[Accuracy of two thyroid imaging, reporting and data systems for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid nodules].

Shuiqing Lai, Yuancheng Chen, Zhijiang Chen, Long Wang, Shuzhen Cong, Jian Kuang
Author Information
  1. Shuiqing Lai: Department of Endocrinology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou 510080, China.
  2. Yuancheng Chen: Department of Endocrinology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou 510080, China.
  3. Zhijiang Chen: Department of Endocrinology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou 510080, China.
  4. Long Wang: Department of Endocrinology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou 510080, China.
  5. Shuzhen Cong: Department of Ultrasound, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou 510080, China.
  6. Jian Kuang: Department of Endocrinology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou 510080, China.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of two widely used thyroid imaging, reporting and data systems (TI-RADS), namely ACR TI-RADS and Kwak TI-RADS, in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid nodules.
METHODS: We reviewed the data of 350 thyroid nodules with definite diagnoses by surgical histopathology (=144, 41.14%) or fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytopathology (=206, 58.86%). The nodules were graded using ACR TI-RADS and Kwak TI-RADS based on the ultrasound images, and the diagnostic accuracy of these two systems was evaluated by the area under the receiveroperating characteristic curve (AUC).
RESULTS: The AUCs of ACR TI-RADS and Kwak TI-RADS were both 0.879. For a differential diagnosis of the thyroid nodules, ACR TI-RADS had a diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, Youden's index and accuracy of 77.3%, 89.1%, 83.0%, 85.1%, 7.101, 0.255, 27.848, 0.664 and 0.843, respectively, with an optimal threshold of TR5, as compared with 84.8%, 84.0%, 78.3%, 89.0%, 5.283, 0.181, 29.265, 0.688 and 0.843, respectively, of Kwak TI-RADS, which had an optimal threshold of 4c.
CONCLUSIONS: Both ACR TI-RADS and Kwak TI-RADS have good performance for differential diagnosis of thyroid nodules, but ACR TI-RADS has a higher specificity and a lower sensitivity compared with Kwak TI-RADS.

Keywords

References

  1. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Dec;12(12 Pt A):1272-9 [PMID: 26419308]
  2. Sci Rep. 2019 Oct 18;9(1):14973 [PMID: 31628340]
  3. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Mar;178(3):687-91 [PMID: 11856699]
  4. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019 Oct;26(5):266-274 [PMID: 31361657]
  5. Nucl Med Commun. 2004 Sep;25(9):897-900 [PMID: 15319594]
  6. Radiology. 2011 Sep;260(3):892-9 [PMID: 21771959]
  7. Endocr Pract. 2016 May;22(5):622-39 [PMID: 27167915]
  8. Endocrine. 2016 Sep;53(3):651-61 [PMID: 27071659]
  9. Eur J Clin Invest. 2009 Aug;39(8):699-706 [PMID: 19601965]
  10. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2014 Aug;47(4):595-607 [PMID: 25041960]
  11. Eur Radiol. 2018 Jun;28(6):2380-2388 [PMID: 29294156]
  12. Eur J Endocrinol. 2013 Apr 15;168(5):649-55 [PMID: 23416955]
  13. Thyroid. 2011 Feb;21(2):125-34 [PMID: 21186939]
  14. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Feb;12(2):143-50 [PMID: 25456025]
  15. Cancer. 2017 Feb 1;123(3):372-381 [PMID: 27741354]
  16. Eur Thyroid J. 2017 Jul;6(3):115-129 [PMID: 28785538]
  17. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2016 Nov;12(11):646-653 [PMID: 27418023]
  18. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Oct 28;173(19):1788-96 [PMID: 23978950]
  19. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 May;94(5):1748-51 [PMID: 19276237]
  20. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016 Feb;42(2):399-406 [PMID: 26614385]
  21. Thyroid. 2009 Nov;19(11):1257-64 [PMID: 19754280]
  22. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Jul 1;142(7):709-11 [PMID: 27078686]
  23. Thyroid. 2009 Nov;19(11):1167-214 [PMID: 19860577]
  24. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012 Aug;67(8):945-54 [PMID: 22948464]
  25. Endokrynol Pol. 2018;69(2):156-162 [PMID: 29334119]
  26. Thyroid. 2016 Jan;26(1):1-133 [PMID: 26462967]
  27. Head Neck. 2020 Feb;42(2):210-216 [PMID: 31613420]
  28. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 May;14(5):587-595 [PMID: 28372962]

MeSH Term

Data Systems
Diagnosis, Differential
Humans
Retrospective Studies
Thyroid Nodule
Ultrasonography

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0TI-RADSthyroid0ACRKwaknodulesdatasystemsdifferentialdiagnosisaccuracytwoimagingreportingdiagnosticratio0%benignmalignantultrasoundsensitivityspecificitypositivepredictivevaluenegativelikelihood3%891%843respectivelyoptimalthresholdcompared84OBJECTIVE:comparewidelyusednamelyMETHODS:reviewed350definitediagnosessurgicalhistopathology=1444114%fineneedleaspirationFNAcytopathology=2065886%gradedusingbasedimagesevaluatedareareceiveroperatingcharacteristiccurveAUCRESULTS:AUCs879oddsYouden'sindex778385710125527848664TR58%785283181292656884cCONCLUSIONS:goodperformancehigherlower[Accuracynodules]noduleexamination

Similar Articles

Cited By