| Literature DB >> 26597052 |
Yu-zhi Zhang1, Ting Xu1, Dai Cui1, Xiao Li2, Qing Yao2, Hai-yan Gong3, Xiao-yun Liu1, Huan-huan Chen1, Lin Jiang1, Xin-hua Ye3, Zhi-hong Zhang2, Mei-ping Shen4, Yu Duan1, Tao Yang1, Xiao-hong Wu1.
Abstract
The thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TIRADS) and Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology (BSRTC) have been used for interpretation of ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) results of thyroid nodules. BRAF(V600E) mutation analysis is a molecular tool in diagnosing thyroid carcinoma. Our objective was to compare the diagnostic value of these methods in differentiating high-risk thyroid nodules. Total 220 patients with high-risk thyroid nodules were recruited in this prospective study. They all underwent ultrasound, FNAC and BRAF(V600E) mutation analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of TIRADS were 73.1% and 88.4%. BSRTC had higher specificity (97.7%) and similar sensitivity (77.6%) compared with TIRADS. The sensitivity and specificity of BRAF(V600E) mutation (85.1%, 100%) were the highest. The combination of BSRTC and BRAF(V600E) mutation analysis significantly increased the efficiency, with 97.8% sensitivity, 97.7% specificity. In patients with BSRTC I-III, the mutation rate of BRAF(V600E) was 64.5% in nodules with TIRADS 4B compared with 8.4% in nodules with TIRADS 3 or 4A (P < 0.001). Our study indicated that combination of BSRTC and BRAF(V600E) mutation analysis bears a great value in differentiating high-risk thyroid nodules. The TIRADS is useful in selecting high-risk patients for FNAB and patients with BSRTC I-III for BRAF(V600E) mutation analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26597052 PMCID: PMC4657033 DOI: 10.1038/srep16927
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Clinical features of the study population.
| Features | Benign | Malignant | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 15 | 28 | 0.60 |
| Female | 71 | 106 | ||
| Age (year) | 48.78 ± 13.89 | 42.41 ± 12.94 | 0.002 | |
| Diameter (cm) | 1.66 ± 0.90 | 1.06 ± 0.58 | 0.000 | |
| FT3 (pmol/L) | 4.73 ± 0.63 | 4.90 ± 1.27 | 0.94 | |
| FT4 (pmol/L) | 16.06 ± 2.97 | 17.52 ± 4.75 | 0.04 | |
| TSH (mIU/L) | 2.43 ± 1.89 | 3.23 ± 9.75 | 0.62 | |
Data are presented as mean (SEM).
Correlation of TIRADS classifications and final diagnosis.
| TIRADSclassification | n | Surgery (%) | Benign | Malignant | Malignant Rate(95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 57 | 31.6 | 51 | 6 | 10.5 (4.0–21.5) |
| 4A | 55 | 67.3 | 25 | 30 | 54.5 (40.6–68.0) |
| 4B | 94 | 95.7 | 10 | 84 | 89.4 (81.3–94.8) |
| 5 | 14 | 100 | 0 | 14 | 100 (76.8–100.0) |
| Total | 220 | 72.3 | 86 | 134 | 60.9 (54.1–67.4) |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval.
Comparison of the diagnostic value of TIRADS, BSRTC and BRAFV600E mutation Analysis.
| Statistics | TIRADS | BSRTC | BRAFV600Emutation | TIRADS + BSRTC | BSRTC + BRAFV600Emutation | TIRADS + BSRTC + BRAFV600Emutation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (95% CI) | 73.1 (64.8–80.4) | 77.6 (69.6–84.4) | 85.1 (77.9–90.6) | 92.5 (86.7–96.4) | 97.8 (93.6–99.5) | 98.5 (94.7–99.8) |
| Specificity (95% CI) | 88.4 (79.7–94.3) | 97.7 (91.9–99.7) | 100.0 (95.8–100.0) | 86.1 (76.9–92.6) | 97.7 (91.9–99.7) | 86.1 (76.9–92.6) |
| PPV (95% CI) | 90.7 (83.6–95.5) | 98.1 (93.4–99.8) | 100.0 (96.8–100.0) | 91.2 (85.1–95.4) | 98.5 (94.7–99.8) | 91.7 (85.9–95.6) |
| NPV (95% CI) | 67.9 (58.3–76.4) | 73.7 (64.6–81.5) | 81.1 (72.3–88.1) | 88.1 (79.1–94.2) | 96.6 (90.2–99.3) | 97.4 (90.7–99.7) |
| AUC (95% CI) | 0.808 (0.749–0.857) | 0.876 (0.826–0.917) | 0.925 (0.882–0.956) | 0.893 (0.844–0.930) | 0.977 (0.948–0.993) | 0.923 (0.879–0.954) |
Abbreviations: PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; AUC, area under curve; CI, confidence interval.
Correlation of BSRTC categories with BRAFV600E mutation and final diagnosis.
| BSRTC categories | n (%) | Surgery (%) | BRAFV600Emutation (%) | Malignant | Malignant Rate(95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I (Nondiagnostic) | 43 (19.5) | 20 (46.5) | 10 (23.3) | 12 | 27.9 (13.3–43.7) |
| II (Benign) | 38 (17.3) | 12 (31.6) | 3 (7.9) | 3 | 7.9 (1.7–21.4) |
| III (AUS/FLUS) | 33 (15.0) | 21 (63.6) | 14 (42.4) | 15 | 45.5 (28.1–63.7) |
| IV (FN/SFN) | 4 (1.8) | 4 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 | 75.0 (19.4–99.4) |
| V (Suspicious for malignancy) | 65 (29.5) | 65 (100.0) | 55 (84.6) | 64 | 98.5 (91.7–100.0) |
| VI (Malignancy) | 37 (16.8) | 37 (100.0) | 32 (86.5) | 37 | 100.0 (90.5–100.0) |
Abbreviations: AUS/FLUS, atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance; FN/SFN, follicular neoplasm or suspicious for a follicular neoplasm; CI, confidence interval.
Correlation of TIRADS classification with BRAFV600E mutation and final diagnosis in BSRTC I-III categories.
| TIRADS | BSRTC I | BSRTC II | BSRTC III | BSRTC I-III | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | BRAFV600Emutation (%) | n | BRAFV600Emutation (%) | n | BRAFV600Emutation (%) | n | BRAFV600Emutation (%) | Malignancy (%) | |
| 3 | 19 | 2 (10.5) | 24 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 52 | 2 (3.8) | 2 (3.8) |
| 4A | 13 | 2 (15.3) | 8 | 0 | 10 | 3 (30.0) | 31 | 5 (16.1) | 7 (22.6) |
| 4B | 11 | 6 (54.5) | 6 | 3 (50.0) | 14 | 11 (78.6) | 31 | 20 (64.5) | 21 (67.7) |
| Total | 43 | 10 (23.3) | 38 | 3 (7.9) | 33 | 14 (42.4) | 114 | 27 (23.7) | 30 (26.3) |
Figure 1Diagram of the study group.