| Literature DB >> 27716452 |
Kwang Hwi Lee1,2, Dong Wook Kim3, Jin Wook Baek4, Yoo Jin Lee4, Hye Jung Choo4, Young Jun Cho4, Sun Joo Lee4, Young Mi Park4, Soo Jin Jung5, Hye Jin Baek6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, appropriate management for Bethesda IV thyroid nodules is controversial, and no specific features of follicular neoplasm and nodular hyperplasia on ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), or other imaging modalities have been reported. This study aimed to compare CT features of follicular neoplasm and nodular hyperplasia and to determine the specific CT features that could be used to distinguish follicular neoplasm from nodular hyperplasia.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography; Follicular neoplasm; Nodular hyperplasia; Thyroid; Thyroid nodule
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27716452 PMCID: PMC5048647 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-016-0089-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Univariate logistic regression analysis of computed tomography features of nodular hyperplasia and follicular neoplasm
| CT features | Nodular hyperplasia ( | Follicular neoplasm ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Degree of attenuation | |||
| no visualization | 5 (7.7 %) | 0 (0 %) | <0.001 |
| low | 44 (67.7 %) | 57 (96.6 %) | |
| iso- | 15 (23.1 %) | 1 (1.7 %) | |
| high | 1 (1.5 %) | 1 (1.7 %) | |
| Pattern of attenuation | |||
| homogeneous | 25 (38.4 %) | 19 (32.2 %) | 0.466 |
| inhomogeneous | 40 (61.6 %) | 40 (67.8 %) | |
| Configuration | |||
| intraglandular | 41 (63.1 %) | 21 (35.6 %) | 0.003 |
| expansile | 18 (27.7 %) | 34 (57.6 %) | |
| exophytic | 6 (9.2 %) | 4 (6.8 %) | |
| Margin | |||
| smooth | 42 (64.7 %) | 34 (57.6 %) | 0.023 |
| irregular | 1 (1.5 %) | 0 (0 %) | |
| lobulated | 16 (24.6 %) | 25 (42.4 %) | |
| poorly defined | 6 (9.2 %) | 0 (0 %) | |
| Shape | |||
| ovoid | 26 (40 %) | 10 (16.9 %) | 0.008 |
| round | 29 (44.6 %) | 30 (50.9 %) | |
| taller-than-wide | 10 (15.4 %) | 19 (32.2 %) | |
| Calcifications | |||
| none | 59 (90.8 %) | 48 (81.3 %) | 0.186 |
| rim (eggshell) | 1 (1.5 %) | 2 (3.4 %) | |
| nodular | 2 (3.1 %) | 6 (10.2 %) | |
| punctate | 2 (3.1 %) | 0 (0 %) | |
| mixed* | 1 (1.5 %) | 3 (5.1 %) | |
| Degree of enhancement | |||
| no/scant | 4 (6.2 %) | 0 (0 %) | < 0.001 |
| decreased | 29 (44.5 %) | 18 (30.5 %) | |
| iso- | 25 (38.5 %) | 15 (25.4 %) | |
| increased | 7 (10.8 %) | 26 (44.1 %) | |
| Pattern of enhancement | |||
| homogeneous | 13 (20 %) | 4 (6.8 %) | 0.06 |
| inhomogeneous | 52 (80 %) | 55 (93.2 %) | |
| CT halo sign | |||
| absent | 54 (83.1 %) | 17 (28.8 %) | < 0.001 |
| present | 11 (16.9 %) | 42 (71.2 %) | |
Note. — *, ‘Mixed’ means punctate plus nodular calcifications. Data are number of items, with percentage in parentheses. CT computed tomography
Fig. 1A 51-year-old woman with follicular adenoma in the left thyroid lobe (largest diameter, 1.9 cm). In non-enhanced (a) and contrast-enhanced (b) axial CT images, follicular adenoma (arrows) in the left thyroid lobe shows homogeneous low attenuation, mildly expansile configuration, taller-than-wide shape, inhomogeneous and increased enhancement, and presence of the CT halo sign (arrowheads)
Fig. 2A 62-year-old man with nodular hyperplasia in the left thyroid lobe (largest diameter, 3.5 cm). In non-enhanced (a) and contrast-enhanced (b) axial CT images, nodular hyperplasia (arrows) in the left thyroid lobe shows inhomogeneous iso-attenuation, ovoid shape, homogeneous iso-enhancement, and absence of the CT halo sign
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of computed tomography features for distinguishing follicular neoplasm from nodular hyperplasia
| CT features | Odds Ratio* |
|
|---|---|---|
| Type of attenuation | 0.40 (0.11, 1.40) | 0.149 |
| Pattern of attenuation | 0.58 (0.20, 1.72) | 0.328 |
| Configuration | 2.73 (1.13, 6.57) | 0.026 |
| Margin | 0.72 (0.43,1.22) | 0.224 |
| Shape | 1.88 (0.89, 3.98) | 0.098 |
| Calcifications | 1.44 (0.90. 2.23) | 0.128 |
| Degree of enhancement | 2.14 (1.21, 3.78) | 0.009 |
| Pattern of enhancement | 1.95 (0.422, 3.02) | 0.393 |
| CT halo sign | 7.97 (2.74, 23.37) | < 0.001 |
Note. — *, Numbers in parentheses are 95 % confidence intervals. CT computed tomography
Diagnostic performance of computed tomography features for distinguishing follicular neoplasm from nodular hyperplasia
| CT features | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degree of attenuation | 96.6 | 24.6 | 53.8 | 88.9 | 0.567 | 0.058 |
| Pattern of attenuation | 67.8 | 38.5 | 50 | 56.8 | 0.531 | 0.469 |
| Configuration | 64.4 | 63.1 | 61.3 | 66.1 | 0.620 | 0.009 |
| Margin | 0 | 90.8 | 0 | 50 | 0.519 | 0.679 |
| Shape | 83.1 | 40 | 55.7 | 72.2 | 0.68 | 0.001 |
| Calcifications | 18.6 | 90.8 | 64.7 | 55.1 | 0.546 | 0.142 |
| Degree of enhancement | 44.1 | 89.2 | 78.8 | 63.7 | 0.682 | < 0.001 |
| Pattern of enhancement | 93.2 | 20 | 51.4 | 76.5 | 0.559 | 0.058 |
| Presence of CT halo sign | 71.2 | 83.1 | 79.2 | 76.1 | 0.771 | < 0.001 |
Note. — *, A means the largest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. CT computed tomography, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value