| Literature DB >> 32225078 |
Andreea Borlea1, Florin Borcan2, Ioan Sporea1, Cristina Adriana Dehelean2, Romeo Negrea3, Laura Cotoi1, Dana Stoian1.
Abstract
Given the increased prevalence of thyroid nodules in the general population (~50%), the real challenge resides in correctly recognizing the suspicious ones. This study proposes to compare four important Thyroid Imaging and Reporting Data Systems (TI-RADS) and evaluate the contribution of elastography and 4D Color Doppler assessment of vascularity in estimating the risk of malignancy. In the study, 133 nodules with histopathological examination were included. Of these, 35 (26.31%) proved to be malignant. All nodules were classified using the four selected systems and our proposed improved score. The American College of Radiology (ACR) and EU TI-RADS had good sensitivity (94.28%, 97.14%) and NPV (93.33%, 95.83%), but fairly poor specificity (31.81%, 23.46%) and PPV (35.48%, 31.19%), with an accuracy of 42.8% and 45.8%, respectively. Horvath TI-RADS had better accuracy of 66.9% and somewhat improved specificity (62.24%), but poorer sensitivity (80%). Russ' French TI-RADS includes elastography in the risk assessment strategy. This classification proved superior in all aspects (Se: 91.42%, Sp:82.65%, NPV:96.42%, PPV:65.30%, and Acc of 84.96%). The mean strain ratio (SR) value for malignant lesions was 5.56, while the mean SR value for benign ones was significantly lower, 2.54 (p < 0.05). It also correlated well with the response variable: histopathological result (p < 0.001). Although, adding 4D vascularity to the French score generated a similar calculated accuracy and from a statistical point of view, the parameter itself proved beneficial for predicting the malignancy risk (p < 0.001) and may add important knowledge in uncertain situations. Advanced ultrasound techniques definitely improved the risk estimation and should be used more extensively.Entities:
Keywords: 4D Color Doppler; TI-RADS; elastography; malignancy risk; stratification; thyroid nodule; vascularity
Year: 2020 PMID: 32225078 PMCID: PMC7235757 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10040180
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Comparative US Classification of Nodules used in the study: European Thyroid Imaging and Reporting Data System (TI-RADS) versus American College of Radiology (ACR) TI-RADS (2016) versus Horvath TI-RADS (2009) versus French TI-RADS.
| Category | EU-TIRADS | ACR TIRADS * | Horvath TIRADS | French TIRADS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No nodules. | Score = 0 | No nodules. | No nodules. |
| 2 | Cyst/Spongiform. | Score = 2 | Colloid/spongiform/Mixed isoechoic. | Cyst/Isolated macrocalcification/Spongiform |
| 3 | Oval, smooth margins, | Score = 3 | Hashimoto pseudo-nodule. | Oval, regular margins, iso/hyperechoic |
| 4 | Oval, smooth margins, | Score = 4–6 | 4A: Hyper, iso, or hypoechoic nodule + thin capsule Hypoechoic, ill-defined borders, no calcifications Hypervascularized, nodule with thick capsule and calcifications. | 4A: |
| 4B: | 4B: Taller-than-wide Irregular margins Marked hypoechoic Microcalcifications Stiff on elastography | |||
| 5 | Suspicious features (min 1): | Score ≥ 7 |
Iso/hypoechoic, nonencapsulated multiple peripheral microcalcifications hypervascular Nonencapsulated, isoechoic mixed, hypervascular ± calcifications | High suspicion features (3–5) |
* For the ACR TI-RADS, a cumulative score from five categories of ultrasound findings is determined (composition, echogenicity, shape, margins and presence of echogenic foci).
Comparative US Classification of Nodules: Categories for each scoring system with the expected malignancy risk for each category.
| EU-TIRADS | ACR-TIRADS | Horvath TIRADS | French TIRADS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal gland | 1 | - | 1 | - | 1 | - | ||
| Benign | 2 | ~0% | 1 | 0.3% | 2 | 0% | 2 | 0% |
| Not suspicious | 2 | 1.5% | 3 | <5% | 3 | 0.25% | ||
| Mildly suspicious | 3 | 2% to 4% | 3 | 4.8% | 4A | 5–10% | 4A | 6% |
| Moderately suspicious | 4 | 6–17% | 4 | 9.1% | 4B | 10–80% | 4B | 69% |
| Highly suspicious | 5 | 26–87% | 5 | 35% | 5 | >80% | 5 | ~100% |
| Biopsy-proven malignancy | 6 | 100% | ||||||
Figure 1(a) Follicular neoplasia with no endothelial invasion, US low risk; (b) Noninvasive follicular neoplasia, intermediate US risk; (c) Hurthle cell carcinoma—high US risk; (d) Follicular adenoma—high US risk.
