A Multidisciplinary Head-to-Head Comparison of American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging and Reporting Data System and American Thyroid Association Ultrasound Risk Stratification Systems.


Journal

The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2020
Historique:
received: 11 05 2019
accepted: 17 10 2019
pubmed: 20 11 2019
medline: 22 6 2021
entrez: 20 11 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Ultrasound plays a critical role in evaluating thyroid nodules. We compared the performance of the two most popular ultrasound malignancy risk stratification systems, the 2015 American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines and the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging and Reporting Data System (ACR TI-RADS). We retrospectively identified 250 thyroid nodules that were surgically removed from 137 patients. Their ultrasound images were independently rated using both ATA and ACR TI-RADS by six raters with expertise in ultrasound interpretation. For each system, we generated a receiver operating characteristic curve and calculated the area under the curve (AUC). Sixty-five (26%) nodules were malignant. There was "fair agreement" among raters for both ATA and ACR TI-RADS. Our observed malignancy risks for ATA and ACR TI-RADS categories were similar to expected risk thresholds with a few notable exceptions including the intermediate ATA risk category and the three highest risk categories for ACR TI-RADS. Biopsy of 226 of the 250 nodules would be indicated by ATA guidelines based on nodule size and mean ATA rating. One hundred forty-six nodules would be biopsied based on ACR TI-RADS. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were 92%, 10%, 79%, and 27%, respectively, for ATA and 74%, 47%, 84%, and 33%, respectively, for ACR TI-RADS. The AUC for ATA was 0.734 and for ACR TI-RADS was 0.718. Although both systems demonstrated good diagnostic performance, ATA guidelines resulted in a greater number of thyroid biopsies and exhibited more consistent malignancy risk prediction for higher risk categories. With the rising incidence of thyroid nodules, the need for accurate detection of malignancy is important to avoid the overtreatment of benign nodules. Ultrasonography is one of the key tools for the evaluation of thyroid nodules, although the use of many different ultrasound risk stratification systems is a hindrance to clinical collaboration in everyday practice and the comparison of data in research. The first step toward the development of a universal thyroid nodule ultrasound malignancy risk stratification system is to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current systems in use.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Ultrasound plays a critical role in evaluating thyroid nodules. We compared the performance of the two most popular ultrasound malignancy risk stratification systems, the 2015 American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines and the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging and Reporting Data System (ACR TI-RADS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrospectively identified 250 thyroid nodules that were surgically removed from 137 patients. Their ultrasound images were independently rated using both ATA and ACR TI-RADS by six raters with expertise in ultrasound interpretation. For each system, we generated a receiver operating characteristic curve and calculated the area under the curve (AUC).
RESULTS
Sixty-five (26%) nodules were malignant. There was "fair agreement" among raters for both ATA and ACR TI-RADS. Our observed malignancy risks for ATA and ACR TI-RADS categories were similar to expected risk thresholds with a few notable exceptions including the intermediate ATA risk category and the three highest risk categories for ACR TI-RADS. Biopsy of 226 of the 250 nodules would be indicated by ATA guidelines based on nodule size and mean ATA rating. One hundred forty-six nodules would be biopsied based on ACR TI-RADS. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were 92%, 10%, 79%, and 27%, respectively, for ATA and 74%, 47%, 84%, and 33%, respectively, for ACR TI-RADS. The AUC for ATA was 0.734 and for ACR TI-RADS was 0.718.
CONCLUSION
Although both systems demonstrated good diagnostic performance, ATA guidelines resulted in a greater number of thyroid biopsies and exhibited more consistent malignancy risk prediction for higher risk categories.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
With the rising incidence of thyroid nodules, the need for accurate detection of malignancy is important to avoid the overtreatment of benign nodules. Ultrasonography is one of the key tools for the evaluation of thyroid nodules, although the use of many different ultrasound risk stratification systems is a hindrance to clinical collaboration in everyday practice and the comparison of data in research. The first step toward the development of a universal thyroid nodule ultrasound malignancy risk stratification system is to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current systems in use.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31740569
pii: theoncologist.2019-0362
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0362
pmc: PMC7216459
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

398-403

Informations de copyright

© AlphaMed Press 2019.

Références

Thyroid. 2017 Aug;27(8):1077-1082
pubmed: 28657511
Radiology. 1983 Sep;148(3):839-43
pubmed: 6878708
Singapore Med J. 2018 Nov;59(11):578-583
pubmed: 29774361
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1955 Oct;15(10):1270-80
pubmed: 13263417
Radiology. 2016 Mar;278(3):917-24
pubmed: 26348102
Radiology. 2011 Sep;260(3):892-9
pubmed: 21771959
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Oct 28;173(19):1788-96
pubmed: 23978950
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014 Apr;99(4):1253-63
pubmed: 24276450
Endocr Pract. 2016 May;22(5):622-39
pubmed: 27167915
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2014 Jul;81 Suppl 1:1-122
pubmed: 24989897
Endocrine. 2019 Apr;64(1):90-96
pubmed: 30659427
Arch Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Apr 05;62(2):131-138
pubmed: 29641731
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jun;208(6):1331-1341
pubmed: 28402167
Ultrasound Q. 2018 Jun;34(2):77-83
pubmed: 29596298
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 May;210(5):1148-1154
pubmed: 29629797
Thyroid. 2015 Oct;25(10):1127-36
pubmed: 26133012
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Jul;211(1):162-167
pubmed: 29702015
BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 Mar 17;12:77
pubmed: 21414208
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 May;94(5):1748-51
pubmed: 19276237
Eur Thyroid J. 2017 Sep;6(5):225-237
pubmed: 29167761
Eur J Clin Invest. 2009 Aug;39(8):699-706
pubmed: 19601965
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Jun 1;103(6):2362-2368
pubmed: 29672763
Radiology. 2018 Jun;287(3):893-900
pubmed: 29465333
Thyroid. 2016 Jan;26(1):1-133
pubmed: 26462967
Endocr Connect. 2018 Jan;7(1):1-7
pubmed: 29196301
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Thyroid. 2018 Nov;28(11):1532-1537
pubmed: 30311862
J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 May;14(5):587-595
pubmed: 28372962

Auteurs

Bernice L Huang (BL)

Department of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Susana A Ebner (SA)

Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Jasnit S Makkar (JS)

Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Stuart Bentley-Hibbert (S)

Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Robert J McConnell (RJ)

Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
The Columbia Thyroid Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

James A Lee (JA)

The Columbia Thyroid Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Division of GI/Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Elizabeth M Hecht (EM)

Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Jennifer H Kuo (JH)

The Columbia Thyroid Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Division of GI/Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH