| Literature DB >> 35625691 |
Tereza Grimmichova1,2, Petra Pacesova1, Martin Hill1, Barbora Pekova1, Marketa Vankova1, Jitka Moravcova1, Jana Vrbikova1, Zdenek Novak1, Karolina Mastnikova1, Eliska Vaclavikova1, Josef Vcelak1, Bela Bendlova1, Jana Drozenova3, Vlasta Sykorova1.
Abstract
The aim of our study was to address the potential for improvements in thyroid cancer detection in routine clinical settings using a clinical examination, the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Database System (ACR TI-RADS), and fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) concurrently with molecular diagnostics. A prospective cohort study was performed on 178 patients. DNA from FNA samples was used for next-generation sequencing to identify mutations in the genes BRAF, HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, and TERT. RNA was used for real-time PCR to detect fusion genes. The strongest relevant positive predictors for malignancy were the presence of genetic mutations (p < 0.01), followed by FNAC (p < 0.01) and ACR TI-RADS (p < 0.01). Overall, FNAC, ACR TI-RADS, and genetic testing reached a sensitivity of up to 96.1% and a specificity of 88.3%, with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 183.6. Sensitivity, specificity, and DOR decreased to 75.0%, 88.9%, and 24.0, respectively, for indeterminate (Bethesda III, IV) FNAC results. FNA molecular testing has substantial potential for thyroid malignancy detection and could lead to improvements in our approaches to patients. However, clinical examination, ACR TI-RADS, and FNAC remained relevant factors.Entities:
Keywords: ACR-TIRADS; BRAF; FNAC; RAS; TERT; fusions; molecular testing; thyroid cancer; thyroid nodule
Year: 2022 PMID: 35625691 PMCID: PMC9139136 DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10050954
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomedicines ISSN: 2227-9059
Figure 1Flowchart of the study.
Comparison of clinical, biochemical, and imaging characteristics between B (benign), M (malignant), and MB (borderline tumor) cohorts of patients with Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks (KW).
| B | M | MB | KW BxMxMB | KW BxM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Count | Median (CI 95%) | Count | Median (CI 95%) | Count | Median (CI 95%) | ||
| Female | 63 | 70 | 10 | |||||
| Male | 16 | 19 | 0 | |||||
| Age (years) | 79 | 55 (46–59) | 89 | 42.5 (39–48) | 10 | 28 (27–47) | 0.001 B vs.M; B vs. MB | 0.009 |
| Thyroid Nodule (mL) | 79 | 2.55 (1.4–3.8) | 89 | 1.40 (1–2) | 10 | 1.15 (0.7–5.0) | 0.087 | 0.033 |
| Thyroid Gland (mL) | 79 | 16.90 (14–19.5) | 89 | 14.50 (11.6–16) | 10 | 16.1 (12.5–19.01) | 0.179 | 0.07 |
| TSH | 58 | 1.35 (1.08–1.98) | 58 | 2.03 (1.81–2.44) | 10 | 0.92 (0.54–2.1) | 0.014 B vs. M | 0.015 |
| fT4 | 57 | 15.80 (15–16.5) | 58 | 15.30 (14.5–16.2) | 10 | 16.65 (12.50–17.30) | 0.525 | 0.245 |
| anti–TPO | 37 | 7.39 (4.34–12.3) | 40 | 6.10 (2.53–18) | 3 | 3.28 | 0.739 | 0.46 |
| anti–Tg | 39 | 3.55 (1.27–7.93) | 40 | 10.91 (6.08–15.42) | 3 | 3.53 | 0.023 B vs. M | 0.007 |
| Glycemia (mmol/L) | 23 | 5.32 (5.2–5.7) | 28 | 5.30 (5.1–5.5) | 6 | 5.05 (4.6–5.33) | 0.044 B vs. MB | 0.255 |
| BMI | 40 | 26.90 (22.3–29.3) | 38 | 27.10 (24.09–28.08) | 4 | 22.8 | 0.235 | 0.586 |
Figure 2Risk stratification of thyroid nodules on ultrasound using the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Database System (ACR TI-RADS; TR) and staging (TNM 8th edition) of “missed’’ papillary thyroid carcinomas in TR3/TR4 groups if FNA indication would be strictly followed according to thyroid nodule size. Molecular genetic results are mentioned according to the ultrasound group TR1–TR5. Cancer prevalence was calculated as the number of people with TC in each group of patients according to ACR TI-RADS (excluding MB). Benign (B),borderline (MB), and malignant (M) cohorts of patients were determined by histology. NIFTP—non-invasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features; FT-UMP—follicular tumor of uncertain malignant potential.
