Gary Gamme1, Tyler Parrington1, Edward Wiebe1, Sunita Ghosh1, Brendan Litt1, David C Williams1, Todd P W McMullen1. 1. From the Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. (Gamme, Williams, McMullen); the Department of Radiology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. (Wiebe); the Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. (Ghosh, McMullen); and the Department of Radiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont. (Litt).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography for thyroid nodules is one of the most common imaging tests performed in the general population. Details from ultrasound reports guide biopsies and surgery. This study quantifies the completeness of these reports based on Thyroid Imaging and Reporting System (TI-RADS) criteria and considers their utility in predicting malignant disease. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed ultrasound reports for 329 thyroidectomy patients and extracted data elements using the TI-RADS criteria: nodule size, echogenicity, margins, vascularity, solid/cystic composition and the presence or absence of microcalcifications and the halo sign. We assessed the reports to determine whether individual or multiple criteria were associated with malignancy. RESULTS: More than 97% of reports document nodule size; however, more than 90% of the reports noted only 3 or fewer of the 6 remaining TI-RADS criteria. The presence of microcalcifications was the most sensitive marker of malignancy (> 90%), whereas the documentation of irregular margins was the most specific indicator of malignancy (88%). Overall it was clear that microcalcifications, hypoechogenicity, irregular margins and solid nodules were significantly more likely to be found in malignant neoplasms; their absence predicted benign disease. Because so few reports consistently documented all criteria, the overall ability of thyroid ultrasonography to discriminate between lowerand higher-risk nodules is limited. CONCLUSION: Although the accuracy of thyroid ultrasonography is good, few ultrasound reports contain the necessary information, as defined by TI-RADS, to predict malignancy and guide management. When reported, microcalcifications and/or irregular margins are the best predictors of malignancy.
BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography for thyroid nodules is one of the most common imaging tests performed in the general population. Details from ultrasound reports guide biopsies and surgery. This study quantifies the completeness of these reports based on Thyroid Imaging and Reporting System (TI-RADS) criteria and considers their utility in predicting malignant disease. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed ultrasound reports for 329 thyroidectomy patients and extracted data elements using the TI-RADS criteria: nodule size, echogenicity, margins, vascularity, solid/cystic composition and the presence or absence of microcalcifications and the halo sign. We assessed the reports to determine whether individual or multiple criteria were associated with malignancy. RESULTS: More than 97% of reports document nodule size; however, more than 90% of the reports noted only 3 or fewer of the 6 remaining TI-RADS criteria. The presence of microcalcifications was the most sensitive marker of malignancy (> 90%), whereas the documentation of irregular margins was the most specific indicator of malignancy (88%). Overall it was clear that microcalcifications, hypoechogenicity, irregular margins and solid nodules were significantly more likely to be found in malignant neoplasms; their absence predicted benign disease. Because so few reports consistently documented all criteria, the overall ability of thyroid ultrasonography to discriminate between lowerand higher-risk nodules is limited. CONCLUSION: Although the accuracy of thyroid ultrasonography is good, few ultrasound reports contain the necessary information, as defined by TI-RADS, to predict malignancy and guide management. When reported, microcalcifications and/or irregular margins are the best predictors of malignancy.
Authors: Cari M Kitahara; Marjorie L McCullough; Silvia Franceschi; Sabina Rinaldi; Alicja Wolk; Gila Neta; Hans Olov Adami; Kristin Anderson; Gabriella Andreotti; Laura E Beane Freeman; Leslie Bernstein; Julie E Buring; Francoise Clavel-Chapelon; Lisa A De Roo; Yu-Tang Gao; J Michael Gaziano; Graham G Giles; Niclas Håkansson; Pamela L Horn-Ross; Vicki A Kirsh; Martha S Linet; Robert J MacInnis; Nicola Orsini; Yikyung Park; Alpa V Patel; Mark P Purdue; Elio Riboli; Kimberly Robien; Thomas Rohan; Dale P Sandler; Catherine Schairer; Arthur B Schneider; Howard D Sesso; Xiao-Ou Shu; Pramil N Singh; Piet A van den Brandt; Elizabeth Ward; Elisabete Weiderpass; Emily White; Yong-Bing Xiang; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Wei Zheng; Patricia Hartge; Amy Berrington de González Journal: Thyroid Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Elaine Lam; Nguyen Vy; Chris Bajdik; Scott S Strugnell; Blair Walker; Sam M Wiseman Journal: Expert Rev Anticancer Ther Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.512
Authors: Hee Jung Moon; Ji Min Sung; Eun-Kyung Kim; Jung Hyun Yoon; Ji Hyun Youk; Jin Young Kwak Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Caro E Sluijter; Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen; Henk-Jan van Slooten; Iris D Nagtegaal; Lucy I H Overbeek Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Muhammad I Saeed; Amal Ali Hassan; Muhammad Ejaz Butt; Khalid Ali Baniyaseen; Muhammad I Siddiqui; Neda M Bogari; Faisal A Al-Allaf; Mohiuddin M Taher Journal: J Clin Med Res Date: 2017-12-30
Authors: Gary R Ge; Rosa Laimes; Joseph Pinto; Jorge Guerrero; Himelda Chavez; Claudia Salazar; Roberto J Lavarello; Kevin J Parker Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-02-07