Performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in assessing thyroid nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis using histological standard of reference.
Carcinoma
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)
Meta-analysis
Nodule
Thyroid
Journal
La Radiologia medica
ISSN: 1826-6983
Titre abrégé: Radiol Med
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 0177625
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
28
08
2019
accepted:
27
12
2019
pubmed:
24
1
2020
medline:
15
4
2020
entrez:
24
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The present study was undertaken to systematically review the literature on the reliability of using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to assess thyroid nodules. To avoid the potential bias in studies using a cytological standard of reference, here we aimed to meta-analyze data from studies adopting histological diagnosis as the gold standard. A comprehensive literature exploration of PubMed and Scopus was conducted. The search was updated until June 2018 and references of the retrieved articles screened. Only original articles reporting the histological follow-up of nodules previously undergone CEUS evaluation were eligible for inclusion. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CEUS were calculated by DerSimonian and Laird method (random-effects model). The literature search retrieved 1885 articles, and 14 were included for the study. There were Chinese, Italian, German, and Austrian authors. All studies used SonoVue. The overall number of reported nodules was 1515, of which 775 were classified as positive at CEUS and 740 as negative. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CEUS were 85% (95% CI 83-88), 82% (95% CI 77-87), 83% (95% CI 77-88), and 85% (95% CI 81-88), respectively. Moderate inconsistency was present for specificity and PPV. There was publication bias for sensitivity and NPV. CEUS reaches good performance in discriminating between malignant and benign thyroid lesions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The present study was undertaken to systematically review the literature on the reliability of using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to assess thyroid nodules. To avoid the potential bias in studies using a cytological standard of reference, here we aimed to meta-analyze data from studies adopting histological diagnosis as the gold standard.
METHODS
METHODS
A comprehensive literature exploration of PubMed and Scopus was conducted. The search was updated until June 2018 and references of the retrieved articles screened. Only original articles reporting the histological follow-up of nodules previously undergone CEUS evaluation were eligible for inclusion. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CEUS were calculated by DerSimonian and Laird method (random-effects model).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The literature search retrieved 1885 articles, and 14 were included for the study. There were Chinese, Italian, German, and Austrian authors. All studies used SonoVue. The overall number of reported nodules was 1515, of which 775 were classified as positive at CEUS and 740 as negative. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CEUS were 85% (95% CI 83-88), 82% (95% CI 77-87), 83% (95% CI 77-88), and 85% (95% CI 81-88), respectively. Moderate inconsistency was present for specificity and PPV. There was publication bias for sensitivity and NPV.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
CEUS reaches good performance in discriminating between malignant and benign thyroid lesions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31970579
doi: 10.1007/s11547-019-01129-2
pii: 10.1007/s11547-019-01129-2
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
406-415Références
Thyroid. 2010 Jan;20(1):51-7
pubmed: 20067379
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 Jan 1;104(1):95-102
pubmed: 30299457
Eur Radiol. 2012 Jun;22(6):1357-65
pubmed: 22322310
Eur Radiol. 2006 Oct;16(10):2234-41
pubmed: 16670868
Ultrasound Q. 2017 Sep;33(3):213-218
pubmed: 28832401
Endocr Pract. 2016 May;22(5):622-39
pubmed: 27167915
Korean J Radiol. 2016 May-Jun;17(3):370-95
pubmed: 27134526
Endocr Connect. 2018 Jan;7(1):1-7
pubmed: 29196301
J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 May;14(5):587-595
pubmed: 28372962
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jan;98(4):e14051
pubmed: 30681562
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013 Feb;39(2):187-210
pubmed: 23137926
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2015;61(1):13-22
pubmed: 24898562
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Nov;95(45):e5329
pubmed: 27828854
Exp Ther Med. 2016 May;11(5):1555-1562
pubmed: 27168773
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Dec;151(6):909-15
pubmed: 25344590
J Clin Ultrasound. 2016 May;44(4):199-209
pubmed: 26402325
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Nov;82(11):1892-8
pubmed: 23928231
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 May 1;105(5):
pubmed: 31690937
Oncol Lett. 2015 Sep;10(3):1371-1377
pubmed: 26622676
Ultrasonography. 2016 Apr;35(2):89-103
pubmed: 26867761
Med Sci Monit. 2016 Dec 5;22:4755-4764
pubmed: 27916971
J Ultrasound Med. 2018 Feb;37(2):425-437
pubmed: 28880412
Eur Thyroid J. 2017 Sep;6(5):225-237
pubmed: 29167761
Exp Ther Med. 2016 Aug;12(2):783-791
pubmed: 27446276
Acta Cytol. 2012;56(4):333-9
pubmed: 22846422
JAMA. 2018 Mar 6;319(9):914-924
pubmed: 29509871
Thyroid. 2016 Jan;26(1):1-133
pubmed: 26462967
Ultraschall Med. 2018 Apr;39(2):e2-e44
pubmed: 29510439
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2015 Oct 27;63(2):113-21
pubmed: 26519225
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 24;8(10):e77927
pubmed: 24205031
Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Jul;2(7):384-94
pubmed: 16932321