| Literature DB >> 34394897 |
Qinghua Liu1, Jian Cheng1, Jingjing Li1, Lei Liu1, Hongbo Li2.
Abstract
Thyroid cancer has become the most common malignant tumor in the endocrine system, and its global incidence has been showing an upward trend. The diagnosis methods of thyroid cancer include ultrasound, fine-needle aspiration cytology, and neck CT, but the single ultrasound feature cannot simultaneously take into account the sensitivity and specificity of more than 85% when diagnosing thyroid cancer. The development of virtual technology can significantly improve the diagnosis of the thyroid gland. Based on this, this article proposes a clinical study of virtual reality technology combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the assessment of thyroid cancer. This article uses a variety of methods, such as literature method, mathematical statistics, and experimental research, in-depth study of the theoretical cornerstones of virtual reality augmented technology, the application status of ultrasound contrast technology, and so on. And a fuzzy mean clustering algorithm was proposed to identify ultrasound images. Then, a clinical experiment of virtual reality augmented technology combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound was designed to evaluate thyroid cancer, which included comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound signs, analysis of enhancement results, multifactor logistic analysis, and diagnostic efficacy analysis of ultrasound signs. The combined application of virtual reality augmented technology and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the study of thyroid cancer has a sensitivity and specificity exceeding 85% as the diagnosis boundary changes, and the accuracy of the combined diagnosis is relatively high.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34394897 PMCID: PMC8363438 DOI: 10.1155/2021/8042755
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Pathological classification of thyroid cancer.
Comparison of the general data of benign and malignant thyroid nodules.
| Project | Normal information | Malignant | Benign |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 77.5 | 84.3 | 0.422 | 0.526 |
| Male | 21.6 | 15.8 | |||
|
| |||||
| Age | <42 years old | 40.3 | 31.9 | 1.289 | 0.557 |
| 42–70 years old | 56.7 | 63.2 | |||
| ≥70 years old | 2.8 | 5.8 | |||
|
| |||||
| Background | Normal | 92.4 | 88.76 | 0.884 | 0.36 |
| Abnormal | 4.8 | 11.2 | |||
|
| |||||
| Number of nodules | Single shot | 36.8 | 26.3 | 0 | 1 |
| Multiple shots | 73.2 | 73.4 | |||
Comparison of different ultrasound signs in differentiating benign and malignant nodules.
| Project | Ultrasound signs | Malignant (%) | Benign (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ingredient | Reality | 100 | 69.8 | 15.096 | ≤0.001 |
| Cysticity | 0 | 30.2 | |||
|
| |||||
| Echo type | Low echo | 87.8 | 44.5 | 24.389 | ≤0.001 |
| Wait for echo | 12.2 | 55.7 | |||
|
| |||||
| Texture | Even | 14.6 | 24.3 | 1.257 | 0.261 |
| Uneven | 85.7 | 76.1 | |||
|
| |||||
| Form | Rule | 39.3 | 84.9 | 48.198 | ≤0.001 |
| Irregular | 61.2 | 12.5 | |||
|
| |||||
| Aspect ratio | ≥1 | 58.3 | 5.9 | 76.277 | ≤0.001 |
| <1 | 41.5 | 94.3 | |||
|
| |||||
| Calcification | No | 25.6 | 72.5 | 43.302 | ≤0.001 |
| Microcalcification | 41.3 | 11.2 | |||
| Coarse calcification | 33.1 | 16.8 | |||
|
| |||||
| Edge | Clear | 39.2 | 82.5 | 33.813 | ≤0.001 |
| Not clear | 61.5 | 17.3 | |||
|
| |||||
| Coating | Envelope invaded | 34.2 | 6.8 | 31.514 | ≤0.001 |
| Good coating | 65.9 | 93.2 | |||
Figure 2Comparison of different ultrasound signs in differentiating benign and malignant nodules.
Contrast enhancement mode of thyroid nodules.
| Pathological type | Nodular goiter | Atypical follicular adenoma | Papillary carcinoma | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantity | 18 | 2 | 17 | 37 |
| Low enhancement | 3 | 2 | 12 | 17 |
| Equal enhancement | 5 | 6 | 6 | 17 |
| High enhancement | 9 | 2 | 3 | 14 |
| Uneven enhancement | 5 | 2 | 5 | 12 |
Figure 3Contrast enhancement mode of thyroid nodules.
