The Ethical Implications of the Reclassification of Noninvasive Follicular Variant Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma.

Abstract

Several studies have highlighted the lack of consensus in the diagnosis of follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (FVPTC). An international multidisciplinary panel to address the controversy was assembled at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Pathology Society in March of 2015, leading to the recent publication reclassifying encapsulated (or noninvasive) FVPTC (EFVPTC) as a benign neoplasm. Does this change in histologic taxonomy warrant a change in clinical practice, and how should it affect those who have been given this diagnosis in the past? We consider the financial and psychological impact of this reclassification and discuss the ethical, legal, and practical issues involved with sharing this information with the patients who are affected. The total direct and indirect cost of thyroid cancer surveillance in patients is significant. High levels of clinically relevant distress affect up to 43% of patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma, as estimated by the Distress Thermometer developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for detecting distress in cancer patients. Although there are currently no legal opinions that establish a precedent for recontacting patients whose clinical status is altered by a change in nomenclature, the prudent course would be to attend to the requirements of medical ethics. Informing patients with a previous diagnosis of EFVPTC that the disease has been reclassified as benign is expected to have a dramatic effect on their surveillance needs and to alleviate the psychological impact of living with a diagnosis of cancer. It is important to re-evaluate the pathologic slides of those patients at risk to ensure that the invasive nature of the tumor is comprehensively evaluated before notifying a patient of a change in diagnosis. The availability of the entire tumor for evaluation of the capsule may prove to be a challenge for a portion of the population at risk. We believe that it is the clinician's professional duty to make a sincere and reasonable effort to convey the information to the affected patients. We also believe that the cost savings with respect to the need for additional surgery, radioactive iodine, and rigorous surveillance associated with a misinterpretation of the biology of the diagnosis of EFVPTC in less experienced hands will likely more than offset the cost incurred in histologic review and patient notification.