4.5 Article

USING THE ATA AND ACR TI-RADS SONOGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATIONS AS ADJUNCTIVE PREDICTORS OF MALIGNANCY FOR INDETERMINATE THYROID NODULES

期刊

ENDOCRINE PRACTICE
卷 25, 期 9, 页码 908-917

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4158/EP-2018-0559

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology pose management challenges in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of ultrasound features in navigating clinical decision making in thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed ultrasound imaging from 186 adult patients with thyroid nodules and indeterminate cytology who underwent thyroidectomy at a quaternary hospital from 2010-2017. All nodules were classified based on the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and 2017 American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR TI-RADS). Nodules were included if good quality pre-operative ultrasound imaging and surgical pathology were available. Results: A total of 202 thyroid nodules were included. The median age was 57 years; 82.8% were female. Risk of malignancy (ROM) in resected nodules with Bethesda 3 and 4 cytology was 19.4% and 303%, respectively. ATA high-suspicious and TI-RADS 5 nodules had high ROM, 100% in both systems for Bethesda 3 nodules; 66.7% and 50.0%, respectively, for Bethesda 4 nodules. For ATA very-low suspicious/TI-RADS 1 and 2, ROM was 0%. ROM in ATA low-suspiciousITT-RADS 3 nodules with Bethesda 3 cytology was lower (15.2% and 16.0%, respectively) than Bethesda 4 cytology (33.8% and 34.3%, respectively). ATA intermediate-suspicious/TI-RADS 4 nodules with Bethesda 4 cytology had a lower ROM (11.1% and 18.2%, respectively) than Bethesda 3 cytology (28.6 % and 31.6%, respectively). Conclusion: Using either the ATA or the TI-RADS system to risk-stratify nodules with indeterminate cytology may help clinicians plan better for additional diagnostic testing and treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据