1 Department of Science, Faculty of Medical Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre (QEII HSC) and Dalhousie University, 1276 South Park St, Halifax, NS B3H 2Y9, Canada.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Dec;211(6):1348-1353. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20056. Epub 2018 Oct 17.
The purpose of this study was to determine the completeness of thyroid ultrasound (US) reports, assess for differences in report interpretation by clinicians, and evaluate for implications in patient care.
We retrospectively reviewed thyroid US examinations performed between January and June 2013 in Nova Scotia, Canada. Baseline examinations that identified a nodule were evaluated for 10 reporting elements. Reports that lacked a comment regarding malignancy risk or a recommendation for biopsy were considered unclassified and were graded by three clinical specialists in accordance with the 2015 American Thyroid Association management guidelines. Interrater agreement was assessed using the Cohen kappa statistic. A radiologist reviewed the images of unclassified nodules, and on the basis of radiologic grading, biopsy rates and pathologic findings were compared between nodules that did and did not warrant biopsy.
Of 971 first-time thyroid US studies, 478 detected a nodule. The number of reports lacking a comment on the 10 elements ranged from 154 to 433 (32-91%). A total of 222 nodules (46%) were unclassified, and agreement in assigned grading by the clinical specialists was very poor (κ = 0.07; p < 0.05). According to radiologist grading, only 57 of 127 biopsies were performed on nodules that warranted biopsy, and 16 of 95 biopsies were performed unnecessarily. On the basis of the three clinical specialists' interpretation, 10, 31, and 33 reports were considered too incomplete to assign a grade; 40, 10, and four biopsies would have been unnecessarily ordered; and zero, three, and four cancers would have been missed.
There is widespread underreporting of established elements in thyroid US reports, and this causes confusion and discrepancy among clinical specialists regarding the risk of malignancy and the need for biopsy.
本研究旨在确定甲状腺超声(US)报告的完整性,评估临床医生对报告解读的差异,并评估其对患者护理的影响。
我们回顾性分析了 2013 年 1 月至 6 月期间在加拿大新斯科舍省进行的甲状腺 US 检查。对发现结节的基线检查评估了 10 个报告要素。缺乏恶性风险评估或活检建议的报告被认为是未分类的,并由三位临床专家根据 2015 年美国甲状腺协会管理指南进行分级。使用 Cohen kappa 统计评估组内一致性。一位放射科医生对未分类结节的图像进行了回顾,并根据放射学分级,比较了需要和不需要活检的结节之间的活检率和病理结果。
在 971 例首次甲状腺 US 研究中,478 例发现结节。在缺乏对 10 个要素的评论的报告中,从 154 到 433 个(32-91%)。共有 222 个结节(46%)未分类,临床专家在分配分级方面的一致性非常差(κ=0.07;p<0.05)。根据放射科医生的分级,只有 57 个需要活检的结节进行了活检,而 16 个不必要的结节进行了活检。根据三位临床专家的解读,10、31 和 33 份报告被认为完整性不足,无法确定分级;40、10 和四个活检将被不必要地安排;零、三个和四个癌症将被遗漏。
甲状腺 US 报告中存在广泛的报告要素漏报,这导致临床专家对恶性风险和活检必要性的解读存在混淆和差异。