title: Investigating the value of fine needle aspiration cytology in thyroid cancer.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Current guidance recommends the use of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) as an essential investigation in patients presenting with a thyroid lump. Current literature suggests that the sensitivity of FNAC in thyroid nodules ranges between 80-90%. However, only very few studies have looked specifically at the sensitivity of FNAC in solely thyroid cancer patients.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of our study was to investigate the value of FNAC as a first-line investigation in patients with thyroid cancer. We aimed specifically to assess the sensitivity of FNAC within this group.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer between 2000-08 were identified from a local histopathology database. Sixty-seven case notes were retrieved, retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Analysis included results of FNAC, ultrasound scanning and final histopathological diagnosis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Analysis of the 56 patients who underwent FNAC revealed that a cytological grading of thy3 or greater was only given to 31 cases (55.3%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this study, FNAC findings of thy3 or greater were reported only in 55.3% of proven thyroid cancer cases. This study highlights the greater diagnostic difficulties of thyroid cancer compared to other thyroid nodules. Our findings suggest that clinicians must interpret the results of this initial investigation with caution and consider the routine use of ultrasound scanning to help guide FNAC.
authors.affiliation: Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan, UK.
authors.forename: Sandeep G
authors.initials: SG
authors.lastname: Mistry
authors.forename: Navin
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Mani
authors.forename: Prad
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Murthy
references.citation: Acta Chir Scand. 1988 Feb;154(2):93-6
references.pmid: 2833056
references.citation: Endocr Pract. 1995 Nov-Dec;1(6):410-7
references.pmid: 15251569
references.citation: Pathology (Phila). 1996;4(2):319-35
references.pmid: 9238361
references.citation: Am J Surg. 1993 Oct;166(4):350-2
references.pmid: 8214290
references.citation: Arch Surg. 2001 Mar;136(3):334-7
references.pmid: 11231857
references.citation: Endocr Pract. 2001 May-Jun;7(3):202-20
references.pmid: 11430305
references.citation: ANZ J Surg. 2003 Jul;73(7):480-3
references.pmid: 12864820
references.citation: Mayo Clin Proc. 1994 Jan;69(1):44-9
references.pmid: 8271850
references.citation: Arch Surg. 1989 Oct;124(10):1201-4; discussion 1204-5
references.pmid: 2802984
references.citation: Eur J Surg. 2002;168(4):236-41
references.pmid: 12440762
references.citation: World J Surg. 2008 Jul;32(7):1253-63
references.pmid: 18311500
references.citation: J Laryngol Otol. 2007 Jun;121(6):571-9
references.pmid: 17134537
references.citation: Endocr Pract. 2003 Mar-Apr;9(2):128-36
references.pmid: 12917075
references.citation: World J Surg. 2007 Jul;31(7):1410-6
references.pmid: 17534557
references.citation: QJM. 2007 Jan;100(1):29-35
references.pmid: 17178736
references.citation: Diagn Cytopathol. 1997 Oct;17(4):239-47
references.pmid: 9316777