| Literature DB >> 34093429 |
Poorani N Goundan1, Jonathan Mamou2, Daniel Rohrbach3, Jason Smith4, Harshal Patel1, Kirk D Wallace5, Ernest J Feleppa2, Stephanie L Lee1.
Abstract
Background: Gray-scale, B-mode ultrasound (US) imaging is part of the standard clinical procedure for evaluating thyroid nodules (TNs). It is limited by its instrument- and operator-dependence and inter-observer variability. In addition, the accepted high-risk B-mode US TN features are more specific for detecting classic papillary thyroid cancer rather than the follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer or follicular thyroid cancer. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is a technique that can non-invasively assess properties of tissue microarchitecture by exploiting information contained in raw ultrasonic radiofrequency (RF) echo signals that is discarded in conventional B-mode imaging. QUS provides quantitative parameter-value estimates that are a function of the properties of US scatterers and microarchitecture of the tissue. The purpose of this preliminary study was to assess the performance of QUS parameters in evaluating benign and malignant thyroid nodules.Entities:
Keywords: quantitative ultrasound; thyroid biopsy; thyroid cancer; thyroid neoplasm; thyroid nodule
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34093429 PMCID: PMC8170470 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.627698
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Basic demographic data and nodule characteristics.
| Total cohort | QUS data acquired prior to FNB | QUS data acquired after FNB | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 208 | 154 | 54 |
|
| 52.8 (SD 14.95) | 52.4 | 54.2 |
|
| |||
| - | 172 (82.7%) | 127 (82.5%) | 45 (83.3%) |
| - | 36 (17.3%) | 27 (17.5%) | 9 (16.7%) |
|
| 225 | 167 | 58 |
|
| 2.5 (range 0.9 – 7) | 2.6 (range 0.9 to 7) | 2.3 (range 1 to 6.5) |
|
| 34 | 31 | 3 |
| - | 14 | 13 | 1 |
| - | 15 | 13 | 2 |
| - | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| - | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| - | 1 | 1 | 0 |
|
| |||
| - | 201 | 145 | 56 (p=0.0467) |
| - | 24 | 22 | 2 |
SD, standard deviation; NS, nonsignificant.
*based on cytology, molecular testing and/or surgical pathology.
Cytology, molecular testing and surgical pathology outcomes for thyroid nodules.
| Cytopathology | Total cohort n = 225 | Molecular testing performed | Positive molecular testing | Nodules undergoing surgery with surgical pathology results available for review | Surgical pathology results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 6 (2.6%) | 3 | 3 [HRAS (1), EIF1AX(1), PAX8-PPARG(1)] | 6 | Benign – 3 |
|
| 144 (64%) | 1 | 0 | 1 | Benign – 1 |
|
| 49 (21.8%) | 48 | 13 [BRAF v600E(1), NRAS(2), HRAS(2), KRAS(2), EIF1AX(1), EZH1(1), NIS overexpression (1), TSHR mutation (2), PAX8-PPARG(1) | 12 | Benign – 10 |
|
| 9 (4%) | 9 | 3 [HRAS(1), EIF1AX (1), TSHR mutation (1)] | 2 | fvPTC – 1 |
|
| 4 (1.8%) | 4 | 4 [BRAF V600E (2), HRAS (1), TERT (1)] | 4 | cPTC – 3 |
|
| 12 (5.3%) | 0 | 0 | 9 | cPTC – 9 |
|
| 1 (0.004%)* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
cPTC, classic papillary thyroid cancer.
fvPTC, follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer.
*Nodule has associated abnormal cervical lymph node that was positive for malignancy on FNA.
QUS parameter performance.
| Parameter | AUC (± CI) |
|---|---|
| Intercept (I0) | 0.742 ± 0.046 |
| Effective scatterer concentration (ESC) | 0.702 ± 0.049 |
| Midband fit (MF) | 0.695 ± 0.048 |
| Nakagami shape (µ) | 0.637 ± 0.063 |
| Effective scatterer size (ESS) | 0.584 ± 0.058 |
Figure 1Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) for combination QUS parameters (CQP), ATA risk-stratification and ACR TI-RADS.
Figure 2Combination QUS parameter (CQP) distribution in malignant and benign pathology in all thyroid nodules (A) and in nodules selected based on specific gray-scale ultrasound features (B–F). Benign nodule (open circle). Cancer (closed circle).
Number of nodules excluded from biopsy of the 225 TN cohort based on ACR-TIRADS using recommended size threshold vs in combination with QUS parameter (CQP) cutoffs.
| Classification System | Threshold for avoiding biopsy | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional ACR TI-RADS criteria** | CQP > 0.263 | CQP > -0.404 | |
|
|
| ||
|
| 6 [0] | 1 [0] | 2 [0] |
|
| 30 [0] | 14 [0] | 19 [0] |
|
| 40 [0] | 41 [0] | 63 [0] |
|
| 12 [1] | 33 [0] | 50 [2] |
|
| 1 [0] | 9 [0] | 14 [2] |
|
| |||
|
| NA | 98 (43.6%) [0] | 148 (65.8%) [4] |
|
| NA | 110 (48.9%) [0] | 149 (66.2%) [2] |
*TN with TI-RADS 1 and 2 are not biopsied, TI-RADS 5 are always biopsied and TI-RADS 3 and 4 are biopsied only if < CQP threshold indicated.
**Nodule size as threshold for biopsy.
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ACR TI-RADS, ATA system and CQP parameter.
| Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 95 | 43 | 16.9 | 98.9 |
|
| 100 | 6.9 | 11.3 | 100 |
|
| 100 | 48 | 18.9 | 100* |
|
| 83 | 71 | 26 | 97.3* |
*CQP thresholds 0.263 and -0.404 selected to produce a NPV of 100% and 97% respectively.
Figure 3Scatter plot of ACR TI-RADS and combination QUS parameter (CQP) for different FNA decision outcomes. Benign nodule (open circle). Cancer (closed circle).