D W Kim1, J S Park, H S In, H J Choo, J H Ryu, S J Jung. 1. Department of Radiology, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, South Korea. dwultra@lycos.co.kr
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The ability of US to differentiate benign thyroid nodules from malignant ones is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic efficacy of a US-based classification system for solid and PCTNs through a prospectively designed study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 1289 thyroid nodules in 1036 patients who underwent thyroid US, US-FNA, and thyroid surgery. Each thyroid nodule was prospectively classified into 1 of 5 diagnostic categories following real-time US examination: benign, probably benign, borderline, possibly malignant, and malignant. Solid nodules were classified by using all 5 categories, and PCTNs were classified by all except the borderline category. We calculated the diagnostic efficacy of thyroid US by comparing US diagnoses with histopathologic results of surgically resected thyroid nodules. RESULTS: One thousand fifty-five solid nodules and 234 PCTNs were prospectively classified as benign (n = 435 and 179), probably benign (n = 213 and 25), borderline (n = 94 and 0), possibly malignant (n = 115 and 15), and malignant (n = 198 and 15), respectively. Of these 1289 nodules, 505 were surgically resected and confirmed by pathology (191 benign and 314 malignant nodules); there were 44 resected solid nodules with a borderline category. For solid nodules and PCTNs, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of US diagnosis were 86.1 and 66.7, 90.0 and 88.9, 94.3 and 75.0, 77.3 and 84.2, and 87.5% and 81.5%, respectively, based on 505 surgical specimens and excluding the 42 solid borderline nodules. CONCLUSIONS: Our US-based classification system can provide helpful guidance for the management of thyroid nodules.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The ability of US to differentiate benign thyroid nodules from malignant ones is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic efficacy of a US-based classification system for solid and PCTNs through a prospectively designed study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 1289 thyroid nodules in 1036 patients who underwent thyroid US, US-FNA, and thyroid surgery. Each thyroid nodule was prospectively classified into 1 of 5 diagnostic categories following real-time US examination: benign, probably benign, borderline, possibly malignant, and malignant. Solid nodules were classified by using all 5 categories, and PCTNs were classified by all except the borderline category. We calculated the diagnostic efficacy of thyroid US by comparing US diagnoses with histopathologic results of surgically resected thyroid nodules. RESULTS: One thousand fifty-five solid nodules and 234 PCTNs were prospectively classified as benign (n = 435 and 179), probably benign (n = 213 and 25), borderline (n = 94 and 0), possibly malignant (n = 115 and 15), and malignant (n = 198 and 15), respectively. Of these 1289 nodules, 505 were surgically resected and confirmed by pathology (191 benign and 314 malignant nodules); there were 44 resected solid nodules with a borderline category. For solid nodules and PCTNs, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of US diagnosis were 86.1 and 66.7, 90.0 and 88.9, 94.3 and 75.0, 77.3 and 84.2, and 87.5% and 81.5%, respectively, based on 505 surgical specimens and excluding the 42 solid borderline nodules. CONCLUSIONS: Our US-based classification system can provide helpful guidance for the management of thyroid nodules.
Authors: Martin E O'Malley; Michele M Weir; Peter F Hahn; Joseph Misdraji; Bradford J Wood; Peter R Mueller Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-02 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: Radiology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Byung Moon Kim; Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Soon Won Hong; Eun Ju Son; Ki Hwang Kim Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Mary C Frates; Carol B Benson; Peter M Doubilet; Elizabeth Kunreuther; Maricela Contreras; Edmund S Cibas; Joseph Orcutt; Francis D Moore; P Reed Larsen; Ellen Marqusee; Erik K Alexander Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-07-11 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Jin Young Kwak; Kyung Hwa Han; Jung Hyun Yoon; Hee Jung Moon; Eun Ju Son; So Hee Park; Hyun Kyung Jung; Ji Soo Choi; Bo Mi Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Da Som Kim; Dong Wook Kim; Young Jin Heo; Jin Wook Baek; Yoo Jin Lee; Hye Jung Choo; Young Mi Park; Ha Kyoung Park; Tae Kwun Ha; Do Hun Kim; Soo Jin Jung; Ji Sun Park; Ki Jung Ahn; Hye Jin Baek; Taewoo Kang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: María Inés Vera; Tomás Meroño; María Agustina Urrutia; Carina Parisi; Yanina Morosan; Melanie Rosmarin; Marta Schnitman; Fernando Brites; Silvio Grisendi; María Sol Serrano; Wilfredo Luciani; Leonardo Serrano; Carlos Zuk; Guillermo De Barrio; Claudia Cejas; María Cristina Faingold; Gabriela Brenta Journal: J Thyroid Res Date: 2014-06-23