Premium
Comparison of risk of malignancy in a subgroup with atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance: A meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Ahn SoonHyun,
Kim Seong Dong,
Jeong WooJin
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
head and neck
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.012
H-Index - 127
eISSN - 1097-0347
pISSN - 1043-3074
DOI - 10.1002/hed.24768
Subject(s) - atypia , malignancy , medicine , meta analysis , confidence interval , subgroup analysis , clinical significance , cytology , lesion , pathology
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.