Cargando…
Histopathological Verification of the Diagnostic Performance of the EU-TIRADS Classification of Thyroid Nodules—Results of a Multicenter Study Performed in a Previously Iodine-Deficient Region
Background: To validate the European Thyroid Imaging and Reporting Data System EU-TIRADS classification in a multi-institutional database of thyroid nodules by analyzing the obtained scores and histopathology results. Methods: A total of 842 thyroid lesions (613 benign, 229 malignant) were identifie...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6912671/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31731455 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm8111781 |
Sumario: | Background: To validate the European Thyroid Imaging and Reporting Data System EU-TIRADS classification in a multi-institutional database of thyroid nodules by analyzing the obtained scores and histopathology results. Methods: A total of 842 thyroid lesions (613 benign, 229 malignant) were identified in 428 patients (mean age 62.7 years) and scored according to EU-TIRADS, using ultrasound examination. In all tumors, histopathological verification was performed. Results: In EU-TIRADS 2 (154 nodules) all nodules were benign; in EU-TIRADS 3, only 3/93 malignancies were identified. In EU-TIRADS 4, 12/103 were malignant, and in EU-TIRADS 5 (278 benign vs. 214 malignant). The malignant nodules that would not have qualified for biopsy were: EU-TIRADS 3, 2/3 (67%) malignancies were <20 mm, in EU-TIRADS 4, 7/12 (58%) were <15 mm. In EU-TIRADS 5, 72/214 (34%) were <10 mm; in total, 81/229 (36%) malignant lesions would have been missed. The cutoff between EU-TIRADS 3/4 had sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 25.1%. Using cutoff for EU-TIRADS 5, 93.4%, 54.6%, respectively. Conclusion: The application of EU-TIRADS guidelines allowed us to achieve moderate specificity. The vast majority of malignancies in EU-TIRADS 3, 4, and 5 would not have been recommended for biopsy because having a smaller size than that proposed classification. |
---|