| Literature DB >> 35811592 |
Katarzyna Dobruch-Sobczak1, Zbigniew Adamczewski2, Marek Dedecjus3, Andrzej Lewiński4,5, Bartosz Migda6, Marek Ruchała7, Anna Skowrońska-Szcześniak8, Ewelina Szczepanek-Parulska7, Klaudia Zajkowska3, Agnieszka Żyłka3.
Abstract
Thyroid cancer is a tumour with a steadily increasing incidence. It accounts for 7% to 15% of focal lesions detected by ultrasound, depending on age, gender and other factors affecting its occurrence. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy is an essential method to establish the diagnosis but, in view of its limitations, sonoelastography is seen as a non-invasive technique useful in differentiating the nature of lesions and monitoring them after fine-needle aspiration biopsy. This paper presents a literature review on the role of both sonoelastographic techniques (relative strain sonoelastography, shear wave sonoelastography) to assess the deformability of focal thyroid lesions. Ultrasound examination is a relatively subjective method of thyroid imaging, depending on the skills of the examiner, the experience of the centre, and the quality of equipment used. As a consequence, there are inconsistencies between the results obtained by different examiners (inter-observer variability) and by the same examiner (intra-observer variability). In this paper, the authors present a review of the literature on inter-observer and intra-observer variability in the assessment of individual features of ultrasound imaging of focal lesions in the thyroid. In addition, the authors report on an analysis of cut-off thresholds for the size of lesions constituting the basis for fine-needle aspiration biopsy eligibility assessment. The need to diagnose carcinomas up to 10 mm in diameter is highlighted, however a more liberal approach is recommended in terms of indications for biopsy in lesions associated with a low risk of malignancy, where, based on consultations with patients, active ultrasound surveillance might even be considered.Entities:
Keywords: internal examiner compliance; relative strain sonoelastography; shear wave sonoelastography; thyroid cancer; thyroid ultrasound
Year: 2022 PMID: 35811592 PMCID: PMC9231511 DOI: 10.15557/JoU.2022.0021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ultrason ISSN: 2084-8404
Summary of sensitivity and specificity and SROC for individual SWE subtypes
| T-SWE | VTIQ | 2D-SWE | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.77 (0.70–0.83) | 0.72 (0.67–0.77) | 0.63 (0.59–0.66) |
|
| 0.76 (0.72–0.81) | 0.81 (0.78–0.84) | 0.81 (0.79–0.83) |
|
| 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.88 |
T-SWE – Toshiba shear wave elastography; VTIQ – Virtual Touch imaging and quantification; 2D-SWE – SuperSonic shear wave elastography; SROC – summary receiver operating characteristic
Interpretation of the kappa coefficient values according to Landis and Koch(
| Range of kappa values | Interpretation of the degree of agreement |
|---|---|
| <0,00 | poor |
| 0.00–0.20 | slight |
| 0.21–0.40 | fair |
| 0.41–0.60 | moderate |
| 0.61–0.80 | substantial |
| 0.81–1.00 | almost perfect |
Comparison of studies published since 2019 assessing inter-observer agreement in the assessment of specific ultrasound imaging features of focal thyroid lesions
| Basha 2019 | Dobruch- Sobczak 2019 | Itani 2019 | Lam 2019 | Pang 2019 | Persichetti 2020 | Phuthharak 2019 | Seifert 2020 | Wildman-Tobriner 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 380 | 20 | 180 | 463 | 189 | 100 | 108 | (40 80 + 40) | 100 |
|
| 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 15 |
|
| Fleiss’ κ | Cohen’s κ | Cohen’s κ | Randolph’s κ | Cohen’s κ | Cohen’s κ | Cohen’s κ | Fleiss’ κ | Fleiss’ κ |
|
| 0.636 | 0.55 | 0.43 | 0.66 | 0.10–0.643 | 0.53 | 0.616 | S1: 0.476 S2: 0.674 | 0.39 |
|
| 0.750 | 0.48–0.501 | 0.252 | 0.35 | 0.24–0.534 | 0.47 | 0.327 | S1: 0.440 S2: 0.622 | 0.39 |
|
| 0.868 | – | 0.30 | – | 0.28 | 0.47 | – | S1: 0.537 S2: 0.676 | 0.38 |
|
| 0.524 | 0.39 | 0.23 | 0.50 | 0.07–0.145 | 0.33 | 0.143 | S1: 0.431 S2: 0.796 | 0.18 |
|
| –2 | 0.41 | – | – | 0.50 | – | – | – | – |
|
| 0.598 | – | – | 0.77 | – | – | 0.288 | – | – |
|
| 0.957 | 0.57 | 0.27 | – | 0.39 | 0.47 | – | – | 0.28 |
|
| 0.974 | 0.61 | 0.49 | – | – | 0.38 | – | – | 0.41 |
|
| 0.604 | – | 0.39 | – | 0.33 | 0.65 | – | – | 0.26 |
|
| – | – | 0.38 | – | – | – | – | S1: 0.405 S2: 0.424 | – |
|
| 0.885 | – | 0.06 | – | – | 0.11 | – | – | 0.08 |
|
| 0.211 | 0.34 | – | – | – | 0.46 | – | – | – |
|
| 1.000 | 0.40 | – | 0.82 | 0.24 | – | – | – | – |
S1 – session 1; S2 – session 2 (conducted after the examiners have discussed all cases from session 1 together)
1 Feature not assessed in the study.
2 Features such as echogenicity compared to thyroid parenchyma (κ = 0.48), dominant echogenicity compared to thyroid parenchyma (κ = 0.50), and echogenicity compared to muscle (κ = 0.49) were evaluated separately.
3 The following features were evaluated separately: solid structure (κ = 0.64), partially cystic with suspicious features (κ = 0.10), partially cystic with eccentric solid area (κ = 0.54), partially cystic without suspicious features (κ = 0.17), spongiform (κ = 0.62).
4 The following features were assessed separately: nodule significantly hypoechogenic (κ = 0.33), hypoechogenic (κ = 0.53), isoechogenic (κ = 0.24), and hyperechogenic (κ = 0.31).
5 The study separately assessed the following features: irregular margins (κ = 0.07), regular margins (κ = 0.14).