|Table of Contents|

Comparative study of the differential diagnostic value of C-TIRADS and ACR TI-RADS in benign and malignant thyroid nodules

Journal Of Modern Oncology[ISSN:1672-4992/CN:61-1415/R]

Issue:
2023 08
Page:
1490-1496
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Comparative study of the differential diagnostic value of C-TIRADS and ACR TI-RADS in benign and malignant thyroid nodules
Author(s):
XIE Jianfeng; CHENG Xiaoqiao; LIU Cuiyun; ZHANG Shaoyun; JIN Zhanqiang; SUN Kun
Department of Ultrasound,Southern University of Science and Technology Hospital,Guangdong Shenzhen 518000,China.
Keywords:
ultrasonography; thyroid nodule; thyroid imaging reporting and data system
PACS:
R736.1
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1672-4992.2023.08.019
Abstract:
Objective:To compare and verify the diagnostic value of the 2020 Chinese guidelines for ultrasound malignant risk stratification of thyroid nodules (C-TIRADS) and the 2017 thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) proposed by the American college of radiology (ACR) in the assessment of malignant risk stratification of thyroid nodules.Methods:From January 2019 to November 2021,258 thyroid nodules underwent thyroid ultrasonographic examination and operation in our hospital.The ultrasonographic image features of 258 nodules were retrospectively analyzed.All the nodules included in the study were evaluated by C-TIRADS and ACR TI-RADS guidelines respectively.The ROC curve was constructed according to the surgical pathological results as the gold standard，and the best diagnostic cut-off was selected according to the Youden index to compare the diagnostic performance of the two guidelines.Results:The sensitivity,specificity,positive,negative,accuracy,and area under ROC curve (AUC) of C-TIRADS and ACR TI-RADS in the diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid nodules were 87.9%,80.3%,84.4%,84.7%,84.5%,0.904 and 70.2%,89.7%,89.2%,71.4%,79.1%,0.879 respectively.The differences in sensitivity,specificity and negative predictive value between the two guidelines were statistically significant (P＜0.05),while the differences in positive predictive value,accuracy and AUC were not statistically significant (P＞0.05).For subgroups≤1 cm in diameter,the sensitivity and area under ROC curve of C-TIRADS and ACR TI-RADS were 88.5%,0.927 and 72.4%,0.881 respectively,and the differences were statistically significant (P＜0.05).There was no significant difference in specificity,positive predictive value,negative predictive value and accuracy of C-TIRADS and ACR TI-RADS (P＞0.05).In addition,according to the FNA biopsy criteria in the two guidelines,the unnecessary FNA biopsy of C-TIRADS and the detection rate of malignant nodules were higher than those of ACR TI-RADS,but the differences were not statistically significant (P＞0.05).Conclusion:The two guidelines have good diagnostic performance for the differentiation of benign and malignant thyroid nodules.C-TIRADS guideline has higher sensitivity,and the ACR TI-RADS guideline has higher specificity.In subgroup nodules≤1 cm,the diagnostic performance of the C-TIRADS guideline is higher than those of ACR TI-RADS guideline.

References:

