Ultrasonography.  2023 Apr;42(2):307-313. 10.14366/usg.22096.

Subcategorization of intermediate suspicion thyroid nodules based on suspicious ultrasonographic findings

• Kim H
• Shin JH
• Kim KE
• Kim MK
• Oh J
• Hahn SY

• KMID: 2540933
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14366/usg.22096

Abstract

Purpose
This study compared the malignancy risk of intermediate suspicion thyroid nodules according to the presence of suspicious ultrasonographic (US) findings.
Methods
From January 2014 to December 2014, 299 consecutive intermediate suspicion thyroid nodules in 281 patients (mean age, 50.6±12.5 years) with final diagnoses were included in this study. Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed the US findings and subcategorized the intermediate suspicion category into nodules without suspicious findings and nodules with suspicious findings, including punctate echogenic foci, nonparallel orientation, or irregular margins. The malignancy rates were compared between the two subcategory groups.
Results
Of the 299 intermediate suspicion thyroid nodules, 230 (76.9%) were subcategorized as nodules without suspicious findings and 69 (23.1%) as nodules with suspicious findings. The total malignancy rate was 33.4% (100/299) and the malignancy rate of nodules with suspicious findings was significantly higher than that of nodules without suspicious findings (47.8% vs. 29.1%, P=0.004). In nodules with suspicious findings, the most common suspicious finding was punctate echogenic foci (48/82, 58.5%) followed by nonparallel orientation (22/82, 26.8%) and irregular margins (12/82, 14.6%). Thirteen nodules had two suspicious findings simultaneously. A linearly increasing trend in the malignancy rate was observed according to the number of suspicious US findings (P for trend=0.001).
Conclusion
Intermediate suspicion thyroid nodules with suspicious findings showed a higher malignancy rate than those without suspicious findings. Further management guidelines for nodules with suspicious findings should differ from guidelines for nodules without suspicious findings, even in the same US category.

Keyword

Thyroid nodule; Thyroid cancer; Ultrasonography; Thyroid imaging reporting and data system

Reference

References

1. Kang HW, No JH, Chung JH, Min YK, Lee MS, Lee MK, et al. Prevalence, clinical and ultrasonographic characteristics of thyroid incidentalomas. Thyroid. 2004; 14:29–33.

2. Tessler FN, Middleton WD, Grant EG, Hoang JK, Berland LL, Teefey SA, et al. ACR Thyroid Imaging, Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS): White Paper of the ACR TI-RADS Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14:587–595.

3. Russ G, Bonnema SJ, Erdogan MF, Durante C, Ngu R, Leenhardt L. European Thyroid Association guidelines for ultrasound malignancy risk stratification of thyroid nodules in adults: the EU-TIRADS. Eur Thyroid J. 2017; 6:225–237.

4. Shin JH, Baek JH, Chung J, Ha EJ, Kim JH, Lee YH, et al. Ultrasonography diagnosis and imaging-based management of thyroid nodules: revised Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology consensus statement and recommendations. Korean J Radiol. 2016; 17:370–395.

5. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, Doherty GM, Mandel SJ, Nikiforov YE, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association management guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer: the American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2016; 26:1–133.

6. Gharib H, Papini E, Garber JR, Duick DS, Harrell RM, Hegedus L, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American College of Endocrinology, and Associazione Medici Endocrinologi medical guidelines for clinical practice for the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules--2016 update. Endocr Pract. 2016; 22:622–639.

7. Tuttle RM, Haddad RI, Ball DW, Byrd D, Dickson P, Duh QY, et al. Thyroid carcinoma, version 2. 2014. 2014; 2014:2014–2014.

8. Frates MC, Benson CB, Charboneau JW, Cibas ES, Clark OH, Coleman BG, et al. Management of thyroid nodules detected at US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound consensus conference statement. Radiology. 2005; 237:794–800.

9. Ha EJ, Chung SR, Na DG, Ahn HS, Chung J, Lee JY, et al. 2021 Korean Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System and imagingbased management of thyroid nodules: Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology consensus statement and recommendations. Korean J Radiol. 2021; 22:2094–2123.

10. Yoon SJ, Na DG, Gwon HY, Paik W, Kim WJ, Song JS, et al. Similarities and differences between thyroid imaging reporting and data systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 213:W76–W84.

11. Ha SM, Baek JH, Na DG, Suh CH, Chung SR, Choi YJ, et al. Diagnostic performance of practice guidelines for thyroid nodules: thyroid nodule size versus biopsy rates. Radiology. 2019; 291:92–99.

12. Middleton WD, Teefey SA, Reading CC, Langer JE, Beland MD, Szabunio MM, et al. Comparison of performance characteristics of American College of Radiology TI-RADS, Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology TIRADS, and American Thyroid Association guidelines. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 210:1148–1154.

13. Kim JH, Baek JH, Lim HK, Ahn HS, Baek SM, Choi YJ, et al. 2017 Thyroid radiofrequency ablation guideline: Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology. Korean J Radiol. 2018; 19:632–655.

14. Ha EJ, Na DG, Baek JH, Sung JY, Kim JH, Kang SY. US fine-needle aspiration biopsy for thyroid malignancy: diagnostic performance of seven society guidelines applied to 2000 thyroid nodules. Radiology. 2018; 287:893–900.

15. Kim PH, Suh CH, Baek JH, Chung SR, Choi YJ, Lee JH. Unnecessary thyroid nodule biopsy rates under four ultrasound risk stratification systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2021; 31:2877–2885.

16. Na DG, Paik W, Cha J, Gwon HY, Kim SY, Yoo RE. Diagnostic performance of the modified Korean Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System for thyroid malignancy according to nodule size: a comparison with five society guidelines. Ultrasonography. 2021; 40:474–485.

17. Chung SR, Ahn HS, Choi YJ, Lee JY, Yoo RE, Lee YJ, et al. Diagnostic performance of the modified Korean Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System for thyroid malignancy: a multicenter validation study. Korean J Radiol. 2021; 22:1579–1586.

18. Lee JY, Na DG, Yoon SJ, Gwon HY, Paik W, Kim T, et al. Ultrasound malignancy risk stratification of thyroid nodules based on the degree of hypoechogenicity and echotexture. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30:1653–1663.

19. Middleton WD, Teefey SA, Reading CC, Langer JE, Beland MD, Szabunio MM, et al. Multiinstitutional analysis of thyroid nodule risk stratification using the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208:1331–1341.

20. Na DG, Kim DS, Kim SJ, Ryoo JW, Jung SL. Thyroid nodules with isolated macrocalcification: malignancy risk and diagnostic efficacy of fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy. Ultrasonography. 2016; 35:212–219.

21. Jung CK, Min HS, Park HJ, Song DE, Kim JH, Park SY, et al. Pathology reporting of thyroid core needle biopsy: a proposal of the Korean Endocrine Pathology Thyroid Core Needle Biopsy Study Group. J Pathol Transl Med. 2015; 49:288–299.

22. Cibas ES, Ali SZ. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. Thyroid. 2009; 19:1159–1165.

23. Ha EJ, Shin JH, Na DG, Jung SL, Lee YH, Paik W, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of the modified Korean Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System for thyroid malignancy with three international guidelines. Ultrasonography. 2021; 40:594–601.

24. Bae JM, Hahn SY, Shin JH, Ko EY. Inter-exam agreement and diagnostic performance of the Korean thyroid imaging reporting and data system for thyroid nodule assessment: real-time versus static ultrasonography. Eur J Radiol. 2018; 98:14–19.