Figure 2(a) Risk upgrade: Strain elastography + 4D vascularisation; (b) 4D Color Doppler Risk upgrade: Intermediate -> High.
Proposed algorithm for US classification of thyroid nodules, including Volumetric Color Doppler evaluation. Adapted from French TI-RADS, Russ, 2016 [21].
| Category | French TIRADS + 4D Color Doppler |
|---|---|
| 1 | No nodules |
| 2 | Cyst/Isolated macrocalcification/Spongiform |
| 3 | Oval, regular margins, iso/hyperechoic |
| 4A | Oval, regular margins, mild hypoechoic |
| 4B | High suspicion features (1 or 2): Taller-than-wide Irregular margins Marked hypoechoic Microcalcifications Stiff on elastography Increased intranodular vascularity/interrupted capsule (3D CD assessment) |
| 5 | High suspicion features (3–6) |
Prevalence of suspicious features in benign and malignant groups.
| US Characteristic | Benign | Malignant |
|---|---|---|
| Blurred margins | 28 (28.57%) | 13 (37%) |
| Microcalcification | 9 (9.1%) | 11 (31.4%) |
| Marked Hypoechoic | 3 (3.06%) | 9 (25.7%) |
| Taller-than-wide | 15 (15.3%) | 15 (42.8%) |
| SR (>4) | 12 (12.24%) | 28 (80%) |
| 4D: increased intranodular Vascularity/interrupted capsule | 14 (14.28%) | 23 (65%) |
Comparison of TI-RADS scores: Histopathological findings in the study group for each category and calculated malignancy risk for each model.
| Total | Benign | Malignant | Calculated Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 2 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 3 | 18 | 17 | 1 | 5.55% |
| 4 | 68 | 56 | 12 | 17.6% |
| 5 | 41 | 19 | 22 | 53% |
|
| ||||
| 1 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| 2 | 25 | 23 | 2 | 8% |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - |
| 4 | 64 | 48 | 16 | 25% |
| 5 | 39 | 22 | 17 | 43.58% |
|
| ||||
| 2 | 19 | 18 | 1 | 5.26% |
| 3 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| 4A | 44 | 38 | 6 | 13.63% |
| 4B | 36 | 24 | 12 | 33.33% |
| 5 | 29 | 13 | 16 | 55.17% |
|
| ||||
| 2 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 3 | 19 | 19 | 0 | 0% |
| 4A | 59 | 56 | 3 | 5.08% |
| 4B | 27 | 13 | 14 | 51.85% |
| 5 | 22 | 4 | 18 | 81.8% |
|
| ||||
| 2 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 3 | 19 | 19 | 0 | 0% |
| 4A | 51 | 49 | 2 | 3.92% |
| 4B | 32 | 20 | 12 | 37.5% |
| 5 | 25 | 4 | 21 | 84% |
Compared Diagnostic Quality: sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy for the proposed TI-RADS scores.
| Se (%) | Sp (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EU TI-RADS | 97.14 | 23.46 | 31.19 | 95.83 | 42.85 |
| ACR TI-RADS | 94.28 | 31.81 | 35.48 | 93.33 | 45.86 |
| Horvath TI-RADS | 80 | 62.24 | 43.07 | 89.70 | 66.91 |
| French TI-RADS | 91.42 | 82.65 | 65.30 | 96.42 | 84.96 |
| French TI-RADS + 4D | 94.28 | 75.51 | 57.89 | 97.36 | 80.45 |
Correlation matrix of the variables.
|
| 1 | ||||||
|
| 0.3323610 | 1 | |||||
|
| 0.1252548 | 0.4548725 | 1 | ||||
|
| 0.2269876 | 0.1558775 | 0.1612967 | 1 | |||
|
| 0.2737142 | 0.4801859 | 0.4121376 | 0.3612075 | 1 | ||
|
| 0.3885093 | 0.3871947 | 0.3494646 | 0.4956183 | 0.6428621 | 1 | |
|
| 0.2902722 | 0.3481694 | 0.2740459 | 0.5053765 | 0.6506053 | 0.5531696 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |