Choosing the best algorithm among five thyroid nodule ultrasound scores: from performance to cytology sparing-a single-center retrospective study in a large cohort

Clotilde Sparano, Valentina Verdiani, Cinzia Pupilli, Giuliano Perigli, Benedetta Badii, Vania Vezzosi, Edoardo Mannucci, Mario Maggi, Luisa Petrone, Clotilde Sparano, Valentina Verdiani, Cinzia Pupilli, Giuliano Perigli, Benedetta Badii, Vania Vezzosi, Edoardo Mannucci, Mario Maggi, Luisa Petrone

Abstract

Objective: Incidental diagnosis of thyroid nodules, and therefore of thyroid cancer, has definitely increased in recent years, but the mortality rate for thyroid malignancies remains very low. Within this landscape of overdiagnosis, several nodule ultrasound scores (NUS) have been proposed to reduce unnecessary diagnostic procedures. Our aim was to verify the suitability of five main NUS.

Methods: This single-center, retrospective, observational study analyzed a total number of 6474 valid cytologies. A full clinical and US description of the thyroid gland and nodules was performed. We retrospectively applied five available NUS: KTIRADS, ATA, AACE/ACE-AME, EUTIRADS, and ACRTIRADS. Thereafter, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, along with the number of possible fine-needle aspiration (FNA) sparing, according to each NUS algorithm and to clustering risk classes within three macro-groups (low, intermediate, and high risk).

Results: In a real-life setting of thyroid nodule management, available NUS scoring systems show good accuracy at ROC analysis (AUC up to 0.647) and higher NPV (up to 96%). The ability in FNA sparing ranges from 10 to 38% and reaches 44.2% of potential FNA economization in the low-risk macro-group. Considering our cohort, ACRTIRADS and AACE/ACE-AME scores provide the best compromise in terms of accuracy and spared cytology.

Conclusions: Despite several limitations, available NUS do appear to assist physicians in clinical practice. In the context of a common disease, such as thyroid nodules, higher accuracy and NPV are desirable NUS features. Further improvements in NUS sensitivity and specificity are attainable future goals to optimize nodule management.

Key points: • Thyroid nodule ultrasound scores do assist clinicians in real practice. • Ultrasound scores reduce unnecessary diagnostic procedures, containing indolent thyroid microcarcinoma overdiagnosis. • The variable malignancy risk of the "indeterminate" category negatively influences score's performance in real-life management of thyroid lesions.

Keywords: Biopsy, fine-needle; Cytology sparing; Thyroid imaging, reporting, and data system; Thyroid nodules; Ultrasonography.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the study. aExcluded for incomplete data or inconclusive cytology or sub-centimetric size (fine-needle aspiration is rarely indicated by any TIRADS for the latter). bIndeterminate cytology: of those, 283 were classified as Thy3, according to the British Cytological classification (before 2014), and, later on, 596 ones as TIR3A (370) and TIR3B (226), according to the SIAPEC-IAP classification. Ø = size of the lesion
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a ROC curves according to positive cytology for all NUS scores. The area under ROC curves are 0.623 (CI 95%; 0.599–0.647) for KTIRADS; 0.632 (CI 95%; range 0.608–0.656) for ATA; 0.623 (CI 95%; 0.599–0.646) for AACE/ACE-AME; 0.606 (CI 95%; 0.582–0.631) for EUTIRADS; 0.622 (CI 95%; 0.600–0.645) for ACRTIRADS range 1–5. b ROC curve considering the total scoring of ACRTIRADS (points 1–14). The area under ROC curve is 0.647 (CI 95%; 0.625–0.669)