Figure 3Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology results with cancer prevalence in particular groups concurrently with molecular testing. Benign (B), borderline (MB), and malignant (M) cohorts of patients were determined by histology. M cohort consisted especially of PTC; other tumor types are pointed out. Cancer prevalence was calculated as the number of people with TC in each group of patients according to Bethesda categories (excluding MB).FT-UMP—follicular tumor of uncertain malignant potential; ATC—anaplastic thyroid cancer; PDTC—poorly differentiated thyroid cancer and FTC follicular thyroid cancer.
Relationships between the cohort of patients with thyroid cancer (M) and predictors for the 1st predictive component as evaluated by the O2PLS model and multiple regression (for details, see statistical analysis). Ra-component loadings are expressed as correlation coefficients with predictive components. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. AITD—autoimmune thyroid disease.
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Component Loading | t‐Statistics | R | Regression Coefficient | t‐Statistics | ||||
| Relevant Predictors (matrix | BRAF | 0.567 | 14.6 | 0.787 | ** | 0.326 | 24.05 | ** |
|
| TERT | 0.194 | 2.41 | 0.261 | * | 0.086 | 3.08 | ** | ||
| Fusions | 0.209 | 2.83 | 0.282 | * | 0.152 | 4.18 | ** | ||
| AITD | 0.105 | 2.47 | 0.132 | * | 0.091 | 3.67 | ** | ||
| Thyroid Nodule | −0.241 | −2.03 | 0.332 | * | −0.125 | 2.23 | * | ||
| FNAC | 0.581 | 11.01 | 0.804 | ** | 0.323 | 9.42 | ** | ||
| ACR TI–RADS | 0.45 | 7.43 | 0.613 | ** | 0.227 | 8.46 | ** | ||
| (matrix |
| 1 | 20.06 | 0.779 | ** | ||||
|
| 60.7% (59.5% after cross–validation) | ||||||||
Figure 4ROC analysis of FNAC and ACR TI-RADS, cut-off values ≥ 5 both FNAC (Bethesda category V–VI) and ACR TI-RADS (TR5).
Performance of all methods ACR TI-RADS, FNAC, and molecular testing in thyroid cancer detection. The data were calculated for all cytological cohorts and separately for the cohorts of categories Bethesda III and IV. Positive predictive value (PPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative predictive value (NPV), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Bethesda III–IV * and Bethesda II–VI * were calculated after including positive molecular testing additionally confirmed in histology (not in FNA).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Bethesda III+IV | 66.7 | 84.2 | 4.22 | 55.8 | 0.4 | 89.4 | 80.2 | 10.6 |
| (39.1–86.2) | (74.4–90.7) | (2.19–8.13) | (39.6–70.8) | (0.18–0.89) | (79.1–95.0) | (70.3–87.9) | ||
| Bethesda III–IV * | 75 | 88.9 | 6.75 | 66.9 | 0.28 | 92.3 | 85.7 | 24 |
| (47.6–92.7) | (79.3–95.1) | (3.31–13.76) | (49.7–80.4) | (0.12–0.66) | (83.5–96.5) | (76.6–92.3) | ||
| Bethesda II–VI | 95.8 | 83.8 | 5.93 | 87 | 0.05 | 94.6 | 90.2 | 118.6 |
| (88.3–98.6) | (75.4–89.8) | (3.77–9.31) | (81–91.3) | (0.02–0.15) | (85.3–8.2) | (84.7–94.2) | ||
| Bethesda II–VI * | 96.1 | 88.3 | 8.21 | 90.3 | 0.04 | 95.2 | 92.4 | 183.6 |
| (88.9–99.2) | (80.0–94.0) | (4.70–14.33) | (84.1–94.2) | (0.01–0.14) | (86.7–98.4) | (87.3–95.9) |