Cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules: increased diagnostic performance with combination of US TI-RADS and a new scoring system

To investigate the diagnostic performance of combination of ultrasound (US) thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) and a new US scoring system for diagnosing thyroid nodules (TNs) with indeterminate results (Bethesda categories III, IV and V) on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology. 45...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientific reports 2017-07, Vol.7 (1), p.6906-9, Article 6906
Hauptverfasser: He, Ya-Ping, Xu, Hui-Xiong, Zhao, Chong-Ke, Sun, Li-Ping, Li, Xiao-Long, Yue, Wen-Wen, Guo, Le-Hang, Wang, Dan, Ren, Wei-Wei, Wang, Qiao, Qu, Shen
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To investigate the diagnostic performance of combination of ultrasound (US) thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) and a new US scoring system for diagnosing thyroid nodules (TNs) with indeterminate results (Bethesda categories III, IV and V) on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology. 453 patients with 453 cytologically indeterminate TNs were included in this study. Multivariate analyses were performed to construct the scoring system. The diagnostic performances of TI-RADS and the combined method were evaluated and compared. Multivariate analyses revealed that marked hypoechogenicity, taller than wide shape and absence of halo sign were independent predictors for malignancy in cytologically indeterminate TNs. Scoring system was thereafter defined as follows: risk score (RS) = 3.2 x (if marked hypoechogenicity) + 2.8 x (if taller than wide shape) + 1.3 x (if absence of halo sign). Compared with TI-RADS alone, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), specificity, accuracy and positive predictive value (PPV) of the combined method increased significantly with 0.731 versus 0.569, 48.5% versus 14.1%, 76.2% versus 62.3%, and 70.9% versus 59.9%, respectively (all P  
ISSN:2045-2322
2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-07353-y