A correlation study between thyroid imaging report and data systems and the Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytology with surgical follow‐up ‐ an ultrasound‐trained cytopathologist's experience. Issue 4 (5th November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wu, Maoxin
• Is Part Of: Diagnostic cytopathology. Volume 49:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 494
• Page End: 499
• Publication Date: 2020-11-05
• Subjects: thyroid, TI‐RADS, TBSRTC, US‐FNA; Cytodiagnosis -- Periodicals; Pathology, Cellular -- Periodicals; Cytology -- Periodicals; 616.07582
• DOI: 10.1002/dc.24644
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 8755-1039

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (TI‐RADS) including a modified system (M TI‐RADS) and American College Radiology (ACR) TI‐RADS are introduced. Correlation studies between both TI‐RADSs and The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytology (TBSRTC) for Ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (US‐FNA) cases with surgical follow‐up (SFU) are presented. Materials and Methods: Three hundred and forty six thyroid US‐FNA cases performed at the US‐FNA clinic of Stony Brook University Hospital by an Ultrasound‐trained interventional Cytopathologist between December 1, 2014 to February 28, 2018 were reviewed. All ultrasound images from 346 cases were evaluated and assigned M TI‐RADS scores based on ultrasound features present in Table 1. One hundred and fifty four cases from Dcember 1, 2014 to February 28, 2016 were assigned scores using ACR TI‐RADS.TBSRTC category along with SFU data was collected and correlated with both TI‐RADS scores by using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy for M TI‐RADS and TBSRTC were also calculated using SFU diagnosis as a gold standard. McNemar test was applied to evaluate the significance of the difference between M TI‐RADS and TBSRTC. Results: Based on 346 thyroid nodules studied, the overall r‐value between M TI‐RADS scores and TBSRTC categories is 0.465. The r‐values between Composition, Echogenicity, Shape, Margin, Echogenic foci, the summary points, and the converted TR level of ACR TI‐RADS and TBSRTC are 0.145, 0.042, 0.259, 0.310, 0.405, and 0.379, respectively. Fifty (14.5%) cases have SFUs. Considering TI‐RADS 5&6 and TBSRTC 5&6 as positives, and TI‐RADS 2 and TBSRTC 2 as negatives, the Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy are 96%, 53%, 76%, 89%, 79% for TI‐RADS vs 100%, 93%, 96%, 100%, 97% for TBSRTC, respectively ( P = .038). The data for indeterminate cases are summarized. Conclusion: Both TI‐RADSs could be helpful to a moderate degree. M TI‐RADS appeared to correlate to TBSRTC slightly better than that of ACR TI‐RADS. TBSRTC is significantly more accurate than M TI‐RADS for the majority of determined cases.