Go Eun Yang1, Dong Gyu Na2. 1. Department of Radiology, School of medicine, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, GangNeung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Gangneung, Republic of Korea. nndgna@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Ultrasonographic (US) assessment methods may affect the estimated malignancy risk of thyroid nodules. This study aimed to investigate the impact of retrospective and prospective US assessments on the estimated malignancy risk of US features, classified categories, and diagnostic performance of five risk stratification systems (RSSs) in thyroid nodules. METHODS: A total of 3685 consecutive thyroid nodules (≥1 cm) with final diagnoses (retrospective dataset, n = 2180; prospective dataset, n = 1505) were included in this study. We compared the estimated malignancy risk of US features, classified categories, and diagnostic performances of the five common RSSs between retrospective (static US images without cine clips) and prospective datasets of real-time US assessment. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the prevalence and histological type of malignant tumours between the two datasets (p ≥ 0.216). The malignancy risk of solid composition and nonparallel orientation was higher and that of microcalcification was lower in the prospective dataset than in the retrospective dataset (p < 0.001, p = 0.018, p = 0.007, respectively). The retrospective US assessment showed slightly higher malignancy risk of intermediate- or high-risk nodules according to the RSSs. Prospective US assessment showed lower specificities and higher unnecessary biopsy rates by all RSSs compared to the retrospective US assessment (p ≤ 0.006, p ≤ 0.045, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The retrospective US assessment showed higher malignancy risk of microcalcification and some classified categories by RSSs, and overestimated the specificities and underestimated the unnecessary biopsy rates by all RSSs compared to prospective US assessment.
PURPOSE: Ultrasonographic (US) assessment methods may affect the estimated malignancy risk of thyroid nodules. This study aimed to investigate the impact of retrospective and prospective US assessments on the estimated malignancy risk of US features, classified categories, and diagnostic performance of five risk stratification systems (RSSs) in thyroid nodules. METHODS: A total of 3685 consecutive thyroid nodules (≥1 cm) with final diagnoses (retrospective dataset, n = 2180; prospective dataset, n = 1505) were included in this study. We compared the estimated malignancy risk of US features, classified categories, and diagnostic performances of the five common RSSs between retrospective (static US images without cine clips) and prospective datasets of real-time US assessment. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the prevalence and histological type of malignant tumours between the two datasets (p ≥ 0.216). The malignancy risk of solid composition and nonparallel orientation was higher and that of microcalcification was lower in the prospective dataset than in the retrospective dataset (p < 0.001, p = 0.018, p = 0.007, respectively). The retrospective US assessment showed slightly higher malignancy risk of intermediate- or high-risk nodules according to the RSSs. Prospective US assessment showed lower specificities and higher unnecessary biopsy rates by all RSSs compared to the retrospective US assessment (p ≤ 0.006, p ≤ 0.045, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The retrospective US assessment showed higher malignancy risk of microcalcification and some classified categories by RSSs, and overestimated the specificities and underestimated the unnecessary biopsy rates by all RSSs compared to prospective US assessment.
Authors: Franklin N Tessler; William D Middleton; Edward G Grant; Jenny K Hoang; Lincoln L Berland; Sharlene A Teefey; John J Cronan; Michael D Beland; Terry S Desser; Mary C Frates; Lynwood W Hammers; Ulrike M Hamper; Jill E Langer; Carl C Reading; Leslie M Scoutt; A Thomas Stavros Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2017-04-02 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Bryan R Haugen; Erik K Alexander; Keith C Bible; Gerard M Doherty; Susan J Mandel; Yuri E Nikiforov; Furio Pacini; Gregory W Randolph; Anna M Sawka; Martin Schlumberger; Kathryn G Schuff; Steven I Sherman; Julie Ann Sosa; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle; Leonard Wartofsky Journal: Thyroid Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Eun Ju Ha; Won-Jin Moon; Dong Gyu Na; Young Hen Lee; Nami Choi; Soo Jin Kim; Jae Kyun Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 3.500