［1］ HEGEDUS L.Clinical practice.The thyroid nodule ［J］.N Engl J Med,2004,351(17):1764-1771.
［2］ LIU X,ZHU L,WANG Z,et al.Evolutionary features of thyroid cancer in patients with thyroidectomies from 2008 to 2013 in China ［J］.Sci Rep,2016,6:28414.
［3］ BRAY F,FERLAY J,SOERJOMATARAM I,et al.Global cancer statistics 2018:GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries ［J］.CA Cancer J Clin,2018,68(6):394-424.
［4］ 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）编辑委员会浅表器官学组.甲状腺结节超声诊断规范［J］.中华医学超声杂志（电子版）,2017,14(4):241-244. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition) Editorial Committee Superficial Organ Group.Specification for ultrasonic diagnosis of thyroid nodules［J］.Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition),2017,14(4):241-244.
［5］ 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］.J Am Coll Radiol,2017,14(5):587-595.
［6］ ZHANG Q,MA J,SUN W,et al.Comparison of diagnostic performance between the american college of radiology thyroid imaging reporting and data system and american thyroid association guidelines:a systematic review ［J］.Endocr Pract,2020,26(5):552-563.
［7］ YOON SJ,NA DG,GWON HY,et al.Similarities and differences between thyroid imaging reporting and data systems ［J］.AJR Am J Roentgenol,2019,213(2):W76-W84.
［8］ GRANI G,LAMARTINA L,ASCOLI V,et al.Reducing the number of unnecessary thyroid biopsies while improving diagnostic accuracy:Toward the "Right" TIRADS ［J］.J Clin Endocrinol Metab,2019,104(1):95-102.
［9］ CASTELLANA M,CASTELLANA C,TREGLIA G,et al.Performance of five ultrasound risk stratification systems in selecting thyroid nodules for FNA ［J］.J Clin Endocrinol Metab,2020,105(5):dgz170.
［10］ HA EJ,NA DG,BAEK JH,et al.US Fine-needle aspiration biopsy for thyroid malignancy:Diagnostic performance of seven society guidelines applied to 2000 thyroid nodules ［J］.Radiology,2018,287(3):893-900.
［11］ QI Q,ZHOU A,GUO S,et al.Explore the diagnostic efficiency of Chinese thyroid imaging reporting and data systems by comparing with the other four systems (ACR TI-RADS,Kwak-TIRADS,KSThR-TIRADS,and EU-TIRADS):A single-center study ［J］.Front Endocrinol (Lausanne),2021,12:763897.
［12］ ZHOU J,YIN L,WEI X,et al.2020 Chinese guidelines for ultrasound malignancy risk stratification of thyroid nodules:the C-TIRADS ［J］.Endocrine,2020,70(2):256-279.
［13］ HORVATH E,MAJLIS S,ROSSI R,et al.An ultrasonogram reporting system for thyroid nodules stratifying cancer risk for clinical management ［J］.J Clin Endocrinol Metab,2009,94(5):1748-1751.
［14］ 王潇婧,刘利平,孙永清,等.ACR TI-RADS分类与2015年ATA指南对甲状腺结节诊断价值的比较研究 ［J］.中华临床医师杂志（电子版）,2018,12(4):223-226. WANG XJ,LIU LP,SUN YQ,et al.Comparison of diagnostic value between American college of radiology thyroid imaging reporting and data system and 2015 American thyroid association guidelines in thyroid nodules ［J］.Chinese Journal of Clinicians (Electronic Edition),2018,12(4):223-226.
［15］ 刘锐洪,何瑞琦,陈英银,等.ACR TI-RADS与ATA指南分级评估甲状腺结节的对比研究 ［J］.中国中西医结合影像学杂志,2019,17(4):380-383. LIU RH，HE RQ，CHEN YY,et al.Comparison between ACR TI-RADS and the recommendation of ATA in evaluation of thyroid nodule with ultrasound ［J］.Chinese Imaging Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine,2019,17(4):380-383.
