| Literature DB >> 30825007 |
Shufang Pei1,2, Shuzhen Cong1,2, Bin Zhang3, Changhong Liang4, Lu Zhang4, Juanjuan Liu2, Yuping Guo2, Shuixing Zhang5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid imaging reporting and data system category 4 (TI-RADS-4) nodules can be difficult using conventional ultrasound (US). This study aimed to evaluate whether multimodal ultrasound imaging can improve differentiation and characterization of benign and malignant TI-RADS-4 nodules.Entities:
Keywords: Multimodal ultrasound Imaging; Real-time elastography; Superb microvascular imaging; Thyroid nodule
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30825007 PMCID: PMC6525125 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-019-01397-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Clin Oncol ISSN: 1341-9625 Impact factor: 3.402
Fig. 1Images in a 43-year-old woman who underwent routine. A 12 mm left thyroid nodule (arrows) with solid, hypo or isoechogenicity, well defined margin, wider than tall shape, no calcification was found at conventional ultrasound and assessed as benign, ACR score of 4 and classified as TI-RADS category 4. A Type III was assigned at superb microvascular imaging. B A score of 3 was assigned at real-time elastography. This nodules was assessed as malignant at multimodal ultrasound imaging. This thyroid nodule was diagnosed as papillary thyroid carcinoma at surgery
Fig. 2Images in a 51-year-old man who underwent routine. A 7 mm left thyroid nodule (arrows) with solid, hypoechogenicity, irregularity margin, wider than tall shape, no calcification was found at conventional ultrasound and assessed as malignant, ACR score of 6 and classified as TI-RADS category 4. A Type II was assigned at superb microvascular imaging. B A score of 2 was assigned at real-time elastography. This nodules was assessed as benign at multimodal ultrasound imaging. This thyroid nodule was diagnosed as nodular goiter at surgery
Fig. 3Inclusion criteria for the study. FNA fine-needle aspiration, SMI superb microvascular imaging, RTE real-time elastography
US, SMI and RTE Features according to Malignant and Benign
| Feature | No. of benign nodules ( | No. of malignant nodules ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Components | 0.002 | ||
| Cystic ( | |||
| Sponge-like ( | |||
| Mixed ( | 15 (71.4) | 6 (28.6) | |
| Solid ( | 63 (36.0) | 112 (64.0) | |
| Echogenicity | < 0.001 | ||
| Anechogenicity ( | |||
| Iso- or hyperechogenicity ( | 11 (61.1) | 7 (36.8) | |
| Hypoechogenicity ( | 36 (58.1) | 26 (41.9) | |
| Marked hypoechogenicity ( | 31 (26.7) | 85 (73.3) | |
| Shape | 0.011 | ||
| Wider than tall ( | 54 (47.4) | 60 (52.6) | |
| Taller than wide ( | 24 (29.3) | 58 (70.7) | |
| Margin | 0.873 | ||
| Well defined ( | 14 (46.7) | 16 (53.3) | |
| Poorly defined ( | 57 (38.5) | 91 (61.5) | |
| Irregularity or lobuling ( | 2 (40.0) | 3 (60.0) | |
| Extracapsular spread ( | 5 (38.5) | 8 (61.5) | |
| Calcification | < 0.001 | ||
| No calcification ( | 44 (50.6) | 43 (49.4) | |
| Macrocalcification ( | 19 (63.3) | 11 (36.7) | |
| Peripheral calcification ( | 9 (100) | 0 (0) | |
| Microcalcification ( | 4 (7.0) | 53 (93.0) | |
| Macro + Microcalcification ( | 2 (15.4) | 11 (84.6) | |
| SMI | < 0.001 | ||
| I ( | 22 (81.5) | 5 (18.5) | |
| II ( | 44 (89.8) | 5 (10.2) | |
| III ( | 5 (5.2) | 92 (94.8) | |
| IV ( | 7 (30.4) | 16 (69.6) | |
| RTE | < 0.001 | ||
| 0 ( | |||
| 1 ( | 29 (100) | 0 (0) | |
| 2 ( | 37 (61.7) | 23 (38.3) | |
| 3 ( | 12 (11.9) | 89 (88.1) | |
| 4 ( | 0 (0) | 6 (100) |
Unless otherwise indicated, data are numbers of nodules, and numbers in parentheses are percentages
SMI superb microvascular imaging, RTE real-time elastography
*P values were calculated using generalized estimating equation analysis
Diagnostic performance of US, RTE and SMI in 196 Nodules in 170 Patients
| Methods | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) | FNR(%) | FPR(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | 65.25 | 69.23 | 66.84 | 34.75 | 30.77 |
| RTE | 80.51 | 84.62 | 82.14 | 19.49 | 15.38 |
| SMI | 77.97 | 93.59 | 84.18 | 22.03 | 6.41 |
| Multimodal | 94.08 | 87.18 | 91.33 | 6.93 | 12.82 |
FNR false negative rate, FPR false positive rate, SMI superb microvascular imaging, RTE real-time elastography, US conventional ultrasound
Fig. 4ROC curves of US, RTE and SMI in evaluating benign and malignant TI-RADS4 nodules. SM I superb microvascular imaging, RTE real-time elastography, US conventional ultrasound