↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Nomenclature Revision for Encapsulated Follicular Variant of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: A Paradigm Shift to Reduce Overtreatment of Indolent Tumors

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Oncology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 3,364)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
104 news outlets
blogs
11 blogs
twitter
570 X users
facebook
46 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
17 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
1204 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
507 Mendeley
Title
Nomenclature Revision for Encapsulated Follicular Variant of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: A Paradigm Shift to Reduce Overtreatment of Indolent Tumors
Published in
JAMA Oncology, August 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0386
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuri E. Nikiforov, Raja R. Seethala, Giovanni Tallini, Zubair W. Baloch, Fulvio Basolo, Lester D. R. Thompson, Justine A. Barletta, Bruce M. Wenig, Abir Al Ghuzlan, Kennichi Kakudo, Thomas J. Giordano, Venancio A. Alves, Elham Khanafshar, Sylvia L. Asa, Adel K. El-Naggar, William E. Gooding, Steven P. Hodak, Ricardo V. Lloyd, Guy Maytal, Ozgur Mete, Marina N. Nikiforova, Vania Nosé, Mauro Papotti, David N. Poller, Peter M. Sadow, Arthur S. Tischler, R. Michael Tuttle, Kathryn B. Wall, Virginia A. LiVolsi, Gregory W. Randolph, Ronald A. Ghossein

Abstract

Although growing evidence points to highly indolent behavior of encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (EFVPTC), most patients with EFVPTC are treated as having conventional thyroid cancer. To evaluate clinical outcomes, refine diagnostic criteria, and develop a nomenclature that appropriately reflects the biological and clinical characteristics of EFVPTC. International, multidisciplinary, retrospective study of patients with thyroid nodules diagnosed as EFVPTC, including 109 patients with noninvasive EFVPTC observed for 10 to 26 years and 101 patients with invasive EFVPTC observed for 1 to 18 years. Review of digitized histologic slides collected at 13 sites in 5 countries by 24 thyroid pathologists from 7 countries. A series of teleconferences and a face-to-face conference were used to establish consensus diagnostic criteria and develop new nomenclature. Frequency of adverse outcomes, including death from disease, distant or locoregional metastases, and structural or biochemical recurrence, in patients with noninvasive and invasive EFVPTC diagnosed on the basis of a set of reproducible histopathologic criteria. Consensus diagnostic criteria for EFVPTC were developed by 24 thyroid pathologists. All of the 109 patients with noninvasive EFVPTC (67 treated with only lobectomy, none received radioactive iodine ablation) were alive with no evidence of disease at final follow-up (median [range], 13 [10-26] years). An adverse event was seen in 12 of 101 (12%) of the cases of invasive EFVPTC, including 5 patients developing distant metastases, 2 of whom died of disease. Based on the outcome information for noninvasive EFVPTC, the name "noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features" (NIFTP) was adopted. A simplified diagnostic nuclear scoring scheme was developed and validated, yielding a sensitivity of 98.6% (95% CI, 96.3%-99.4%), specificity of 90.1% (95% CI, 86.0%-93.1%), and overall classification accuracy of 94.3% (95% CI, 92.1%-96.0%) for NIFTP. Thyroid tumors currently diagnosed as noninvasive EFVPTC have a very low risk of adverse outcome and should be termed NIFTP. This reclassification will affect a large population of patients worldwide and result in a significant reduction in psychological and clinical consequences associated with the diagnosis of cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 570 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 507 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 499 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 71 14%
Researcher 55 11%
Student > Postgraduate 41 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 40 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 7%
Other 119 23%
Unknown 143 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 251 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 2%
Unspecified 5 <1%
Other 30 6%
Unknown 160 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1266. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2024.
All research outputs
#10,881
of 25,775,807 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Oncology
#11
of 3,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141
of 382,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Oncology
#2
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,775,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 83.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 382,573 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.