CEUS enhancement mode and pathological comparison results.
| Grouping | Divide | Malignant | Benign |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distribution | Even | 10 | 16 | 3.868 | 0.041 |
| Uneven | 36 | 27 | |||
|
| |||||
| Degree of enhancement | High enhancement | 4 | 4 | 6.035 | 0.049 |
| Equal enhancement | 3 | 10 | |||
| Low enhancement | 42 | 28 | |||
|
| |||||
| Boundary | Clear | 22 | 29 | 4.167 | 0.033 |
| Blurry | 28 | 15 | |||
|
| |||||
| Range | Narrow | 12 | 5 | 3.051 | 0.071 |
| Constant | 38 | 38 | |||
|
| |||||
| Enhancement direction | Radial | 18 | 7 | 4.289 | 0.034 |
| Dispersion | 32 | 36 | |||
|
| |||||
| Perfusion time | Fast-forward | 4 | 2 | 24.235 | ≤0.001 |
| Synchronize | 15 | 28 | |||
| Back | 27 | 13 | |||
Figure 4CEUS enhancement mode and pathological comparison results.
Consistency results of TI-RADS descriptors for physicians of different years.
| Index | Microcalcification | Aspect ratio ≥1 | Internal blood flow | Low echo | Blurred borders | Irregular shape | Reality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 39 | 36 | 25 | 81 | 28 | 39 | 85 |
| B | 0 | 4 | 10 | 3 | 9 | 16 | 4 |
| C | 10 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 11 | 1 |
| D | 42 | 45 | 54 | 3 | 44 | 27 | 1 |
| E | 36 | 24 | 28 | 5 | 9 | 12 | 3 |
| 0.784 | 0.787 | 0.683 | 0.578 | 0.549 | 0.411 | 0.264 | |
|
| 0.005 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Figure 5Consistency results of TI-RADS descriptors for physicians of different years.
Multivariate logistic analysis results and risk factor scores.
| Index | Reality | Low echo | Very low echo | Aspect ratio ≥1 | Unclear boundary | Irregular shape | Microcalcification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.968 | 1.268 | 1.941 | 1.493 | 1.044 | 2.357 | 2.683 | |
| Wald | 8.627 | 42.504 | 14.325 | 22.952 | 8.459 | 44.106 | 12.640 |
| 0.003 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| OR value | 2.645 | 3.533 | 6.958 | 4.146 | 2.846 | 10.515 | 14.598 |
| Scoring system | 10.0 | 13.0 | 20.0 | 15.8 | 10.8 | 24.4 | 27.81 |
| Lower limit | 1.382 | 2.416 | 2.548 | 2.425 | 1.415 | 8.262 | 9.182 |
| Upper limit | 5.037 | 5.148 | 19.008 | 8.188 | 5.718 | 9.185 | 23.198 |
Figure 6Multivariate logistic analysis results and risk factor scores.
Diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound signs of malignant thyroid nodules.
| Ultrasound signs | Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value | Accuracy | Positive likelihood ratio | Odds ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microcalcification | 51.23 | 88.87 | 45.66 | 88.78 | 83.08 | 4.62 | 10.661 |
| Envelope invaded | 34.25 | 95.12 | 56.02 | 88.81 | 85.72 | 6.99 | 10.089 |
| Reality | 100.00 | 30.23 | 20.73 | 62.29 | 40.98 | 1.43 | 18.352 |
| Low echo | 87.81 | 55.57 | 26.48 | 96.16 | 60.51 | 1.98 | 9.123 |
| Irregular shape | 60.99 | 84.55 | 47.18 | 92.49 | 83.45 | 4.91 | 10.994 |
| Aspect ratio ≥1 | 58.55 | 94.23 | 64.88 | 92.56 | 88.73 | 10.14 | 23.024 |
| Far field | 48.77 | 90.22 | 47.63 | 90.63 | 83.82 | 4.98 | 13.031 |
| Unclear edges | 60.98 | 83.67 | 39.16 | 92.08 | 73.32 | 3.53 | 7.453 |
Figure 7Diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound signs of malignant thyroid nodules.
Sensitivity and specificity of different diagnostic cutoff points of CEUS.
| Diagnostic cutoff point | Sensitivity | Specificity | Youden's index | Sen | Spe | 1 − Spe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14.2 | 0.954 | 0.819 | 0.762 | 0.479 | 0.977 | 0.024 |
| 19.3 | 0.954 | 0.811 | 0.763 | 0.814 | 0.884 | 0.118 |
| 24.5 | 0.882 | 0.931 | 0.819 | 0.817 | 0.675 | 0.339 |
| 16.59 | 0.883 | 0.934 | 0.811 | 0.917 | 0.856 | 0.722 |
| 28.06 | 0.878 | 0.936 | 0.814 | 0.845 | 0.754 | 0.546 |
| 29.12 | 0.876 | 0.932 | 0.813 | 0.823 | 0.289 | 0.516 |
| 22.45 | 0.856 | 0.928 | 0.807 | 0.819 | 0.314 | 0.428 |
Figure 8Sensitivity and specificity of different diagnostic cutoff points of CEUS.