References

    1. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association management guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer: the American Thyroid Association guidelines task force on thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid. 2016;26:1–133. doi: 10.1089/thy.2015.0020.
    1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9–29. doi: 10.3322/caac.21208.
    1. Dal Maso L, Panato C, Franceschi S, et al. The impact of overdiagnosis on thyroid cancer epidemic in Italy, 1998-2012. Eur J Cancer. 2018;94:6–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.01.083.
    1. Hegedüs L. Clinical practice. The thyroid nodule. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1764–1771. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp031436.
    1. Cancer Stat Facts: Thyroid Cancer.
    1. Powers AE, Marcadis AR, Lee M, Morris LGT, Marti JL (2019) Changes in trends in thyroid cancer incidence in the United States, 1992 to 2016. JAMA 322:2440–2441. 10.1001/jama.2019.18528
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21442.
    1. Tessler FN, Middleton WD, Grant EG, et al. ACR thyroid imaging, reporting and data system (TI-RADS): white paper of the ACR TI-RADS committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:587–595. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.046.
    1. Gharib H, Papini E, Garber JR, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American College of Endocrinology, and Associazione Medici Endocrinologi medical guidelines for clinical practice for the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules--2016 UPDATE. Endocr Pract. 2016;22:622–639. doi: 10.4158/.
    1. Shin JH, Baek JH, Chung J, et al. Ultrasonography diagnosis and imaging-based management of thyroid nodules: revised Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology consensus statement and recommendations. Korean J Radiol. 2016;17:370–395. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.3.370.
    1. Russ G, Bonnema SJ, Erdogan MF, Durante C, Ngu R, Leenhard L (2017) European Thyroid Association guidelines for ultrasound malignancy risk stratification of thyroid nodules in adults: the EU-TIRADS. Eur Thyroid J 6:225–237. 10.1159/000478927
    1. Persichetti A, Di Stasio E, Guglielmi R, et al. Predictive value of malignancy of thyroid nodule ultrasound classification systems: a prospective study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103:1359–1368. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01708.
    1. Pandya A, Caoili EM, Jawad-Makki F, et al. Retrospective cohort study of 1947 thyroid nodules: a comparison of the 2017 American College of Radiology TI-RADS and the 2015 American Thyroid Association classifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214:900–906. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21904.
    1. Grani G, Lamartina L, Cantisani V, Maranghi M, Lucia P, Durante C (2018) Interobserver agreement of various thyroid imaging reporting and data systems. Endocr Connect 7:1–7. 10.1530/EC-17-0336
    1. Lauria Pantano A, Maddaloni E, Briganti SI, et al. Differences between ATA, AACE/ACE/AME and ACR TI-RADS ultrasound classifications performance in identifying cytological high-risk thyroid nodules. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018;178:595–603. doi: 10.1530/EJE-18-0083.
    1. Burman KD, Wartofsky L. Thyroid nodules. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1294–1295. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1600493.
    1. Rago T, Vitti P, Chiovato L, et al. Role of conventional ultrasonography and color flow-doppler sonography in predicting malignancy in “cold” thyroid nodules. Eur J Endocrinol. 1998;138:41–46. doi: 10.1530/eje.0.1380041.
    1. British Thyroid Association, Royal College of Physicians (2007) Guidelines for the management of thyroid cancer (Perros P, ed). Report of the Thyroid Cancer Guidelines Update Group, 2nd edn. Royal College of Physicians, London
    1. Pacini F, Basolo F, Bellantone R, et al. Italian consensus on diagnosis and treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer: joint statements of six Italian societies. J Endocrinol Invest. 2018;41:849–876. doi: 10.1007/s40618-018-0884-2.
    1. Sparano C, Parenti G, Cilotti A, et al. Clinical impact of the new SIAPEC-IAP classification on the indeterminate category of thyroid nodules. J Endocrinol Invest. 2019;42:1–6. doi: 10.1007/s40618-018-0871-7.
    1. Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene F, Trotti A (2010) AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook: From the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edn. Springer-Verlag, New York
    1. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2017.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Ha EJ, Moon W-J, Na DG, et al. A multicenter prospective validation study for the Korean thyroid imaging reporting and data system in patients with thyroid nodules. Korean J Radiol. 2016;17:811–821. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.811.
    1. Middleton WD, Teefey SA, Reading CC, et al. Multiinstitutional analysis of thyroid nodule risk stratification using the American College of Radiology thyroid imaging reporting and data system. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:1331–1341. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17613.
    1. Grani G, Lamartina L, Ascoli V, et al. Reducing the number of unnecessary thyroid biopsies while improving diagnostic accuracy: toward the “right” TIRADS. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104:95–102. doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-01674.
    1. Tee YY, Lowe AJ, Brand CA, Judson RT. Fine-needle aspiration may miss a third of all malignancy in palpable thyroid nodules: a comprehensive literature review. Ann Surg. 2007;246:714–720. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180f61adc.
    1. Nou E, Kwong N, Alexander LK, Cibas ES, Marqusee E, Alexander EK (2014) Determination of the optimal time interval for repeat evaluation after a benign thyroid nodule aspiration. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99:510–516. 10.1210/jc.2013-3160
    1. Castellana M, Castellana C, Treglia G et al (2020) Performance of five ultrasound risk stratification systems in selecting thyroid nodules for FNA. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 105. 10.1210/clinem/dgz170

Source: PubMed

Подписаться