Correct and Incorrect Recommendations for or against Fine Needle Biopsies of Hypofunctioning Thyroid Nodules: Performance of Different Ultrasound-based Risk Stratification Systems.

IF 1.2
Nuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-23 DOI:10.1055/a-2178-6739
Manuela Petersen, Simone A Schenke, Philipp Seifert, Alexander R Stahl, Rainer Görges, Michael Grunert, Burkhard Klemenz, Michael C Kreissl, Michael Zimny
{"title":"Correct and Incorrect Recommendations for or against Fine Needle Biopsies of Hypofunctioning Thyroid Nodules: Performance of Different Ultrasound-based Risk Stratification Systems.","authors":"Manuela Petersen, Simone A Schenke, Philipp Seifert, Alexander R Stahl, Rainer Görges, Michael Grunert, Burkhard Klemenz, Michael C Kreissl, Michael Zimny","doi":"10.1055/a-2178-6739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong> To evaluate the recommendations for or against fine needle biopsy (FNB) of hypofunctioning thyroid nodules (TNs) using of five different Ultrasound (US) -based risk stratification systems (RSSs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> German multicenter study with 563 TNs (≥ 10 mm) in 534 patients who underwent thyroid US and surgery. All TNs were evaluated with ACR TI-RADS, EU-TIRADS, ATA, K-TIRADS 2016 and modified K-TIRADS 2021. A correct recommendation was defined as: malignant TN with recommendation for FNB (appropriate) or benign TN without recommendation for FNB (avoided). An incorrect recommendation was defined as: malignant TN without recommendation for FNB (missed) or benign TN with recommendation for FNB (unnecessary).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> ACR TI-RADS demonstrated the highest rate of correct (42.3 %) and lowest rate of incorrect recommendations (57.7 %). The other RRSs showed similar results for correct (26.5 %-35.7 %) and incorrect (64.3 %-73.5 %) recommendations. ACR TI-RADS demonstrated the lowest rate of unnecessary (73.4 %) and the highest rate of appropriate (26.6 %) FNB recommendation. For other RSSs, the rates of unnecessary and appropriate FNB were between 75.2 %-77.1 % and 22.9 %-24.8 %. The lowest rate of missed FNB (14.7 %) and the highest rate of avoided FNB (85.3 %) was found for ACR TI-RADS. For the other RSSs, the rates of missed and avoided FNB were between 17.8 %-26.9 % and 73.1 %-82.2 %. When the size cutoff was disregarded, an increase of correct recommendations and a decrease of incorrect recommendations was observed for all RSSs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> The RSSs vary in their ability to correctly recommend for or against FNB. An understanding of the impact of nodule size cutoffs seems necessary for the future of TIRADS.</p>","PeriodicalId":94161,"journal":{"name":"Nuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine","volume":" ","pages":"21-33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2178-6739","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose:  To evaluate the recommendations for or against fine needle biopsy (FNB) of hypofunctioning thyroid nodules (TNs) using of five different Ultrasound (US) -based risk stratification systems (RSSs).

Methods:  German multicenter study with 563 TNs (≥ 10 mm) in 534 patients who underwent thyroid US and surgery. All TNs were evaluated with ACR TI-RADS, EU-TIRADS, ATA, K-TIRADS 2016 and modified K-TIRADS 2021. A correct recommendation was defined as: malignant TN with recommendation for FNB (appropriate) or benign TN without recommendation for FNB (avoided). An incorrect recommendation was defined as: malignant TN without recommendation for FNB (missed) or benign TN with recommendation for FNB (unnecessary).

Results:  ACR TI-RADS demonstrated the highest rate of correct (42.3 %) and lowest rate of incorrect recommendations (57.7 %). The other RRSs showed similar results for correct (26.5 %-35.7 %) and incorrect (64.3 %-73.5 %) recommendations. ACR TI-RADS demonstrated the lowest rate of unnecessary (73.4 %) and the highest rate of appropriate (26.6 %) FNB recommendation. For other RSSs, the rates of unnecessary and appropriate FNB were between 75.2 %-77.1 % and 22.9 %-24.8 %. The lowest rate of missed FNB (14.7 %) and the highest rate of avoided FNB (85.3 %) was found for ACR TI-RADS. For the other RSSs, the rates of missed and avoided FNB were between 17.8 %-26.9 % and 73.1 %-82.2 %. When the size cutoff was disregarded, an increase of correct recommendations and a decrease of incorrect recommendations was observed for all RSSs.

Conclusion:  The RSSs vary in their ability to correctly recommend for or against FNB. An understanding of the impact of nodule size cutoffs seems necessary for the future of TIRADS.

甲状腺功能减退结节细针活检的正确和不正确建议:不同基于超声的风险分层系统的性能。
目的: 使用五种不同的基于超声(US)的风险分层系统(RSSs)来评估功能低下甲状腺结节(TNs)细针活检(FNB)的建议。方法: 德国多中心研究,563例TNs(≥ 10 mm)在534例接受甲状腺超声检查和手术的患者中。所有TNs均采用ACR TI-RADS、EU-TIRADS、ATA、K-TIRADS 2016和改良K-TIRADS 2021进行评估。正确的建议被定义为:恶性TN并推荐FNB(适当)或良性TN但不建议FNB(避免)。不正确的建议被定义为:未推荐FNB的恶性TN(遗漏)或推荐FNB(不必要)的良性TN。结果: ACR TI-RADS的正确率最高(42.3 %) 错误建议率最低(57.7 %). 其他RRS的正确性(26.5 %-35.7 %) 和不正确(64.3 %-73.5 %) 建议。ACR TI-RADS显示不必要的发生率最低(73.4 %) 和最高的适当比率(26.6 %) FNB建议。对于其他RSSs,不必要和适当的FNB发生率在75.2之间 %-77.1 % 和22.9 %-24.8 %. FNB漏诊率最低(14.7 %) 避免FNB的比率最高(85.3 %) 发现了ACR TI-RADS。 对于其他RSSs,遗漏和避免FNB的比率在17.8之间 %-26.9 % 和73.1 %-82.2 %. 当忽略大小截止值时,所有RSS的正确建议增加,不正确建议减少。结论: RSSs在正确推荐支持或反对FNB的能力方面各不相同。了解结节大小截断的影响似乎对TIRADS的未来是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信