1Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
2Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
© 2022 The Korean Society of Pathologists/The Korean Society for Cytopathology
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Ethics Statement
Not applicable.
Availability of Data and Material
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the study.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: HYN, SYP. Project administration: SYP. Supervision: SYP. Writing—original draft: HYN. Writing—review & editing: HYN, SYP. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.
Conflicts of Interest
SYP, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine, was not involved in the editorial evaluation or decision to publish this article. Remaining author has declared no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
No funding to declare.
Initial criteria [2] | Revised criteria [3] | The 2022 WHO classification [4] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Encapsulation or clear demarcation | 1. Primary | Essential | ||||
2. Follicular growth pattern with | Encapsulation or clear demarcation | 1. Encapsulation or clear demarcation | ||||
< 1% papillae | Follicular growth pattern with no papillae | 2. Follicular growth pattern with | ||||
No psammoma bodies | No psammoma bodies | < 1% true papillae | ||||
< 30% solid/trabecular/insular growth pattern | <30% solid/trabecular/insular growth pattern | No psammoma bodies | ||||
3. Nuclear score 2–3 | Nuclear score of 2–3 | < 30% solid/trabecular/insular growth | ||||
4. No vascular or capsular invasion | No vascular or capsular invasion | 3. Nuclear score of 2–3 | ||||
5. No tumor necrosis | No tumor necrosis or high mitotic activity (3 or more mitoses per 10 high power fields) | 4. No vascular or capsular invasion | ||||
6. No high mitotic activity | 2. Secondary | 5. No tumor necrosis | ||||
Lack of BRAF V600E mutation detected by molecular assays or immunohistochemistry | 6. Low mitotic count (< 3 mitoses/2 mm2) | |||||
Lack of BRAF V600E-like mutations or other high-risk mutations (TERT, TP53) | 7. Lack of cytoarchitectural features of papillary carcinoma variants other than follicular variant | |||||
Desirable | ||||||
Immunohistochemistry or molecular testing for BRAF and NRAS mutation |
Reference | NIFTP vs. benign/FTA | NIFTP vs. FVPTC | NIFTP vs. cPTC | NIFTP/FVPTC vs. cPTC |
---|---|---|---|---|
Legesse et al. [14] | - | Less frequent PIs, marginal micronucleoli, irregular branching sheets, and linear arrangement in NIFTP | Absence of PIs/Less frequent MNGs in NIFTP | - |
Bizzarro et al. [26] | More frequent scant cytoplasm, NE, nuclear elongation, chromatin clearing, grooves, and membrane irregularities in NIFTP | Less frequent grooves in NIFTP | Less frequent papillae, NE, PIs, grooves, and membrane irregularities in NIFTP | - |
Brandler et al. [27] | More frequent chromatin clearing, crowding, and NE in NIFTP | - | Less frequent PIs, papillae, crowding, NE, membrane irregularities, chromatin clearing, calcifications, and MNGs in NIFTP | - |
Chandler et al. [28] | - | More frequent MF predominance/Less frequent nuclear elongation, grooves, and Pis in NIFTP | - | |
Diaz Del Arco et al. [29] | - | Less frequent nuclear folds in NIFTP | More frequent bidimensional groups and MFs/Less frequent papillary or pseudopapillary architecture, tridimensionality, MNGs, and nuclear folds in NIFTP | - |
Koshkikawa et al. [30] | - | No differences | - | More frequent MFs, and dense globules of colloids/less frequent PIs, true papillary cell clusters, monolayered cell sheets, ropy colloids, MNGs, psammoma bodies, and cystic background in NIFTP and FVPTC |
Howitt et al. [31] | - | - | More frequent MFs/Less frequent sheet pattern in NIFTP | - |
Mahajan et al. [32] | - | No differences in nuclear features/Less frequent 3-dimensional fragments in NIFTP | Less frequent PIs, nuclear score of 3, and diffuse nuclear change in NIFTP | - |
Selvaggi et al. [34] | - | Less frequent MNGs in NIFTP | - | - |
Maletta et al. [35] | More frequent NE, membrane irregularities, chromatin clearing, and nuclear molding in NIFTP | No differences | - | - |
Strickland et al. [33] | - | - | - | MF predominance without papillae, PIs or psammoma bodies in NIFTP and FVPTC |
NIFTP, noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features; FTA, follicular thyroid adenoma; FVPTC, follicular variant papillary thyroid carcinoma; cPTC, conventional papillary thyroid carcinoma; PI, pseudoinclusion; MNG, multinucleated giant cell; NE, nucelar enlargement; MF, microfollicle.
