| Literature DB >> 23712566 |
Ravi Kumar Lingam1, Mohammad Haroon Qarib, Neil Samuel Tolley.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To form and assess a set of diagnostic ultrasound criteria to select malignant nodules for fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology and reduce number of FNA biopsies.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23712566 PMCID: PMC3781256 DOI: 10.1007/s13244-013-0256-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insights Imaging ISSN: 1869-4101
Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) modified British Thyroid association nomenclature and comparison to the Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology: recommended diagnostic categories (adapted from [11])
| RCPath category | Bethesda system | |
|---|---|---|
| Thy1 | Non-diagnostic | Virtually acellular specimen |
| Other (obscuring blood, clotting artefact, etc.) | ||
| Cyst fluid only | ||
| Thy2 | Benign non-neoplastic | Consistent with a benign follicular nodule (includes adenomatoid nodule, colloid nodule, etc.) |
| Consistent with lymphocytic (Hashimoto) thyroiditis | ||
| Consistent with granulomatous (subacute) thyroiditis | ||
| Thy3 | Neoplasm possible—atypia/non-diagnostic (Thy 3a) | Atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance |
| Neoplasm possible, suggesting follicular neoplasm (Thy 3f) | Follicular neoplasm or suspicious for a follicular neoplasm | |
| Thy4 | Suspicious of malignancy | Suspicious (but not diagnostic) of papillary, medullary or anaplastic carcinoma, or lymphoma |
| Thy5 | Diagnostic of malignancy | Unequivocal features of papillary, medullary or anaplastic carcinoma, lymphoma or metastatic tumour or other |
Logistic regression analysis for Observer 1’s category scores. Observer 2’s category scores are almost identical
| Outcome | Category | Malignant | Odds ratio (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Echogenicity | Hyperechoic/isoechoic | 5/68 (7 %) | 1 | |
| Hypoechoic | 4/42 (10 %) | 1.33 (0.33, 5.24) | ||
| Markedly hypoechoic | 8/13 (62 %) | 20.2 (4.77, 85.2) | ||
| Cyst | 2/48 (4 %) | 0.55 (0.10, 2.95) | <0.001 | |
| Contour | Well defined | 11/157 (7 %) | 1 | |
| Borderline/ill-defined | 8/14 (57 %) | 17.7 (5.21, 60.1) | <0.001 | |
| Colour flow | No flow/peripheral flow | 0/78 (0 %) | ||
| Peripheral > central flow | 5/43 (12 %) | |||
| Central flow ≥ peripheral flow | 14/50 (28 %) | a | <0.001 | |
| Colour flow (grouped) | No flow or peripheral > central flow | 5/121 (7 %) | 1 | |
| Central flow ≥ peripheral flow | 14/50 (46 %) | 9.02 (3.04, 26.8) | <0.001 | |
| Calcification | No | 13/157 (8 %) | ||
| Coarse | 1/9 (11 %) | |||
| Microcalcification | 5/5 (100 %) | a | <0.001 | |
| Calcification (grouped) | No | 13/157 (8 %) | 1 | |
| Coarse or microcalcification | 6/14 (43 %) | 6.63 (2.61, 16.8) | 0.002 |
aUnable to calculate odds ratios or perform logistic regression due to all values in some categories having said outcome. Analysis using Fisher’s exact test
The results of the multivariable analysis based on Observer 1’s category scores analysis indicated some evidence that all four factors were significantly associated with the outcome (Model 1). However, the result for contour was not quite statistically significant. When only strictly significant variables were considered (Model 2), the results suggested that echogenicity, colour flow and calcification were still all significantly associated with the outcome. Observer 2’s category scores are almost identical
| Outcome | Category | Odds ratio (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | |||
| Echogenicity | Hyperechoic/isoechoic | 1 | |
| Hypoechoic | 0.55 (0.08, 3.56) | ||
