a fair agreement was recorded in the two intermediate ones (TIR3A and TIR3B) (κ 0.36 and κ 0.35, respectively). For clinical purposes, the agreement was good (κ 0.74) in differentiating cases with surgical indication (TIR4/TIR5) from those in which surgery is not essential or requires limited extension (TIR3B/TIR3A/TIR2). In conclusion, the present study confirms the reliability of ICCRTC. These data represent a reference for cytopathologists using this system and are useful for the practice of clinicians and surgeons.
2020
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
CrescenziIRSTC2020.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 324.78 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
324.78 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/3184073
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 8
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 9
social impact