Bruce E Lehnert1, Claire K Sandstrom2, Joel A Gross2, Manjiri Dighe3, Ken F Linnau2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: blehnert@u.washington.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Incidental thyroid nodules are common on CT. Variability in management recommendations for these nodules due to a lack of accepted CT base guidelines has not been demonstrated. METHODS: Consecutive CT cervical spine radiology reports describing thyroid nodules performed in an emergency department from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011, were retrospectively reviewed. Number of nodules, nodule size, and type of recommended management were recorded. RESULTS: Three hundred fifteen examinations met the inclusion criteria. The mean study age was 64 ± 20 years. Fifty-eight percent were women. Thirty percent (n = 95) of thyroid nodules measured <10 mm, 20% (n = 63) were ≥10 but <15 mm, 11% (n = 36) were ≥15 but <20 mm, and 15.5% (n = 49) were ≥20 mm. Size was not reported for 22.9% (n = 72). Two hundred twenty-seven recommendations were made in 181 (57.5%) studies. Recommendations were made for 51.6% (49 of 95) of nodules <10 mm, for 52.4% (33 of 63) of those ≥10 but <15 mm, for 83.3% (30 of 36) of those ≥15 but <20 mm, and for 81.6% (40 of 49) of those ≥20 mm. Management was recommended in 40.0% (29 of 72) of nodules with no size reported. Fifty-four percent (123 of 227) of recommendations were for ultrasound, followed by no follow-up recommended (17.2% [39 of 227]), clinical correlation (13.7% [31 of 227]), thyroid serology (6.2% [14 of 227]), clinical follow-up (4.8% [11 of 227]), comparison with prior studies (2.2% [5 of 227]), fine-needle aspiration (1.3% [3 of 227]), and nuclear scintigraphy (0.4% [1 of 227]). Nodule size was significantly associated with the likelihood of recommendation (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Management recommendations for incidental thyroid nodules detected on cervical spine CT are made inconsistently, and the type of management recommended is variable.
PURPOSE: Incidental thyroid nodules are common on CT. Variability in management recommendations for these nodules due to a lack of accepted CT base guidelines has not been demonstrated. METHODS: Consecutive CT cervical spine radiology reports describing thyroid nodules performed in an emergency department from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011, were retrospectively reviewed. Number of nodules, nodule size, and type of recommended management were recorded. RESULTS: Three hundred fifteen examinations met the inclusion criteria. The mean study age was 64 ± 20 years. Fifty-eight percent were women. Thirty percent (n = 95) of thyroid nodules measured <10 mm, 20% (n = 63) were ≥10 but <15 mm, 11% (n = 36) were ≥15 but <20 mm, and 15.5% (n = 49) were ≥20 mm. Size was not reported for 22.9% (n = 72). Two hundred twenty-seven recommendations were made in 181 (57.5%) studies. Recommendations were made for 51.6% (49 of 95) of nodules <10 mm, for 52.4% (33 of 63) of those ≥10 but <15 mm, for 83.3% (30 of 36) of those ≥15 but <20 mm, and for 81.6% (40 of 49) of those ≥20 mm. Management was recommended in 40.0% (29 of 72) of nodules with no size reported. Fifty-four percent (123 of 227) of recommendations were for ultrasound, followed by no follow-up recommended (17.2% [39 of 227]), clinical correlation (13.7% [31 of 227]), thyroid serology (6.2% [14 of 227]), clinical follow-up (4.8% [11 of 227]), comparison with prior studies (2.2% [5 of 227]), fine-needle aspiration (1.3% [3 of 227]), and nuclear scintigraphy (0.4% [1 of 227]). Nodule size was significantly associated with the likelihood of recommendation (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Management recommendations for incidental thyroid nodules detected on cervical spine CT are made inconsistently, and the type of management recommended is variable.
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: Stella K Kang; Laura D Scherer; Alec J Megibow; Leslie J Higuita; Nathanael Kim; R Scott Braithwaite; Angela Fagerlin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wilfred Dang; Pawel D Stefanski; Ania Z Kielar; Mohamed El-Khodary; Christian van der Pol; Rebecca Thornhill; Arash Jaberi; Angel Y N Fu; Matthew D McInnes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 3.240