| Markedly hypoechoic | 6.81 (1.11, 41.9) | ||
| Cyst | 0.48 (0.06, 3.81) | 0.04 | |
| Contour | Well defined | 1 | |
| Borderline/ill-defined | 8.11 (0.72, 91.2) | 0.09 | |
| Colour flow | No flow or peripheral > central flow | 1 | |
| Central flow ≥ peripheral flow | 26.0 (4.07, 166) | 0.001 | |
| Calcification | No calcification | 1 | |
| Coarse calcification or microcalcification | 5.83 (1.18, 28.9) | 0.03 | |
| Model 2 | |||
| Echogenicity | Hyperechoic/isoechoic | 1 | |
| Hypoechoic | 0.84 (0.16, 4.33) | ||
| Markedly hypoechoic | 9.69 (1.81, 51.9) | ||
| Cyst | 0.42 (0.05, 3.67) | 0.01 | |
| Colour flow | No flow or peripheral > central flow | 1 | |
| Central flow ≥ peripheral flow | 25.1 (4.05, 156) | 0.001 | |
| Calcification | No | 1 | |
| Coarse calcification or Microcalcification | 12.1 (2.66, 54.9) | 0.001 | |
Fig. 1Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for observer 1 shows high area-under-the-curve (AUC) values, indicating good diagnostic performance in predicting the outcome. The ROC curve for observer 2 is similar
A summary of the performance of two ROC curve cut-offs that could be best used to predict the final diagnosis. One cut-off is chosen to give the best sensitivity and a second to give the optimum combination of sensitivity and specificity (overall accuracy)
| Method | Statistic | Estimate (95 % CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Regression results 1 (best sensitivity) | Sensitivity | 1.00 (0.82, 1.00) |
| Specificity | 0.75 (0.67, 0.82) | |
| Positive predictive value | 0.33 (0.21, 0.47) | |
| Negative predictive value | 1.00 (0.96, 1.00) | |
| Overall accuracy | 0.78 (0.71, 0.84) | |
| Regression results 2 (best combination of sensitivity and specificity) | Sensitivity | 0.95 (0.74, 1.00) |
| Specificity | 0.81 (0.74, 0.87) | |
| Positive predictive value | 0.38 (0.25, 0.54) | |
| Negative predictive value | 0.99 (0.96, 1.00) | |
| Overall accuracy | 0.82 (0.76, 0.88) |
Proposed set of ultrasound criteria for selecting thyroid nodules for FNA cytology analysis. Nodules are selected if any of these features are seen on ultrasound
| Thyroid nodular ultrasound features for selecting nodules for FNA |
|---|
| Central or mixed colour Doppler flow pattern |
| Markedly hypoechoic |
| Microcalcification |
Diagnostic performance of the two observers in detecting malignant thyroid nodules using ultrasound criteria outlined in Table 4. This illustrates a safe approach where all malignant nodules are selected for FNA cytology analysis
| Observer 1 (95 % CI) | Observer 2 (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 1.00 (0.78, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.78, 1.00) |
| Specificity | 0.76 (0.69, 0.83) | 0.72 (0.64, 0.79) |
| Positive predictive value | 0.33 (0.21, 0.48) | 0.30 (0.19, 0.43) |
| Negative predictive value | 1.00 (0.96, 1.00) | 1.00 (0.96, 1.00) |
Fig. 2Ultrasound images of the thyroid gland showing (a) markedly hypoechoic nodule (between callipers) with ill-defined irregular contour and (b) mixed flow pattern with central flow on colour Doppler. Surgical excision and histology revealed a papillary thyroid carcinoma
Fig. 3Ultrasound of the thyroid gland showing a benign colloid nodule which has typical ultrasound features of a non-neoplastic nodule. This nodule has a well-defined contour, an isoechoic/hyperechoic echo texture and demonstrates peripheral flow on colour Doppler
Fig. 4False-positive cases for malignancy. Ultrasound images of (a) a solid—cystic follicular adenoma and (b) a benign hyperplastic nodule. The nodules demonstrated mixed (central and peripheral) colour flow pattern on colour Doppler and selected for FNA using our criteria in Table 5