An economically efficient strategy for diagnosing atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance thyroid nodules with ultrasound-based risk stratification systems and BRAFV600E testing

The management of thyroid nodules classified as atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS) has been a subject of ongoing debate. Therefore, the

Incorporating the BRAFV600E gene test exclusively for nodules in the medium-risk group significantly improved diagnostic efficacy, reduced the utilization of gene tests, and maintained a consistent false-negative rate.

This study included 762 AUS/FLUS nodules in 551 patients with a postoperative pathology. A preoperative BRAFV600E gene test and an evaluation using the ATA guidelines and ACR-TIRADS were performed. Two combined diagnostic approaches were employed: In method 1, all nodules underwent BRAFV600E gene testing, and nodules testing positive for BRAFV600E or for risk stratification systems (RSSs) were diagnosed as malignant, while those with negative

Both malignancy rates and positive BRAFV600E mutation rates increased with the increase in RSS category (P<0.001). The combination of ACR with BRAFV600E gene testing significantly improved the area under the curve (AUC) compared to the use of ACR or BRAFV600E alone (the AUCs for ACR combined with BRAFV600E, modified ACR combined with BRAFV600E, ACR alone, and BRAFV600E alone were 0.875, 0.878, 0.832, and 0.839, respectively; P<0.05 for both combinations vs. ACR or BRAFV600E alone). Similarly, ATA combined with BRAFV600E showed significant improvements in AUC compared to ATA alone (the AUCs for ATA combined with BRAFV600E, modified ATA combined with BRAFV600E, and ATA alone were 0.851, 0.846, 0.809, respectively; P<0.001 for both combination methods vs. ATA alone), but there was no significant difference observed compared to using BRAFV600E alone (P=0.450 and P=0.680 for both combination methods vs. BRAFV600E). Notably, the AUC of ACR combined with BRAFV600E was greater than that of ATA combined with BRAFV600E (P=0.047 and P=0.007 for both combination methods, respectively). There were no significant differences in diagnostic performance between the two combination approaches (P=0.428 for ACR combined with BRAFV600E and P=0.314 for ATA combined with BRAFV600E). Performing BRAFV600E gene testing only on the medium-risk groups (modified combination method) significantly reduced the rate of BRAFV600E gene testing (P<0.001) without increasing the false-negative rate (P=0.818 and P=0.394 for ACR and ATA, respectively). Conclusions: Incorporating the BRAFV600E gene test exclusively for nodules in the medium-risk group significantly improved diagnostic efficacy, reduced the utilization of gene tests, and maintained a consistent false-negative rate.