| Literature DB >> 24936499 |
Jin Young Kwak1, Eun-Kyung Kim1.
Abstract
Ultrasonography (US)-based elastography has been introduced as a noninvasive technique for evaluating thyroid nodules that encompasses a variety of approaches such as supersonic shear imaging and acoustic radiation force impulse imaging as well as real-time tissue elastography. However, the diagnostic performances for differentiating malignant thyroid nodules from benign ones with elastography as an adjunctive tool of gray-scale US is still under debate. In this review article, diagnostic performances of conventional US and a combination of conventional US and elastography are compared according to the type of elastography. Further, the interobserver variability of elastography is presented according to the type of elastography.Entities:
Keywords: Elasticity imaging techniques; Thyroid nodule; Ultrasonography
Year: 2014 PMID: 24936499 PMCID: PMC4058985 DOI: 10.14366/usg.13025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ultrasonography ISSN: 2288-5919
Figure 1.Principle of ultrasound elastography.
A. Strain elastography evaluates elasticity through tissue displacement caused by compression, with the degree of displacement being larger in soft tissue than in hard tissue. B. Shear wave elastography evaluates elasticity through the propagation speed of transverse-oriented shear waves, with the wave speed being faster in hard tissue than in soft tissue.
Figure 2.Qualitative assessment of strain elastography.
A. Strain elastographic scores by Rago et al. [6]. A score of 1 indicated even elasticity in the whole nodule. A score of 2 indicated elasticity in a large part of the nodule. A score of 3 indicated elasticity only at the peripheral part of the nodule. A score of 4 indicated no elasticity in the nodule. A score of 5 indicated no elasticity in the nodule or in the area showing posterior shadowing. B. Strain elastographic scores by Asteria et al. [7]. A score of 1 indicated elasticity in the entire examined area. A score of 2 indicated elasticity in a large part of the examined area. A score of 3 indicated stiffness in a large part of the examined area. A score of 4 indicated a nodule without elasticity.
Figure 3.Quantitative assessment of shear wave elastography.
Elasticity of the nodule is expressed in the unit of kilopascals (kPa) in the right Q-Box.
Diagnostic performance of conventional US and a combination of conventional US and elastography for diagnosing thyroid malignancy according to the type of elastography
| Reference | Publication year | Case number | Type | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | USE | US | USE | US | USE | US | USE | US | USE | ||||
| Trimboli et al. [ | 2012 | 198 | SE | 85.0 | 97.0 | 54.0 | 34.0 | 62.0 | 50.0 | 38.0 | 33.0 | 91.0 | 97.0 |
| Ragazzoni et al. [ | 2012 | 132 | SE | 70.0 | 85.0 | 92.4 | 83.7 | 85.6 | 84.1 | 80.0 | 69.4 | 87.6 | 92.8 |
| Cappelli et al. [ | 2012 | 159 | SE | 80.0 | ND | 75.0 | 70.8 | 75.4 | 73.6 | 25.0 | 26.3 | 97.2 | 100 |
| Moon et al. [ | 2012 | 703 | SE | 91.7 | 92.2 | 66.7 | 65.0 | 74.4 | 73.4 | 55.1 | 54.1 | 94.7 | 94.9 |
| Unluturk et al. [ | 2012 | 237 | SE | 69.0 | 41.0 | 85.0 | 93.0 | 81.0 | 81.0 | 60.0 | 67.0 | 89.0 | 83.0 |
| Veyrieres et al. [ | 2012 | 297 | SWE | 77.1 | 97.1 | 58.0 | 55.3 | ND | ND | 19.7 | 22.5 | 95.0 | 99.3 |
| Shweel et al. [ | 2013 | 66 | SE | 92.0 | 95.4 | 72.9 | 94.8 | 60.1 | 95.2 | 95.0 | 82.3 | 63.1 | 98.8 |
| Russ et al. [ | 2013 | 4,550 | SE | 95.7 | 98.5 | 61.0 | 44.7 | 62.0 | 48.3 | ND | ND | 99.7 | 99.8 |
| Kim et al. [ | 2013 | 99 | SWE | 90.5 | 50.0 | 59.7 | 80.0 | 67.0 | 78.6 | ND | ND | ND | ND |
US, conventional ultrasonography; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; USE, combination of conventional ultrasonography and elastography; SE, strain elastography; SWE ,shear wave elastography; ND, not determined.
Interobserver variability of elastography at a thyroid nodule according to the type of elastography
| Reference | Publication year | Case number | Type | Method of statistics | Statistical value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Park et al. [ | 2009 | 52 | SE | Spearman correlation coefficient | 0.08-0.22 |
| Park et al. [ | 2009 | 52 | SE (strain ratio) | Spearman correlation coefficient | 0.03-0.23 |
| Merino et al. [ | 2011 | 106 | SE | Cohen’s kappa statistic | 0.82 |
| Ragazzoni et al. [ | 2012 | 132 | SE | Cohen’s kappa statistic | 0.64 |
| Kim et al. [ | 2012 | 99 | SE | Cohen’s kappa statistic | 0.738 |
| Bhatia et al. [ | 2012 | 40 | SWE | Intraclass correlation coefficient | 0.85 |
| Zhang et al. [ | 2012 | 173 | SWE | Intraclass correlation coefficient | 0.864 |
| Lim et al. [ | 2012 | 56 | SWE | Pearson correlation coefficient | 0.73-0.79 |
| Veyrieres et al. [ | 2012 | 297 | SWE | Intraclass correlation coefficient | 0.97 |
| Calvete et al. [ | 2013 | 89 | SE | Cohen’s kappa statistic | 0.838 |
| Cantisani et al. [ | 2014 | 344 | SE (strain ratio) | Cohen’s kappa statistic | 0.95 |
SE, strain elastography; SWE, shear wave elastography.