Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of Afirma gene sequencing classifier (GSC) to ThyroSeq V3 in cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules
Authors' conclusion
Both molecular tests demonstrate high NPV but low specificity; neither is clearly superior. Future research should prioritise randomised controlled trials, long-term follow-up of unoperated nodules, and direct comparisons of molecular tests.
Study context
- Population
- Cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules26 studies
- Comparison
- Afirma GSC vs ThyroSeq v3
- Outcome
- Diagnostic test accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, NPV)
Methodological detailsPRISMA, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline and Web of Science searched from inception to May 9, 2025; two independent reviewers
- PRISMA
- PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline and Web of Science searched from inception to May 9, 2025; two independent reviewers
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Diagnostic accuracy, surgically confirmed cases
| Group | Sensitivity | Specificity | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|
| Afirma GSC | 94% | 42% | 96% |
| ThyroSeq v3 | 96% | 40% | 93% |
Sensitivity
Afirma GSC94%
ThyroSeq v396%
Specificity
Afirma GSC42%
ThyroSeq v340%
NPV
Afirma GSC96%
ThyroSeq v393%
Further pooled results
Diagnostic accuracy, including unoperated negative cases
Sensitivity
Specificity
NPV
Original publication
Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of Afirma GSC to ThyroSeq V3 in cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules. Eur Thyroid J. Published 28 November 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →