BACKGROUND: The primary goal of ultrasonography (US) in the evaluation of a thyroid nodule is to determine its malignancy, although the diagnosis of a malignant nodule on the basis of US alone is nearly impossible. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the predictive value of sonographic features in the preoperative diagnosis of malignant thyroid nodules, and to determine the important features of sonography. METHODS: This prospective study included 550 consecutive patients with , thyroid nodules. Nodules were divided into two groups on the basis of pathological diagnosis: group 1 consisted of 1,633 nodules with a benign pathology, and group 2 consisted of 293 nodules with a malignant pathology. RESULTS: Microcalcifications, blurred nodular margins, and solid and hypoechoic appearance were more common in malignant nodules compared to benign nodules (89.1% versus 5%; 64.5% versus 4.7%; 81.6% versus 30.6% ; and 62.5% versus 43.1%, respectively; p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between the detection of malignant thyroid nodules and microcalcification (rs = 0.791, p = 0.0001), blurred nodular margin (rs = 0.625, p = 0.0001), solid appearance (rs = 0.376, p = 0.0001), and hypoechoic appearance (rs = 0.141, p = 0.0001). Microcalcifications, blurred nodular margins, and solid and hypoechoic appearance were independent determinants of malignancy upon US examination of thyroid nodules (OR: 159, OR: 37, OR: 9.9, and OR: 2.2, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although we did not identify a single feature indicative of malignancy in the sonographic examination of nodules, microcalcification and blurred margin were the strongest correlates for malignancy.
BACKGROUND: The primary goal of ultrasonography (US) in the evaluation of a thyroid nodule is to determine its malignancy, although the diagnosis of a malignant nodule on the basis of US alone is nearly impossible. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the predictive value of sonographic features in the preoperative diagnosis of malignant thyroid nodules, and to determine the important features of sonography. METHODS: This prospective study included 550 consecutive patients with , thyroid nodules. Nodules were divided into two groups on the basis of pathological diagnosis: group 1 consisted of 1,633 nodules with a benign pathology, and group 2 consisted of 293 nodules with a malignant pathology. RESULTS: Microcalcifications, blurred nodular margins, and solid and hypoechoic appearance were more common in malignant nodules compared to benign nodules (89.1% versus 5%; 64.5% versus 4.7%; 81.6% versus 30.6% ; and 62.5% versus 43.1%, respectively; p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between the detection of malignant thyroid nodules and microcalcification (rs = 0.791, p = 0.0001), blurred nodular margin (rs = 0.625, p = 0.0001), solid appearance (rs = 0.376, p = 0.0001), and hypoechoic appearance (rs = 0.141, p = 0.0001). Microcalcifications, blurred nodular margins, and solid and hypoechoic appearance were independent determinants of malignancy upon US examination of thyroid nodules (OR: 159, OR: 37, OR: 9.9, and OR: 2.2, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although we did not identify a single feature indicative of malignancy in the sonographic examination of nodules, microcalcification and blurred margin were the strongest correlates for malignancy.
Authors: Mary C Frates; Carol B Benson; J William Charboneau; Edmund S Cibas; Orlo H Clark; Beverly G Coleman; John J Cronan; Peter M Doubilet; Douglas B Evans; John R Goellner; Ian D Hay; Barbara S Hertzberg; Charles M Intenzo; R Brooke Jeffrey; Jill E Langer; P Reed Larsen; Susan J Mandel; William D Middleton; Carl C Reading; Steven I Sherman; Franklin N Tessler Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mary C Frates; Carol B Benson; J William Charboneau; Edmund S Cibas; Orlo H Clark; Beverly G Coleman; John J Cronan; Peter M Doubilet; Douglas B Evans; John R Goellner; Ian D Hay; Barbara S Hertzberg; Charles M Intenzo; R Brooke Jeffrey; Jill E Langer; P Reed Larsen; Susan J Mandel; William D Middleton; Carl C Reading; Steven I Sherman; Franklin N Tessler Journal: Ultrasound Q Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 1.657
Authors: Erik K Alexander; Ellen Marqusee; Joseph Orcutt; Carol B Benson; Mary C Frates; Peter M Doubilet; Edmund S Cibas; Alireza Atri Journal: Thyroid Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Il Seong Nam-Goong; Ha Young Kim; Gyungyub Gong; Ho Kyu Lee; Suck Joon Hong; Won Bae Kim; Young Kee Shong Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Bryan R Haugen; Erik K Alexander; Keith C Bible; Gerard M Doherty; Susan J Mandel; Yuri E Nikiforov; Furio Pacini; Gregory W Randolph; Anna M Sawka; Martin Schlumberger; Kathryn G Schuff; Steven I Sherman; Julie Ann Sosa; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle; Leonard Wartofsky Journal: Thyroid Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: A Rios; B Torregrosa; J M Rodríguez; D Rodríguez; A Cepero; M D Abellán; N M Torregrosa; A M Hernández; P Parrilla Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-06-04 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Juan P Brito; Michael R Gionfriddo; Alaa Al Nofal; Kasey R Boehmer; Aaron L Leppin; Carl Reading; Matthew Callstrom; Tarig A Elraiyah; Larry J Prokop; Marius N Stan; M Hassan Murad; John C Morris; Victor M Montori Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Gary Gamme; Tyler Parrington; Edward Wiebe; Sunita Ghosh; Brendan Litt; David C Williams; Todd P W McMullen Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.089