Jing-Liang Ruan1,2, Hai-Yun Yang1,2, Rong-Bin Liu1,2, Ming Liang1,2, Ping Han2,3, Xiao-Lin Xu4,5, Bao-Ming Luo6,7. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 107 Yanjiang Road West, Guangzhou, 510120, China. 2. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, China. 3. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, China. 4. Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 107 Yanjiang Road West, Guangzhou, 510120, China. xuxiaolin@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 5. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, China. xuxiaolin@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 6. Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 107 Yanjiang Road West, Guangzhou, 510120, China. luobm@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 7. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, China. luobm@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aim to compare the diagnostic performance to assess thyroid nodules and reliability for recommending fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) between American College of Radiology thyroid image reporting and data system (ACR TI-RADS) and American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines. METHODS: In total, this retrospective study included 1001 consecutive thyroid nodules in 918 patients from May 2016 to December 2017. US features of the thyroid nodules, including composition, echogenicity, shape, margins, echogenic foci, and size, were reviewed and were classified according to ACR TI-RADS and ATA guidelines, respectively. The diagnostic performance to assess thyroid nodules and reliability for recommending fine needle aspiration biopsy were compared between ACR TI-RADS and ATA guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 1001 thyroid nodules, 609 (60.8%) were benign and 392 (39.2%) were malignant. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 96.7%, 77.3%, 73.3%, 97.3%, and 84.9%, respectively, for ACR TI-RADS and 99.2%, 16.1%, 43.2%, 97.0%, and 48.7%, respectively, for ATA guidelines. AUC of ACR TI-RADS was significantly greater than ATA guidelines (0.935 (0.918, 0.949) vs 0.884 (0.862, 0.903), p < 0.001). Biopsy yield of malignancy, biopsy rate of malignancy, and unnecessary FNAB rate were 59.5%, 91.3%, and 40.5%, respectively, for ACR TI-RDS and 38.5%, 97.4%, and 61.5%, respectively, for ATA guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: ACR TI-RADS was more accurate than ATA guidelines for differentiating malignant thyroid nodules from benign nodules and more reliable than ATA guidelines for recommending thyroid nodules for FNAB. KEY POINTS: • Malignant risk of thyroid nodules can be stratified by ultrasound. • American College of Radiology guidelines were more accurate for differentiating malignant thyroid nodules from benign nodules. • American College of Radiology guidelines were more reliable for recommending thyroid nodules for biopsy.
OBJECTIVES: We aim to compare the diagnostic performance to assess thyroid nodules and reliability for recommending fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) between American College of Radiology thyroid image reporting and data system (ACR TI-RADS) and American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines. METHODS: In total, this retrospective study included 1001 consecutive thyroid nodules in 918 patients from May 2016 to December 2017. US features of the thyroid nodules, including composition, echogenicity, shape, margins, echogenic foci, and size, were reviewed and were classified according to ACR TI-RADS and ATA guidelines, respectively. The diagnostic performance to assess thyroid nodules and reliability for recommending fine needle aspiration biopsy were compared between ACR TI-RADS and ATA guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 1001 thyroid nodules, 609 (60.8%) were benign and 392 (39.2%) were malignant. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 96.7%, 77.3%, 73.3%, 97.3%, and 84.9%, respectively, for ACR TI-RADS and 99.2%, 16.1%, 43.2%, 97.0%, and 48.7%, respectively, for ATA guidelines. AUC of ACR TI-RADS was significantly greater than ATA guidelines (0.935 (0.918, 0.949) vs 0.884 (0.862, 0.903), p < 0.001). Biopsy yield of malignancy, biopsy rate of malignancy, and unnecessary FNAB rate were 59.5%, 91.3%, and 40.5%, respectively, for ACR TI-RDS and 38.5%, 97.4%, and 61.5%, respectively, for ATA guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: ACR TI-RADS was more accurate than ATA guidelines for differentiating malignant thyroid nodules from benign nodules and more reliable than ATA guidelines for recommending thyroid nodules for FNAB. KEY POINTS: • Malignant risk of thyroid nodules can be stratified by ultrasound. • American College of Radiology guidelines were more accurate for differentiating malignant thyroid nodules from benign nodules. • American College of Radiology guidelines were more reliable for recommending thyroid nodules for biopsy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biopsy; Guidelines; Fine needle aspiration biopsy; Thyroid nodules; Ultrasound
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: Bryan R Haugen; Erik K Alexander; Keith C Bible; Gerard M Doherty; Susan J Mandel; Yuri E Nikiforov; Furio Pacini; Gregory W Randolph; Anna M Sawka; Martin Schlumberger; Kathryn G Schuff; Steven I Sherman; Julie Ann Sosa; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle; Leonard Wartofsky Journal: Thyroid Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Carrie C Lubitz; Chung Y Kong; Pamela M McMahon; Gilbert H Daniels; Yufei Chen; Konstantinos P Economopoulos; G Scott Gazelle; Milton C Weinstein Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Xavier M Keutgen; Hui Li; Kelvin Memeh; Julian Conn Busch; Jelani Williams; Li Lan; David Sarne; Brendan Finnerty; Peter Angelos; Thomas J Fahey; Maryellen L Giger Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Luis-Mauricio Hurtado-Lopez; Alfredo Carrillo-Muñoz; Felipe-Rafael Zaldivar-Ramirez; Erich Otto Paul Basurto-Kuba; Blanca-Estela Monroy-Lozano Journal: World J Methodol Date: 2022-05-20