3.8 Article

Is Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System Useful as an Adult Ultrasonographic Malignancy Risk Stratification Method in Pediatric Thyroid Nodules?

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ULTRASOUND
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 141-145

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/JMU.JMU_35_19

关键词

Imaging; pediatric; thyroid cancer; thyroid nodule; thyroid ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Data on thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) generally belong to studies performed in adults. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the performance and utility of TI-RADS in the pediatric group. Materials and Methods: From January 2015 to 2018, 108 nodules were evaluated in 1028 thyroid ultrasound examinations. Images were retrospectively evaluated by two radiologists with 3 and 7 years of pediatric radiology experience, according to TI-RADS classification. Morphological findings of the detected nodules and their histopathological results were recorded. Histopathological findings and at least 12 months of follow-up imaging were taken as reference. Results: Seventy-one patients were female (67%). The mean age was 11.4 +/- 4.7, and the mean nodule size was 7.4 +/- 8.3 mm. According to the histopathological assessment and at least 12 months' follow-up with clinical and sonographic stability 100 (95.2%) of the nodules were benign and 5 (4.8%) were malignant. Two nodules, nondiagnostic cytology and 1 nodule were found to be suspicious for malignancy. All malignant nodules were in the TI-RADS 5 category. The majority of benign nodules (79%) were found in low TI-RADS categories. About 80% of the malignant nodules were very hypoechoic and taller than wide in shape, also all malignant nodules had microcalcifications (P = 0.000). The sensitivity of TI-RADS was 100%, specificity was 78.8%, positive predictive value (PPV) was 19.2%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 100%. Conclusion: According to our study, TI-RADS system can be used to evaluate thyroid nodules in pediatric patients similar to adults.

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

3.8
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