4.7 Article

Electrical impedance scanning of thyroid nodules before thyroid surgery: A prospective study

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 152-160

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1245/ASO.2005.03.062

关键词

electrical impedance scanning; thyroid nodule; conductivity; impedance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Electrical impedance scanning (EIS) is a novel imaging technique based on differential electrical conductivity and capacitance of malignant and normal human tissues. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of EIS in the detection of thyroid malignancies. Methods: Patients with thyroid nodules scheduled for thyroid surgery were eligible for the study. Enrolled patients underwent EIS with a T-Scan 2000ED. Nodule location, size, and type (cystic vs. solid) measured by ultrasound, cytology results, thyroid conductivity, and capacitance calculated by EIS were recorded. EIS results were interpreted as positive or negative for malignancy and compared with final histopathology results. Study end points included EIS accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and false-positive and false-negative rates. Results: Sixty-four patients were enrolled onto the study, and all underwent either lobectomy-isthmusectomy (20%) or total thyroidectomy (80%). The mean tumor diameter was 2.64 +/- 14.8 mm. Thyroid cancers were identified by histology in 30 patients (46.9%). There were I I false-positive and four false-negative cases. The overall diagnostic accuracy of EIS was 76.6% (49 of 64 correct diagnoses). The sensitivity and specificity of EIS were 86.7% (26 of 30 true positive) and 67.6% (23 of 34 true negative), respectively. The corresponding positive and negative predictive values were 70.3% and 85.2%. Conclusions: EIS is a potentially useful imaging modality for differentiating thyroid neoplasms. If these results are confirmed in large-scale trials, EIS may be an important part of the evaluation of thyroid nodules.

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

4.7
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