Xiao-Li Wu1, Jia-Rui Du2, Hui Wang2, Chun-Xiang Jin2, Guo-Qing Sui2, Dong-Yan Yang2, Yuan-Qiang Lin2, Qiang Luo2, Ping Fu2, He-Qun Li2, Deng-Ke Teng3. 1. Department of Ultrasound, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China. 2. Department of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China. 3. Department of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China. tengdke@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To compare the American College of Radiology (ACR) thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TIRADS) and American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines for thyroid nodules with regard to diagnostic performance and effectiveness at reducing the number of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsies and to preliminarily discuss the reasons for the differences and (2) to compare the diagnostic performance of the two guidelines in the subgroup of nodules <1 cm in diameter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the present study, 1000 thyroid nodules in 894 consecutive patients with final diagnoses were included; these thyroid nodules were investigated via FNA biopsies in our hospital. The ultrasound (US) features of the thyroid nodules were reviewed and stratified according to the categories defined by the ACR TIRADS and ATA guidelines. RESULTS: Compared with the ACR TIRADS guidelines, the ATA guidelines had a higher sensitivity (93.4% (P < 0.001)) and a larger negative predictive value (NPV) (85.3% (P= 0.034)). Compared with the ATA guidelines, the ACR TIRADS guidelines had a higher specificity (66.0% (P < 0.001)), a greater PPV (73.6% (P= 0.001)), and greater accuracy (75.5% (P= 0.017)). Compared with the ATA guidelines, the ACR TIRADS guidelines resulted in significantly fewer unnecessary FNA biopsies (P= 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that both the ACR TIRADS and ATA guidelines have unique strengths with regard to their diagnostic performance. In terms of reducing the number of FNA biopsies, the ACR TIRADS guidelines were superior to the ATA guidelines.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To compare the American College of Radiology (ACR) thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TIRADS) and American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines for thyroid nodules with regard to diagnostic performance and effectiveness at reducing the number of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsies and to preliminarily discuss the reasons for the differences and (2) to compare the diagnostic performance of the two guidelines in the subgroup of nodules <1 cm in diameter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the present study, 1000 thyroid nodules in 894 consecutive patients with final diagnoses were included; these thyroid nodules were investigated via FNA biopsies in our hospital. The ultrasound (US) features of the thyroid nodules were reviewed and stratified according to the categories defined by the ACR TIRADS and ATA guidelines. RESULTS: Compared with the ACR TIRADS guidelines, the ATA guidelines had a higher sensitivity (93.4% (P < 0.001)) and a larger negative predictive value (NPV) (85.3% (P= 0.034)). Compared with the ATA guidelines, the ACR TIRADS guidelines had a higher specificity (66.0% (P < 0.001)), a greater PPV (73.6% (P= 0.001)), and greater accuracy (75.5% (P= 0.017)). Compared with the ATA guidelines, the ACR TIRADS guidelines resulted in significantly fewer unnecessary FNA biopsies (P= 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that both the ACR TIRADS and ATA guidelines have unique strengths with regard to their diagnostic performance. In terms of reducing the number of FNA biopsies, the ACR TIRADS guidelines were superior to the ATA guidelines.
Authors: Edward G Grant; Franklin N Tessler; Jenny K Hoang; Jill E Langer; Michael D Beland; Lincoln L Berland; John J Cronan; Terry S Desser; Mary C Frates; Ulrike M Hamper; William D Middleton; Carl C Reading; Leslie M Scoutt; A Thomas Stavros; Sharlene A Teefey Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 5.532
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; 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: Whitney Sutton; Joseph K Canner; Lisa M Rooper; Jason D Prescott; Martha A Zeiger; Aarti Mathur Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 2.565