Hyobin Seo1, Dong Gyu Na, Ji-Hoon Kim, Kyung Won Kim, Ji Won Yoon. 1. Department of Radiology, Gangnam Center, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System, 39F Gangnam Finance Center, 737 Yeoksam dong, Gangnam Gu, Seoul, Korea, 135-984.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to stratify the malignancy risk of US features, with an emphasis on nodule echogenicity. METHODS: A total of 1,058 nodules of 824 consecutive patients (236 malignant and 822 benign) were included in this study. Malignancy risk of each nodule was analyzed according to US features, with an emphasis on nodule echogenecity, and was stratified into 4-tier categories. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, isoechogenicity, indistinct margin, non-solid internal content, and parallel orientation were predictive of benign nodules (P < 0.002), while hypoechogenicity, marked hypoechogenicity, spiculated/microlobulated margin, solid content, nonparallel orientation (taller than wide), microcalcification, and macrocalcification were predictive of malignancy (P ≤ 0.037). Although the presence of US features associated with malignancy was significantly predictive of malignancy in hypoechoic and markedly hypoechoic nodules (P ≤ 0.004), it was not associated with malignancy in isoechoic or hyperechoic nodules. Thyroid nodules could be stratified into four categories according to the malignancy risk: benign (risk 0%), probably benign (risk ≤ 5%), indeterminate (risk > 5 and < 50%), and suspicion of malignancy (risk > 50%). CONCLUSIONS: The US-based four-tier categorization system will be useful for predicting the risk of malignancy and decisions regarding FNA for thyroid nodules. KEY POINTS: • No US feature was predictive of malignancy in isoechoic nodules. • Isoechoic nodules without calcification can be included in the probably benign category. • We suggest a four-tier categorization stratified primarily by nodule echogenecity. • The four-tier categorization of thyroid nodules will be useful for FNA decisions.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to stratify the malignancy risk of US features, with an emphasis on nodule echogenicity. METHODS: A total of 1,058 nodules of 824 consecutive patients (236 malignant and 822 benign) were included in this study. Malignancy risk of each nodule was analyzed according to US features, with an emphasis on nodule echogenecity, and was stratified into 4-tier categories. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, isoechogenicity, indistinct margin, non-solid internal content, and parallel orientation were predictive of benign nodules (P < 0.002), while hypoechogenicity, marked hypoechogenicity, spiculated/microlobulated margin, solid content, nonparallel orientation (taller than wide), microcalcification, and macrocalcification were predictive of malignancy (P ≤ 0.037). Although the presence of US features associated with malignancy was significantly predictive of malignancy in hypoechoic and markedly hypoechoic nodules (P ≤ 0.004), it was not associated with malignancy in isoechoic or hyperechoic nodules. Thyroid nodules could be stratified into four categories according to the malignancy risk: benign (risk 0%), probably benign (risk ≤ 5%), indeterminate (risk > 5 and < 50%), and suspicion of malignancy (risk > 50%). CONCLUSIONS: The US-based four-tier categorization system will be useful for predicting the risk of malignancy and decisions regarding FNA for thyroid nodules. KEY POINTS: • No US feature was predictive of malignancy in isoechoic nodules. • Isoechoic nodules without calcification can be included in the probably benign category. • We suggest a four-tier categorization stratified primarily by nodule echogenecity. • The four-tier categorization of thyroid nodules will be useful for FNA decisions.
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: David S Cooper; Gerard M Doherty; Bryan R Haugen; Bryan R Hauger; Richard T Kloos; Stephanie L Lee; Susan J Mandel; Ernest L Mazzaferri; Bryan McIver; Furio Pacini; Martin Schlumberger; Steven I Sherman; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle Journal: Thyroid Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Juan P Brito; Michael R Gionfriddo; Alaa Al Nofal; Kasey R Boehmer; Aaron L Leppin; Carl Reading; Matthew Callstrom; Tarig A Elraiyah; Larry J Prokop; Marius N Stan; M Hassan Murad; John C Morris; Victor M Montori Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Won-Jin Moon; Jung Hwan Baek; So Lyung Jung; Dong Wook Kim; Eun Kyung Kim; Ji Young Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Jeong Hyun Lee; Joon Hyung Lee; Young Hen Lee; Dong Gyu Na; Jeong Seon Park; Sun Won Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2011-01-03 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: T Rago; V Cantisani; F Ianni; L Chiovato; R Garberoglio; C Durante; A Frasoldati; S Spiezia; R Farina; G Vallone; A Pontecorvi; P Vitti Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: A Rios; B Torregrosa; J M Rodríguez; D Rodríguez; A Cepero; M D Abellán; N M Torregrosa; A M Hernández; P Parrilla Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-06-04 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Hwa Seon Shin; Dong Gyu Na; Wooyul Paik; So Jin Yoon; Hye Yun Gwon; Byeong Joo Noh; Won Jun Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Antonio Rahal; Priscila Mina Falsarella; Rafael Dahmer Rocha; João Paulo Bacellar Costa Lima; Matheus Jorge Iani; Fábio Augusto Cardillo Vieira; Marcos Roberto Gomes de Queiroz; Jairo Tabacow Hidal; Miguel José Francisco; Rodrigo Gobbo Garcia; Marcelo Buarque de Gusmão Funari Journal: Einstein (Sao Paulo) Date: 2016 Apr-Jun