［16］ 季沁,陈国芳,褚晓秋,等.3种甲状腺结节超声报告系统诊断效能的比较研究 ［J］.南京医科大学学报（自然科学版）,2019,39(3):408-413. JI Q,CHEN GF,CHU XQ,et al.Comparison of diagnostic efficacy among three ultrasound reporting systems in diagnosis of thyroid nodules ［J］.Journal of Nanjing Medical University( Natural Sciences),2019,39(3):408-413.
［17］ 蔡名利,叶冯颖,林海滨,等.几种常用TI-RADS诊断甲状腺结节效能的比较 ［J］.中国超声医学杂志,2021,37(6):607-610. CAI ML，YE FY，LIN HB,et al.Comparison of several commonly used TI-RADS in the diagnosis of thyroid nodules ［J］.Chinese Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine,2021,37(6):607-610.
［18］ ZHU H,YANG Y,WU S,et al.Diagnostic performance of US-based FNAB criteria of the 2020 Chinese guideline for malignant thyroid nodules:comparison with the 2017 American college of radiology guideline,the 2015 American thyroid association guideline,and the 2016 Korean thyroid association guideline ［J］.Quant Imaging Med Surg,2021,11(8):3604-3618.
［19］ 丁思悦,丁全全,王雁,等.C-TIRADS与ACR TI-RADS在甲状腺结节中的诊断效能对比研究 ［J］.中国超声医学杂志,2021,37(9):964-967. DING SY,DING QQ,WANG Y,et al.Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of C-TIRADS and ACR TI-RADS in thyroid nodule diagnosis ［J］.Chinese Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine,2021,37(9):964-967.
［20］ 郑琳琳,李世岩,许立龙,等.甲状腺结节超声恶性风险分层：C-TIRADS、ACR-TIRADS和EU-TIRADS的对比研究 ［J］.中华超声影像学杂志,2021,30(9):785-791. ZHENG LL,LI SY,XU LL,et al.Diagnostic performance of ultrasound-based risk stratification systems for thyroid nodules:comparison of the C-TIRADS with the ACR-TIRADS and EU-TIRADS［J］.Chinese Journal of Ultrasonography,2021,30(9):785-791.
［21］ 陈庆芳,吴嗣泽.甲状腺结节恶性风险分层的C-TIRADS与ACR-TIRADS诊断效能比较研究 ［J］.中华超声影像学杂志,2021,30(10):861-867. CHEN QF,WU SZ.Comparison of diagnostic performance between C-TIRADS and ACR-TIRADS for malignancy risk stratification of thyroid nodules［J］.Chinese Journal of Ultrasonography,2021,30(10):861-867.
［22］ 李荣斌.2020中国TI-RADS鉴别甲状腺结节良恶性的价值［D］.福州：福建医科大学,2021. LI RB.Value of 2020 Chinese TI-RADS in the diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid nodules ［D］.Fuzhou:Fujian Medical University,2021.
［23］ 刘莎.Kwak TI-RADS、ACR TI-RADS与C-TIRADS在BethesdaⅢ类甲状腺结节中的应用价值比较［D］.太原：山西医科大学,2021. LIU S.Comparison of the application value of Kwak，American college of radiology and Chinese thyroid imaging reporting and data system in Bethesda Ⅲthyroid nodules［D］.Taiyuan:Shanxi Medical University,2021.
［24］ ZHOU J,SONG Y,ZHAN W,et al.Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TIRADS) for ultrasound features of nodules:multicentric retrospective study in China ［J］.Endocrine,2021,72(1):157-170.
［25］ FRATES MC,BENSON CB,CHARBONEAU JW,et al.Management of thyroid nodules detected at US:Society of radiologists in ultrasound consensus conference statement ［J］.Radiology,2005,237(3):794-800.
［26］ LI J,MA X,CUI K.Re:"ACR thyroid imaging,reporting and data system (TI-RADS):White paper of the ACR TI-RADS committee" ［J］.J Am Coll Radiol,2018,15(3 Pt A):380-381.
［27］ VACCARELLA S,FRANCESCHI S,BRAY F,et al.Worldwide thyroid-cancer epidemic? the increasing impact of overdiagnosis ［J］.N Engl J Med,2016,375(7):614-617.
［28］ AHN HS,KIM HJ,WELCH HG.Korea's thyroid-cancer "epidemic"-screening and overdiagnosis ［J］.N Engl J Med,2014,371(19):1765-1767.
［29］ LA VECCHIA C,MALVEZZI M,BOSETTI C,et al.Thyroid cancer mortality and incidence:a global overview ［J］.Int J Cancer,2015,136(9):2187-2195.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 1900-01-01