| Literature DB >> 32395539 |
Hai-Na Zhao1, Jing-Yan Liu1, Qi-Zhong Lin2, Yu-Shuang He1, Hong-Hao Luo1, Yu-Lan Peng1, Bu-Yun Ma1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thyroid carcinoma constitutes the vast majority of all thyroid cancer, most of which is the solid nodule type. No previous studies have examined combining both conventional and elastic sonography to evaluate the diagnostic performance of partially cystic thyroid cancer (PCTC). This retrospective study was designed to evaluate differentiation of PCTC from benign partially cystic nodules with a machine learning-assisted system based on ultrasound (US) and elastography.Entities:
Keywords: Partially cystic nodule; elastography; machine learning; thyroid
Year: 2020 PMID: 32395539 PMCID: PMC7210215 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2020.03.211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Figure 1A mixed echoic nodule with petaloid shape and without calcification. The image shows the solid portion displaying small clusters with scalloped margins, projecting into multiple small cysts arranged completely around the solid element. Papillary carcinoma was diagnosed after surgery.
Figure 2A mixed echoic nodule with papillary shape. The image shows the solid portion is abutted on the side of the cyst wall. Papillary carcinoma was diagnosed after surgery.
Figure 3Flow diagram summarizing inclusion of thyroid nodules. RTE, real-time elastography; FNA, fine-needle aspiration.
US and ES features of partially cystic nodules
| US features | Malignant nodules | Benign nodules | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean size (mm) | 20.0 | 23.4 | 0.395 |
| Age (years) | 41.9 | 47.9 | <0.0001 |
| Sex (male/female) | 29/52 | 16/80 | 0.004 |
| Composition | <0.0001 | ||
| Petaloid shape | 56 | 4 | |
| Papillary shape | 24 | 62 | |
| Spongy form | 1 | 30 | |
| HT (yes/no) | 21/60 | 13/83 | 0.037 |
| Shape | <0.0001 | ||
| Micro-lobulate | 50 | 17 | |
| Angular margin | 2 | 11 | |
| Regular | 29 | 68 | |
| Taller than wide shape | 0.164 | ||
| ≥1 | 28 | 24 | |
| <1 | 53 | 72 | |
| Margin | 0.021 | ||
| Distinct | 47 | 39 | |
| Indistinct | 34 | 57 | |
| Echogenicity | 0.01 | ||
| Hypoechoic | 48 | 35 | |
| Isoechoic | 31 | 58 | |
| Hyperechoic | 2 | 3 | |
| Calcification | <0.0001 | ||
| Microcalcification | 66 | 26 | |
| Macrocalcification | 6 | 9 | |
| No calcification | 9 | 61 | |
| Color Doppler | <0.0001 | ||
| Marked internal flow | 42 | 21 | |
| Peripheral blood flow | 24 | 48 | |
| Alder grade | 0.186 | ||
| Alder grade 0 | 15 | 27 | |
| Alder grade 1 | 35 | 20 | |
| Alder grade 2 | 22 | 18 | |
| Alder grade 3 | 9 | 31 | |
| Peak-systole velocity | 24.8±19.4 | 20.2±11.8 | 0.504 |
| Resistance index | 0.67±0.16 | 0.60±0.15 | 0.104 |
| Elastic features | <0.0001 | ||
| ES 4–5 | 51 | 22 | |
| ES 1–3 | 30 | 74 | |
| SR | <0.0001 | ||
| >2.82 | 55 | 20 | |
| ≤2.82 | 26 | 76 |
US, ultrasound; ES, elastography score; HT, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis; SR, strain ratio.
Diagnostic index of malignant ultrasound features
| Feature | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micro-lobulated shape | 61.7%±10.8% | 82.3%±7.8% | 72.9%±6.6% | 74.6%±10.7% | 71.8%±8.5% |
| Micro-calcifications | 81.5%±8.7% | 72.9%±9.0% | 76.8%±6.2% | 71.7%±9.3% | 82.4%±8.3% |
| Petaloid shape | 69.1%±10.2% | 95.8%±4.0% | 83.6%±5.5% | 93.3%±6.5% | 78.6%±7.5% |
| ES 4–5 | 63.0%±10.8% | 77.1%±8.6% | 70.6%±6.8% | 70.0%±10.8% | 71.2%±8.9% |
| SR >2.82 | 67.9%±10.4% | 79.2%±8.3% | 74.0%±6.5% | 73.3%±10.2% | 74.5%±8.6% |
PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; ES, elastography score; SR, strain ratio.
Model performance on pure testing dataset
| Classifier | AUC | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 logistic regression | 92.8%±4% | 84.2%±4% | 90.1%±6% | 79.2%±11% |
| Random forest | 93.4%±4% | 86.0%±6% | 86.6%±8% | 85.5%±6% |
| XGboost | 92.6%±3% | 83.7%±6% | 85.3%±7% | 82.3%±7% |
| SVM | 92.3%±5% | 84.8%±5% | 89.0%±4% | 81.3%±8% |
| MLP | 90.8%±4% | 84.8%±3% | 87.6%±6% | 82.4%±9% |
| KNN | 91.8%±4% | 85.4%±6% | 81.5%±5% | 88.6%±7% |
AUC, area under the curve; SVM, support vector machine; MLP, multilayer perceptron; KNN, k-nearest neighbor.
Figure 5ROC of the random forest plot. AUC =0.9336. ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 6Relative importance of features for diagnosis of random forest classifier.