R M Singaporewalla1, J Hwee2, T U Lang3, V Desai3. 1. Endocrine Surgical Service, Department of Surgery, Khoo Teck Puat Hospitial, 90 Yishun Central, Singapore, 768828, Singapore. reyaz.singaporewalla@alexandrahealth.com.sg. 2. Endocrine Surgical Service, Department of Surgery, Khoo Teck Puat Hospitial, 90 Yishun Central, Singapore, 768828, Singapore. 3. Division of Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, 90 Yishun Central, Singapore, 768828, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinico-pathological correlation of thyroid nodules is not routinely performed as until recently there was no objective classification system for reporting thyroid nodules on ultrasound. We compared the Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TIRADS) of classifying thyroid nodules on ultrasound with the findings on fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) reported using the Bethesda System. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive cases over 1 year (Jan-Dec 2015) was performed comparing single-surgeon-performed bedside thyroid nodule ultrasound findings based on the TIRADS classification to the FNAC report based on the Bethesda Classification. TIRADS 1 (normal thyroid gland) and biopsy-proven malignancy referred by other clinicians were excluded. Benign-appearing nodules were reported as TIRADS 2 and 3. Indeterminate or suspected follicular lesions were reported as TIRADS 4, and malignant-appearing nodules were classified as TIRADS 5 during surgeon-performed bedside ultrasound. All the nodules were subjected to ultrasound-guided FNAC, and TIRADS findings were compared to Bethesda FNAC Classification. RESULTS: Of the 100 cases, 74 were considered benign or probably benign, 20 were suspicious for malignancy, and 6 were indeterminate on ultrasound. Overall concordance rate with FNAC was 83% with sensitivity and specificity of 70.6 and 90.4%, respectively. The negative predictive value was 93.8%. CONCLUSION: It is essential for clinicians performing bedside ultrasound thyroid and guided FNAC to document their sonographic impression of the nodule in an objective fashion using the TIRADS classification and correlate with the gold standard cytology to improve their learning curve and audit their results.
BACKGROUND: Clinico-pathological correlation of thyroid nodules is not routinely performed as until recently there was no objective classification system for reporting thyroid nodules on ultrasound. We compared the Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TIRADS) of classifying thyroid nodules on ultrasound with the findings on fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) reported using the Bethesda System. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive cases over 1 year (Jan-Dec 2015) was performed comparing single-surgeon-performed bedside thyroid nodule ultrasound findings based on the TIRADS classification to the FNAC report based on the Bethesda Classification. TIRADS 1 (normal thyroid gland) and biopsy-proven malignancy referred by other clinicians were excluded. Benign-appearing nodules were reported as TIRADS 2 and 3. Indeterminate or suspected follicular lesions were reported as TIRADS 4, and malignant-appearing nodules were classified as TIRADS 5 during surgeon-performed bedside ultrasound. All the nodules were subjected to ultrasound-guided FNAC, and TIRADS findings were compared to Bethesda FNAC Classification. RESULTS: Of the 100 cases, 74 were considered benign or probably benign, 20 were suspicious for malignancy, and 6 were indeterminate on ultrasound. Overall concordance rate with FNAC was 83% with sensitivity and specificity of 70.6 and 90.4%, respectively. The negative predictive value was 93.8%. CONCLUSION: It is essential for clinicians performing bedside ultrasound thyroid and guided FNAC to document their sonographic impression of the nodule in an objective fashion using the TIRADS classification and correlate with the gold standard cytology to improve their learning curve and audit their results.
Authors: Edward G Grant; Franklin N Tessler; Jenny K Hoang; Jill E Langer; Michael D Beland; Lincoln L Berland; John J Cronan; Terry S Desser; Mary C Frates; Ulrike M Hamper; William D Middleton; Carl C Reading; Leslie M Scoutt; A Thomas Stavros; Sharlene A Teefey Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Berta M Geller; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Virginia L Ernster; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Edward A Sickles; Patricia A Carney; Mark B Dignan; Robert D Rosenberg; Nicole Urban; Yingye Zheng; Stephen H Taplin Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sujata V Ghate; Jay A Baker; Connie E Kim; Karen S Johnson; Ruth Walsh; Mary Scott C Soo Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jin Young Kwak; Kyung Hwa Han; Jung Hyun Yoon; Hee Jung Moon; Eun Ju Son; So Hee Park; Hyun Kyung Jung; Ji Soo Choi; Bo Mi Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anuradha Chandramohan; Abhishek Khurana; B T Pushpa; Marie Therese Manipadam; Dukhabandhu Naik; Nihal Thomas; Deepak Abraham; Mazhuvanchary Jacob Paul Journal: Indian J Radiol Imaging Date: 2016 Jan-Mar
Authors: M Naren Satya Srinivas; V N Amogh; Munnangi Satya Gautam; Ivvala Sai Prathyusha; N R Vikram; M Kamala Retnam; B V Balakrishna; Narendranath Kudva Journal: J Clin Imaging Sci Date: 2016-02-26
Authors: Zeyad T Sahli; Farah Karipineni; Jen-Fan Hang; Joseph K Canner; Aarti Mathur; Jason D Prescott; Sheila Sheth; Syed Z Ali; Martha A Zeiger Journal: Surgery Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Marceline W Piek; Lisa H de Vries; Maarten L Donswijk; Bart de Keizer; Jan Paul de Boer; Lutske Lodewijk; Rachel S van Leeuwaarde; Menno R Vriens; Koen J Hartemink; Iris M C van der Ploeg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 10.057