Initial criteria [2] | Revised criteria [3] | The 2022 WHO classification [4] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Encapsulation or clear demarcation | 1. Primary | Essential | ||||
2. Follicular growth pattern with | Encapsulation or clear demarcation | 1. Encapsulation or clear demarcation | ||||
< 1% papillae | Follicular growth pattern with no papillae | 2. Follicular growth pattern with | ||||
No psammoma bodies | No psammoma bodies | < 1% true papillae | ||||
< 30% solid/trabecular/insular growth pattern | <30% solid/trabecular/insular growth pattern | No psammoma bodies | ||||
3. Nuclear score 2–3 | Nuclear score of 2–3 | < 30% solid/trabecular/insular growth | ||||
4. No vascular or capsular invasion | No vascular or capsular invasion | 3. Nuclear score of 2–3 | ||||
5. No tumor necrosis | No tumor necrosis or high mitotic activity (3 or more mitoses per 10 high power fields) | 4. No vascular or capsular invasion | ||||
6. No high mitotic activity | 2. Secondary | 5. No tumor necrosis | ||||
Lack of BRAF V600E mutation detected by molecular assays or immunohistochemistry | 6. Low mitotic count (< 3 mitoses/2 mm2) | |||||
Lack of BRAF V600E-like mutations or other high-risk mutations (TERT, TP53) | 7. Lack of cytoarchitectural features of papillary carcinoma variants other than follicular variant | |||||
Desirable | ||||||
Immunohistochemistry or molecular testing for BRAF and NRAS mutation |
Reference | NIFTP vs. benign/FTA | NIFTP vs. FVPTC | NIFTP vs. cPTC | NIFTP/FVPTC vs. cPTC |
---|---|---|---|---|
Legesse et al. [14] | - | Less frequent PIs, marginal micronucleoli, irregular branching sheets, and linear arrangement in NIFTP | Absence of PIs/Less frequent MNGs in NIFTP | - |
Bizzarro et al. [26] | More frequent scant cytoplasm, NE, nuclear elongation, chromatin clearing, grooves, and membrane irregularities in NIFTP | Less frequent grooves in NIFTP | Less frequent papillae, NE, PIs, grooves, and membrane irregularities in NIFTP | - |
Brandler et al. [27] | More frequent chromatin clearing, crowding, and NE in NIFTP | - | Less frequent PIs, papillae, crowding, NE, membrane irregularities, chromatin clearing, calcifications, and MNGs in NIFTP | - |
Chandler et al. [28] | - | More frequent MF predominance/Less frequent nuclear elongation, grooves, and Pis in NIFTP | - | |
Diaz Del Arco et al. [29] | - | Less frequent nuclear folds in NIFTP | More frequent bidimensional groups and MFs/Less frequent papillary or pseudopapillary architecture, tridimensionality, MNGs, and nuclear folds in NIFTP | - |
Koshkikawa et al. [30] | - | No differences | - | More frequent MFs, and dense globules of colloids/less frequent PIs, true papillary cell clusters, monolayered cell sheets, ropy colloids, MNGs, psammoma bodies, and cystic background in NIFTP and FVPTC |
Howitt et al. [31] | - | - | More frequent MFs/Less frequent sheet pattern in NIFTP | - |
Mahajan et al. [32] | - | No differences in nuclear features/Less frequent 3-dimensional fragments in NIFTP | Less frequent PIs, nuclear score of 3, and diffuse nuclear change in NIFTP | - |
Selvaggi et al. [34] | - | Less frequent MNGs in NIFTP | - | - |
Maletta et al. [35] | More frequent NE, membrane irregularities, chromatin clearing, and nuclear molding in NIFTP | No differences | - | - |
Strickland et al. [33] | - | - | - | MF predominance without papillae, PIs or psammoma bodies in NIFTP and FVPTC |
Diagnostic category | Proportion (%) (95% CI) | Change in ROM (%) (95% CI) |
---|---|---|
I. Nondiagnostic | 1.3 (0.8 to 1.7) | –2.4 (–7.5 to 2.7) |
II. Benign | 8.9 (6.9 to 10.8) | –2.7 (–4.1 to –1.3) |
III. AUS/FLUS | 29.2 (25.0 to 33.4) | –8.2 (–11.2 to –5.1) |
IV. FN/SFN | 24.2 (19.6 to 28.9) | –8.2 (–12.3 to –4.1) |
V. Suspicious for malignancy | 19.5 (16.1 to 22.9) | –7.3 (–9.6 to –5.1) |
VI. Malignant | 6.9 (5.2 to 8.7) | –1.1 (–1.6 to –0.5) |
WHO, World Health Organization.
NIFTP, noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features; FTA, follicular thyroid adenoma; FVPTC, follicular variant papillary thyroid carcinoma; cPTC, conventional papillary thyroid carcinoma; PI, pseudoinclusion; MNG, multinucleated giant cell; NE, nucelar enlargement; MF, microfollicle.
CI, confidence interval; ROM, risk of malignancy; AUS/FLUS, atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance; FN/SFN, follicular neoplasm/suspicious for a follicular neoplasm.