Validation of TIRADS ACR Risk Assessment of Thyroid Nodules in Comparison to the ATA Guidelines.
Cytology
Fine-needle aspiration biopsy
Risk assessment
Thyroid nodules
Ultrasound
Journal
Journal of clinical imaging science
ISSN: 2156-7514
Titre abrégé: J Clin Imaging Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101564708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
05
05
2021
accepted:
18
06
2021
entrez:
4
8
2021
pubmed:
5
8
2021
medline:
5
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The prevalence of thyroid nodules in adults, detected by ultrasound (US), is reported as high as 68%. US-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) is the test of choice used to determine the nature of the nodules. However, not more than 15% are found to be malignant. Reducing the number of unnecessary FNAB while identifying clinically significant malignant nodules is imperative. There are several guidelines suggested for risk stratification of thyroid nodules by US. The aim of our study was to validate and compare Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TIRADS) American College of Radiology (ACR) and American Thyroid Association (ATA) risk stratification, specifically pertaining to reduction of unnecessary biopsies. The study included 281 nodules in 245 patients who underwent FNAB between May 2018 and June 2019. Statistical analysis was performed only on 235 nodules that according to the TIRADS ACR and/ or ATA guidelines were eligible for FNAB. Data collected included nodule characteristics with corresponding TIRADS and ATA grading and cytological results using Bethesda scoring. An agreement was found between the two criteria methods in 58.2% (137/235) of the cases. In 35.3% (83/235), ATA recommended FNAB while TIRADS did not. The specificity for ATA criteria was 7% (15/221) and for TIRADS was 37% (81/221). The sensitivity was 100% (14/14) for ATA and 86% (12/14) for TIRADS. Application of ACR TIRADS criteria can reduce the number of US-guided FNAB performed on benign nodules compared to ATA criteria, by 35%, with a cost of only two missed carcinomas that remained on further follow-up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34345527
doi: 10.25259/JCIS_99_2021
pii: 10.25259/JCIS_99_2021
pmc: PMC8326070
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
37Informations de copyright
© 2021 Published by Scientific Scholar on behalf of Journal of Clinical Imaging Science.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
Thyroid. 2017 Apr;27(4):518-523
pubmed: 28125944
Endocrine. 2019 Apr;64(1):90-96
pubmed: 30659427
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 May;210(5):1148-1154
pubmed: 29629797
J Am Coll Radiol. 2015 Feb;12(2):143-50
pubmed: 25456025
Endocrine. 2019 Jul;65(1):121-131
pubmed: 30830584
Endocr J. 2017 Jan 30;64(1):59-64
pubmed: 27667647
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Apr;214(4):900-906
pubmed: 32069084
Thyroid. 2016 Jan;26(1):150-5
pubmed: 26426735
Thyroid. 2016 Jan;26(1):1-133
pubmed: 26462967
Thyroid. 2016 Apr;26(4):562-72
pubmed: 26756476
N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 21;351(17):1764-71
pubmed: 15496625
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018 Mar;44(3):307-315
pubmed: 28343733
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Apr;140(4):317-22
pubmed: 24557566
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Nov;98(44):e17657
pubmed: 31689776
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Oct 28;173(19):1788-96
pubmed: 23978950
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012 Jun;23(6):727-36
pubmed: 22513394
Am J Clin Pathol. 2009 Nov;132(5):658-65
pubmed: 19846805
Thyroid. 2003 Apr;13(4):381-7
pubmed: 12804106
J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 May;14(5):587-595
pubmed: 28372962