| Literature DB >> 30402095 |
Jing Hang1, Fan Li2, Xiao-Hui Qiao2, Xin-Hua Ye1, Ao Li1, Lian-Fang Du2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present study is aimed at evaluating the diagnostic value of combining shear wave elastography (SWE) parameters and the thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TIRADS) for differentiating between benign and malignant thyroid nodules.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30402095 PMCID: PMC6198550 DOI: 10.1155/2018/4923050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Endocrinol ISSN: 1687-8337 Impact factor: 3.257
Figure 1Thyroid follicular adenoma in a 52-year-old woman. (a) Conventional US image represents isoechoic, well-defined margins and without microcalcification. 2D-SWE mapping shows a homogeneous blue pattern indicative of a low Young's modulus. (b) Histological imaging was performed for verification after surgery; HE, 40x magnification.
Figure 2Thyroid papillary carcinoma in a 56-year-old woman. (a) Conventional US image represents a very hypoechoic, solid, and extrathyroidal extension. 2D-SWE mapping shows yellow and red areas indicative of a high Young's modulus. (b) Histological imaging was performed for verification after surgery; HE, 40x magnification.
Pathological distribution of 298 thyroid nodules.
| Pathological results | Number |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Papillary carcinoma | 175 |
| Medullar carcinoma | 2 |
| Total | 177 |
|
| |
| Nodular goiter | 45 |
| Adenoma | 68 |
| Hashimoto's thyroiditis | 5 |
| Focal thyroiditis | 3 |
| Total | 121 |
| Overall total | 298 |
Conventional US features for differentiating thyroid lesions.
| US features | Benign | Malignant |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Composition | |||
| Cystic or spongiform | 3 | 0 | <0.001 |
| Mixed | 8 | 0 | |
| Solid | 110 | 177 | |
| Echogenicity | <0.001 | ||
| Anechoic | 3 | 0 | |
| Isoechoic or hyperechoic | 46 | 18 | |
| Hypoechoic | 70 | 137 | |
| Very hypoechoic | 2 | 22 | |
| Shape | <0.001 | ||
| Wider than taller | 115 | 138 | |
| Taller than wider | 6 | 39 | |
| Margin | <0.001 | ||
| Smooth or ill defined | 95 | 35 | |
| Lobulated or irregular | 24 | 99 | |
| Extrathyroidal extension | 2 | 43 | |
| Echogenic foci | <0.001 | ||
| No echogenic foci | 71 | 62 | |
| Large comet-tail artifacts | 29 | 2 | |
| Macrocalcifications | 8 | 5 | |
| Peripheral (rim) calcifications | 2 | 8 | |
| Punctate echogenic foci | 11 | 100 |
Malignancy rate for the TIRADS scoring system.
| Risk score | Total | Benign | Malignant | Malignancy rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 29 | 27 | 2 | 6.9 |
| 4 | 56 | 42 | 14 | 25.0 |
| 5 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 18.2 |
| 6 | 42 | 15 | 27 | 64.3 |
| 7 | 29 | 10 | 19 | 65.5 |
| 8 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 83.3 |
| 9 | 66 | 6 | 60 | 90.9 |
| ≥10 | 48 | 0 | 48 | 100 |
| Total | 298 | 121 | 177 | 59.4 |
SWE parameters for differentiating thyroid lesions.
| Benign (kPa) | Malignant (kPa) |
| Odds ratio | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 22.5 ± 9.4 | 31.1 ± 10.5 | 0.049 | 1.014 | 0.961–1.069 |
|
| 49.6 ± 25.5 | 78.7 ± 41.1 | 0.001 | 1.520 | 1.021–2.132 |
|
| 2.68 ± 3.30 | 3.42 ± 2.08 | 0.742 |
Figure 3Statistical analysis curve of Emax. (a) Normal frequency distribution histogram on Emax. (b) Log-normal frequency distribution curve on Emax of benign lesions. (c) Log-normal frequency distribution curve on Emax of malignant lesions. (d) Probability density function curve and the expected values for benign and malignant nodules based on the logarithmic normal distribution.
Statistical results of Emax in benign and malignant thyroid nodules.
| No. | Distribution range (kPa) | Expected values | Variance yields | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Maximum | Log ( |
| |||
| Benign | 121 | 18.0 | 177.8 | 3.812 | 45.2 | 0.4297 |
| Malignant | 177 | 22.8 | 278.5 | 4.225 | 69.1 | 0.4465 |
Pathological distribution of 298 thyroid nodules based on Emax scores.
|
| Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 45 kPa ≤ | 69 kPa ≤ |
| ||
| Benign | 65 | 38 | 15 | 3 | 121 |
| Malignant | 26 | 61 | 71 | 19 | 177 |
| Malignancy rate (%) | 28.6 | 61.6 | 82.6 | 86.4 | 298 |
Distribution of 298 thyroid lesions based on SWE + TIRADS scores.
| Risk score | Benign | Malignant | Total | Malignancy rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| 4 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 0 |
| 5 | 41 | 6 | 47 | 12.8 |
| 6 | 21 | 8 | 29 | 27.6 |
| 7 | 14 | 7 | 21 | 33.3 |
| 8 | 11 | 11 | 22 | 50.0 |
| 9 | 4 | 21 | 25 | 84.0 |
| 10 | 6 | 17 | 23 | 73.9 |
| 11 | 3 | 31 | 34 | 91.2 |
| 12 | 1 | 37 | 38 | 97.4 |
| ≥13 | 0 | 39 | 39 | 100 |
| Total | 121 | 177 | 298 | 59.4 |
Figure 4ROC curves of TIRADS and SWE + TIRADS score risk.
Diagnostic performance of TIRADS and SWE + TIRADS scores.
| AUC | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TIRADS score (cutoff > 5) | 0.896 | 89.8 | 73.6 | 83.2 | 83.2 | 83.2 |
| SWE + TIRADS score (cutoff > 8) | 0.917 | 81.9 | 88.4 | 91.2 | 77.0 | 84.2 |