Evaluation of Thyroid Ultrasound Report Quality and Assessing Effect of Adherence to Risk Stratification Criteria on Referral for Thyroid Nodule Biopsy
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2021
Evaluation of Thyroid Ultrasound Report Quality and Assessing Effect of Adherence to Risk Stratification Criteria on Referral for Thyroid Nodule Biopsy
This study aims to evaluate the quality of diagnostic thyroid ultrasound reports and determine the impact of consistent adherence to 2015 American Thyroid Association (ATA) and 2017 American College of Radiology (ACR) Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) on reducing unnecessary referrals for thyroid nodule biopsy.
Materials and Methods:
Reports from 291 referrals for thyroid nodule biopsy were included for retrospective report evaluation (males: 42; mean age: 56) according to 2015 ATA and ACR TI-RADS lexicon. Cytology results were collected for each patient. Two radiologists blinded to cytology results independently, retrospectively reviewed imaging of the referrals, and rescored them according to 2015 ATA and 2017 ACR TI-RADS risk stratification systems. Statistical analysis was completed using chi-square analysis and calculation of κ statistic for interobserver variability.
Results:
No report completely addressed all features associated with malignancy. Over half of the reports did not include descriptors on echogenicity, shape, margin, or echogenic foci. In all, 9.3% of biopsies showed malignant histology. Rescoring of referrals demonstrated decrease in biopsy referrals by 55% as per 2017 ACR TI-RADS and 14% as per 2015 ATA (P < .0001). There was no impact on detection of malignancy with adherence to ATA or ACR criteria and less interobserver variability with application of 2017 ACR TI-RADS compared to 2015 ATA.
Conclusion:
Thyroid ultrasound report quality was found variable with respect to nodule description. Reports recommended biopsy based on nodule size with no detailed description of other imaging features. Adherence to risk stratification system would have resulted in significant reduction in the number of unnecessary biopsy referrals.
FratesMCBensonCBCharboneauJW, et al.Management of thyroid nodules detected at US: Society of radiologists in ultrasound consensus conference statement. Ultrasound Quarterly. 2006;22(4):231–238. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17146329. doi:10.1097/01.ruq.0000226877.19937.a1.
ShermanS. The management of metastatic differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2000;1(3):165–171. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11705002. doi:1010074930254.
6.
ItoYMiyauchiAInoueH, et al.An observational trial for papillary thyroid microcarcinoma in japanese patients. World J Surg. 2010;34(1):28–35. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20020290. doi:10.1007/s00268-009-0303-0.
Aschebrook-KilfoyBSchechterRBShihYT, et al.The clinical and economic burden of a sustained increase in thyroid cancer incidence. Can Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(7):1252–1259. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23677575. doi:10.1158/1055-9965. EPI-13-0242.
9.
GrantEGTesslerFNHoangJK, et al.Thyroid ultrasound reporting lexicon: white paper of the ACR thyroid imaging, reporting and data system (TIRADS) committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(12):1272–1279. https://www.clinicalkey.es/playcontent/1-s2.0-S1546144015006845. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.07.011.
10.
HaugenBRAlexanderEKBibleKC, 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):1–133. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/thy.2015.0020. doi:10.1089/thy.2015.0020.
11.
TesslerFNMiddletonWDGrantEGHoangJK. Re: ACR thyroid imaging, reporting and data system (TI-RADS): white paper of the ACR TI-RADS committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3):381–382. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546144017316812. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.12.035.
12.
CohenJFKorevaarDAAltmanDG, et al.STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012799. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799.
13.
BossuytPM. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clin Chem. 2003;49(1):1–6. doi:10.1373/49.1.1.
KizilgulMShresthaRRadulescuAEvasovichMRBurmeisterLA. Thyroid nodules over 4 cm do not have higher malignancy or benign cytology false-negative rates. Endocrine. 2019;66(2):249–253. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31144224. doi:10.1007/s12020-019-01964-3.
HoangJKMiddletonWDFarjatAE, et al.Reduction in thyroid nodule biopsies and improved accuracy with American college of radiology thyroid imaging reporting and data system. Radiology. 2018;287(1):185–193. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29498593. doi:10.1148/radiol.2018172572.
19.
GriffinASMitskyJRawalUBronnerAJTesslerFNHoangJK. Improved quality of thyroid ultrasound reports after implementation of the ACR thyroid imaging reporting and data system nodule lexicon and risk stratification system. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(5):743–748. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546144018300504. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.01.024.
20.
SeifertPGorgesRZimnyMKreisslMSchenkeS. Interobserver agreement and efficacy of consensus reading in kwak-, EU-, and ACR-thyroid imaging recording and data systems and ATA guidelines for the ultrasound risk stratification of thyroid nodules. Endocrine. 2019;67(1):143–154. doi:10.1007/s12020-019-02134-1.
21.
Lauria PantanoAMaddaloniEBrigantiSI, et al.Differences between ATA, AACE/ACE/AME and ACR TI-RADS ultrasound classifications performance in identifying cytological high-risk thyroid nodules. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018;178(6):595–603. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29626008. doi:10.1530/EJE-18-0083.
22.
HaEJNaDGMoonWLeeYHChoiN.Diagnostic performance of ultrasound-based risk-stratification systems for thyroid nodules: comparison of the 2015 American thyroid association guidelines with the 2016 Korean thyroid association/Korean society of thyroid radiology and 2017 American college of radiology guidelines. Thyroid. 2018;28(11):1532–1537. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/thy.2018.0094. doi:10.1089/thy.2018.0094.
23.
PhuttharakWBoonrodAKlungboonkrongVWitsawapaisanT. Interrater reliability of various thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TIRADS) classifications for differentiating benign from malignant thyroid nodules. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2019;20(4):1283–1288. doi:10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.4.1283.
24.
MiddletonWDTeefeySAReadingCC, 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. 2018;210(5):1148–1154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29629797. doi:10.2214/AJR.17.18822.
25.
CastellanaMCastellanaCTregliaG, et al.Performance of five ultrasound risk stratification systems in selecting thyroid nodules for FNA. A meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(5):1659–1669. https://search.proquest.com/docview/2312549342. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgz170.
26.
GaoLXiXJiangY, et al.Comparison among TIRADS (ACR TI-RADS and KWAK- TI-RADS) and 2015 ATA guidelines in the diagnostic efficiency of thyroid nodules. Endocrine. 2019;64(1):90–96. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30659427. doi:10.1007/s12020-019-01843-x.
27.
BarbosaTLMJuniorCOMGrafH, et al.ACR TI-RADS and ATA US scores are helpful for the management of thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology. BMC Endocrine Disorders. 2019;19(1):112. https://search.proquest.com/docview/2310717296. doi:10.1186/s12902-019-0429-5.
28.
AhmadiSOyekunleTJiangXS, et al.A direct comparison of the ata and ti-rads ultrasound scoring systems. Endocrine Practice. 2019;25(5):413–422. doi:10.4158/EP-2018-0369.
