Impact of reclassifying noninvasive follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma on the risk of malignancy in The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology.

BACKGROUND: Recent discussions have focused on redefining noninvasive follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (NI-FVPTC) as a neoplasm rather than a carcinoma. This study assesses the potential impact of such a reclassification on the implied risk of malignancy (ROM) for the diagnostic categories of The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC). METHODS: The study consisted of consecutive fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) cases collected between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 from 5 academic institutions. Demographic information, cytology diagnoses, and surgical pathology follow-up were recorded. The ROM was calculated with and without NI-FVPTC and was presented as a range: all cases (ie, overall risk of malignancy [OROM]) versus those with surgical follow-up only. RESULTS: The FNAB cohort consisted of 6943 thyroid nodules representing 5179 women and 1409 men with an average age of 54 years (range, 9-94 years). The combined average ROM and OROM for the diagnostic categories of TBSRTC were as follows: nondiagnostic, 4.4% to 25.3%; benign, 0.9% to 9.3%; atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS), 12.1% to 31.2%; follicular neoplasm (FN), 21.8% to 33.2%; suspicious for malignancy (SM), 62.1% to 82.6%; and malignant, 75.9% to 99.1%. The impact of reclassifying NI-FVPTC on the ROM and OROM was most pronounced and statistically significant in the 3 indeterminate categories: the AUS/FLUS category had a decrease of 5.2% to 13.6%, the FN category had a decrease of 9.9% to 15.1%, and the SM category had a decrease of 17.6% to 23.4% (P < .05), whereas the benign and malignant categories had decreases of 0.3% to 3.5% and 2.5% to 3.3%, respectfully. The trend of the effect on the ROM and OROM was similar for all 5 institutions. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this multi-institutional cohort indicate that the reclassification of NI-FVPTC will have a significant impact on the ROM for the 3 indeterminate categories of TBSRTC. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:181-187. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings. SETTING: We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications. PARTICIPANTS: Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search. INTERVENTIONS: The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?). CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.