D W Kim1, E J Lee, S J Jung, J H Ryu, Y M Kim. 1. Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, South Korea. dwultra@lycos.co.kr
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Bethesda class III cytology is an important limitation of the US-FNA in assessing thyroid nodules. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of US in evaluating thyroid nodules with Bethesda class III cytology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2009, 1036 patients with 1289 thyroid nodules diagnosed by US and subsequent US-FNA biopsy were enrolled in the study. On the basis of US features, each thyroid nodule was prospectively classified by a single radiologist into 1 of 5 diagnostic categories: benign, probably benign, borderline, possibly malignant, and malignant. Solid nodules were classified by using all 5 categories, whereas partially cystic nodules were classified by using 4 (borderline was omitted). We calculated the diagnostic efficacy of thyroid US by comparing the US diagnoses with the histopathology results of Bethesda class III nodules. RESULTS: Of the 51 Bethesda class III nodules, 35 were surgically confirmed and 8 were histologically diagnosed, and a malignancy rate of 46.5% (20/43) was determined. From the 43 nodules, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were calculated with 9 borderline nodules excluded (100%, 94.7%, 93.3%, 100%, and 97.0%, respectively) and with the 9 when reclassified as benign (63.6%, 95.2%, 93.3%, 71.4%, and 79.1%, respectively) and malignant (100%, 85.7%, 88.0%, 100%, and 93.0%, respectively). The values obtained with exclusion and malignancy reclassification of 9 borderline nodules were not significantly different (P = .250). CONCLUSIONS: US diagnosis by using the present US classification system can be helpful for managing Bethesda class III nodules.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Bethesda class III cytology is an important limitation of the US-FNA in assessing thyroid nodules. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of US in evaluating thyroid nodules with Bethesda class III cytology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2009, 1036 patients with 1289 thyroid nodules diagnosed by US and subsequent US-FNA biopsy were enrolled in the study. On the basis of US features, each thyroid nodule was prospectively classified by a single radiologist into 1 of 5 diagnostic categories: benign, probably benign, borderline, possibly malignant, and malignant. Solid nodules were classified by using all 5 categories, whereas partially cystic nodules were classified by using 4 (borderline was omitted). We calculated the diagnostic efficacy of thyroid US by comparing the US diagnoses with the histopathology results of Bethesda class III nodules. RESULTS: Of the 51 Bethesda class III nodules, 35 were surgically confirmed and 8 were histologically diagnosed, and a malignancy rate of 46.5% (20/43) was determined. From the 43 nodules, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were calculated with 9 borderline nodules excluded (100%, 94.7%, 93.3%, 100%, and 97.0%, respectively) and with the 9 when reclassified as benign (63.6%, 95.2%, 93.3%, 71.4%, and 79.1%, respectively) and malignant (100%, 85.7%, 88.0%, 100%, and 93.0%, respectively). The values obtained with exclusion and malignancy reclassification of 9 borderline nodules were not significantly different (P = .250). CONCLUSIONS: US diagnosis by using the present US classification system can be helpful for managing Bethesda class III nodules.
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: William Méndez; Steven E Rodgers; John I Lew; Raquel Montano; Carmen C Solórzano Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Lester J Layfield; Jacki Abrams; Beatrix Cochand-Priollet; Doug Evans; Hossein Gharib; Frank Greenspan; Michael Henry; Virginia LiVolsi; Maria Merino; Claire W Michael; Helen Wang; Samuel A Wells Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: Jae Won Kim; In Suh Park; Bo Mook Kim; Young Mo Kim; Young Chae Chu; Young Up Cho Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 2.503
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: Mi Ri Yoo; Hye Mi Gweon; Ah Young Park; Kyung Eun Cho; Jeong-Ah Kim; Ji Hyun Youk; Eun Ju Son Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anuradha Chandramohan; Abhishek Khurana; B T Pushpa; Marie Therese Manipadam; Dukhabandhu Naik; Nihal Thomas; Deepak Abraham; Mazhuvanchary Jacob Paul Journal: Indian J Radiol Imaging Date: 2016 Jan-Mar