BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Thyroid nodules are common incidental findings on CT, but there are no clear guidelines regarding their further diagnostic work-up. This study compares the performance of 2 risk-categorization methods of selecting CT-detected incidental thyroid nodules for work-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2 categorization methods were method A, based on nodule size ≥10 mm, and method B, a 3-tiered system based on aggressive imaging features, patient age younger than 35 years or nodule size of ≥15 mm. In part 1, the 2 categorization methods were applied to thyroid cancers in the SEER data base of the National Cancer Institute to compare the cancer capture rates and survival. In part two, 755 CT neck scans at our institution were retrospectively reviewed for the presence of ITNs of ≥5 mm, and the same 2 categorization methods were applied to the CT cases to compare the number of patients who would theoretically meet the criteria for work-up. Comparisons of proportions of subjects captured under methods A and B were made by using the McNemar test. RESULTS: For 84,720 subjects in the SEER data base, methods A and B each captured 74% (62,708/84,720 and 62,586/84,720, respectively) of malignancies. SEER subjects who would not have met the criteria for further work-up by both methods had equally excellent 10-year cause-specific and relative survival of >99%. For part 2, the prevalence of ITNs of ≥5 mm at our institution was 133/755 (18%). The number of ITNs that would be recommended for work-up by method A was 57/133 (43%) compared with 31/133 (23%) for method B (P < .0005). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with using a 10-mm cutoff, the 3-tiered risk-stratification method identified fewer ITNs for work-up but captured the same proportion of cancers in a national data base and showed no difference in missing high-mortality cancers.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Thyroid nodules are common incidental findings on CT, but there are no clear guidelines regarding their further diagnostic work-up. This study compares the performance of 2 risk-categorization methods of selecting CT-detected incidental thyroid nodules for work-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2 categorization methods were method A, based on nodule size ≥10 mm, and method B, a 3-tiered system based on aggressive imaging features, patient age younger than 35 years or nodule size of ≥15 mm. In part 1, the 2 categorization methods were applied to thyroid cancers in the SEER data base of the National Cancer Institute to compare the cancer capture rates and survival. In part two, 755 CT neck scans at our institution were retrospectively reviewed for the presence of ITNs of ≥5 mm, and the same 2 categorization methods were applied to the CT cases to compare the number of patients who would theoretically meet the criteria for work-up. Comparisons of proportions of subjects captured under methods A and B were made by using the McNemar test. RESULTS: For 84,720 subjects in the SEER data base, methods A and B each captured 74% (62,708/84,720 and 62,586/84,720, respectively) of malignancies. SEER subjects who would not have met the criteria for further work-up by both methods had equally excellent 10-year cause-specific and relative survival of >99%. For part 2, the prevalence of ITNs of ≥5 mm at our institution was 133/755 (18%). The number of ITNs that would be recommended for work-up by method A was 57/133 (43%) compared with 31/133 (23%) for method B (P < .0005). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with using a 10-mm cutoff, the 3-tiered risk-stratification method identified fewer ITNs for work-up but captured the same proportion of cancers in a national data base and showed no difference in missing high-mortality cancers.
Authors: Sanjay K Shetty; Michael M Maher; Peter F Hahn; Elkan F Halpern; Suzanne L Aquino Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: A Belfiore; G L La Rosa; G A La Porta; D Giuffrida; G Milazzo; L Lupo; C Regalbuto; R Vigneri Journal: Am J Med Date: 1992-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Abhineet Uppal; Michael G White; Sapna Nagar; Briseis Aschebrook-Kilfoy; Paul J Chang; Peter Angelos; Edwin L Kaplan; Raymon H Grogan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: J K Hoang; K R Choudhury; J D Eastwood; R M Esclamado; G H Lyman; T M Shattuck; X V Nguyen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A T Grady; J A Sosa; T P Tanpitukpongse; K R Choudhury; R T Gupta; J K Hoang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Manisha Bahl; Julie A Sosa; Rendon C Nelson; Ramon M Esclamado; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Jenny K Hoang Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Lisa M Lowenstein; Spyridon P Basourakos; Michelle D Williams; Patricia Troncoso; Justin R Gregg; Timothy C Thompson; Jeri Kim Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Jenny K Hoang; Barton F Branstetter; Andreia R Gafton; Wai K Lee; Christine M Glastonbury Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Jonathan C L Rodrigues; Stephen M Lyen; William Loughborough; Antonio Matteo Amadu; Anna Baritussio; Amardeep Ghosh Dastidar; Nathan E Manghat; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 5.364