PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the distribution patterns of microcalcifications in thyroid cancers with benign cases. METHODS: In total, 358 patients having microcalcifications on ultrasonography were analysed. Microcalcifications were categorised according to the distribution patterns: (I) microcalcifications inside one (a) or more (b) suspected nodules, (II) microcalcifications not only inside but also surrounding a suspected single (a) or multiple (b) nodules, and (III) focal (a) or diffuse (b) microcalcifications in the absence of any suspected nodule. Differences in distribution patterns of microcalcifications in benign and malignant thyroid lesions were compared. RESULTS: We found that the distribution patterns of microcalcifications differed between malignant (n = 325) and benign lesions (n = 117) (X 2 = 9.926, p < 0.01). Benign lesions were classified as type Ia (66.7%), type Ib (29.1%) or type IIIa (4.3%). The specificity of type II and type IIIb in diagnosing malignant cases was 100%. Among malignant lesions, 172 locations were classified as type Ia, 106 as type Ib, 12 as type IIa, 7 as IIb, 7 as type IIIa and 19 as type IIIb. Accompanying Hashimoto thyroiditis was most frequent in type III (51.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Types II and IIIb are highly specific for cancer detection. Microcalcifications outside a nodule and those detected in the absence of any nodule should therefore be reviewed carefully in clinical practice. KEY POINTS: • A method to classify distribution patterns of thyroid microcalcifications is presented. • Distribution features of microcalcifications are useful for diagnosing thyroid cancers. • Microcalcifications outside a suspicious nodule are highly specific for thyroid cancers. • Microcalcifications without suspicious nodules should also alert the physician to thyroid cancers.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the distribution patterns of microcalcifications in thyroid cancers with benign cases. METHODS: In total, 358 patients having microcalcifications on ultrasonography were analysed. Microcalcifications were categorised according to the distribution patterns: (I) microcalcifications inside one (a) or more (b) suspected nodules, (II) microcalcifications not only inside but also surrounding a suspected single (a) or multiple (b) nodules, and (III) focal (a) or diffuse (b) microcalcifications in the absence of any suspected nodule. Differences in distribution patterns of microcalcifications in benign and malignant thyroid lesions were compared. RESULTS: We found that the distribution patterns of microcalcifications differed between malignant (n = 325) and benign lesions (n = 117) (X 2 = 9.926, p < 0.01). Benign lesions were classified as type Ia (66.7%), type Ib (29.1%) or type IIIa (4.3%). The specificity of type II and type IIIb in diagnosing malignant cases was 100%. Among malignant lesions, 172 locations were classified as type Ia, 106 as type Ib, 12 as type IIa, 7 as IIb, 7 as type IIIa and 19 as type IIIb. Accompanying Hashimoto thyroiditis was most frequent in type III (51.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Types II and IIIb are highly specific for cancer detection. Microcalcifications outside a nodule and those detected in the absence of any nodule should therefore be reviewed carefully in clinical practice. KEY POINTS: • A method to classify distribution patterns of thyroid microcalcifications is presented. • Distribution features of microcalcifications are useful for diagnosing thyroid cancers. • Microcalcifications outside a suspicious nodule are highly specific for thyroid cancers. • Microcalcifications without suspicious nodules should also alert the physician to thyroid cancers.
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: Jin Young Kwak; Eun-Kyung Kim; Eun Ju Son; Min Jung Kim; Ki Keun Oh; Ji Young Kim; Kwang Il Kim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.959