Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A comparative study of fine needle aspiration and fine needle non-aspiration biopsy on suspected thyroid nodules.

Ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle non-aspiration (FNNA) biopsy were performed consecutively on 104 patients (mean age 50 +/- 15 years) affected by multinodular and uninodular goiter. Both techniques were executed on the same patients in the same clinical session beginning with the first (FNA) on half of the patients (randomly selected) and vice versa. The cytological findings on cell samples were divided into four groups: colloidal (benign), follicular (suspicious), malignant, and inadequate. The overall cytologic findings obtained with the two techniques were as follows (FNA % vs FNNA %): inadequate, 16.3% vs 5.8%; colloidal, 69.2% vs 76.9%; follicular, 9.6% vs 10.5%; and malignant, 4.8% vs 6.7%. A statistically significant difference between FNA and FNNA cytology was found only on the number of inadequate results (p = 0.015). Interestingly, the frequency of inadequate specimens for FNNA showed a significantly different distribution depending on the sequence (first or second) in which the technique was executed. In conclusion, FNA and FNNA are useful and cost-effective techniques for the pre-operative assessment of patients with thyroid nodules. However, due probably to its minimally invasive procedure, FNNA produces specimens of better quality and reduces inadequate results. For these reasons FNNA should be preferable to FNA for the cytological evaluation of thyroid nodules.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app