Suppr超能文献

1947 例甲状腺结节的回顾性队列研究:2017 年美国放射学会 TI-RADS 与 2015 年美国甲状腺协会分类的比较。

Retrospective Cohort Study of 1947 Thyroid Nodules: A Comparison of the 2017 American College of Radiology TI-RADS and the 2015 American Thyroid Association Classifications.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health Systems, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health Systems, Ann Arbor, MI.

出版信息

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Apr;214(4):900-906. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21904. Epub 2020 Feb 18.

Abstract

The objective of our study was to compare diagnostic accuracy and reliability of the 2017 American College of Radiology (ACR) Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) and 2015 American Thyroid Association (ATA) classifications for thyroid nodules. This study was a retrospective cohort study of 1947 consecutive thyroid nodules sampled with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) from 2007 to 2016. Reviewers assigned TI-RADS scores to all nodules while blinded to clinical outcome and histologic diagnosis and compared TI-RADS scores with nodule-specific ATA scores from the same cohort. Five blinded radiologists independently assigned TI-RADS scores to a subset of 151 nodules (interrater agreement). The primary outcome was a comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of the TI-RADS and ATA classifications using ROC curve analysis. The reference standard was cytopathologic diagnosis according to the Bethesda system. Interrater agreement was determined using intraclass correlation (ICC) and kappa statistics. Of 1947 sampled thyroid nodules, 31.8% ( = 620) met TI-RADS criteria for FNA, 28.0% ( = 545) met TI-RADS criteria for follow-up, and 40.2% ( = 782) met TIRADS criteria to be ignored. Applying the 2015 ATA criteria resulted in recommendations of immediate FNA procedures for more nodules than applying the 2017 TI-RADS (ATA vs TIRADS: 62.3% [1213/1947] vs 31.8% [620/1947], < 0.0001). Diagnostic accuracies (AUCs: TI-RADS score, 0.684 [95% CI, 0.644-0.724]; ATA, 0.686 [95% CI, 0.646-0.725]) and false-negative rates (TI-RADS, 2.2% [43/1947]; ATA, 2.4% [47/1947]) for the two classifications were similar ( = 0.75). Overall interrater agreement was fair for both (ICCs: TI-RADS, 0.437 [95% CI, 0.357-0.520]; ATA classification, 0.460 [95% CI, 0.391-0.533]). The 2017 ACR TI-RADS and 2015 ATA classifications have similar diagnostic accuracies and interrater agreement, but TI-RADS results in fewer nodules being recommended for immediate FNAs and more nodules being recommended for imaging surveillance.

摘要

我们的研究目的是比较 2017 年美国放射学院(ACR)甲状腺成像报告和数据系统(TI-RADS)与 2015 年美国甲状腺协会(ATA)甲状腺结节分类的诊断准确性和可靠性。这项研究是对 2007 年至 2016 年间用细针抽吸(FNA)取样的 1947 例连续甲状腺结节进行的回顾性队列研究。审查员在对临床结果和组织学诊断不知情的情况下为所有结节分配 TI-RADS 评分,并将 TI-RADS 评分与同一队列的结节特异性 ATA 评分进行比较。五名盲法放射科医生独立为 151 个结节(组内一致性)分配 TI-RADS 评分。主要结局是使用 ROC 曲线分析比较 TI-RADS 和 ATA 分类的诊断准确性。参考标准是根据 Bethesda 系统的细胞学诊断。组内一致性采用组内相关系数(ICC)和kappa 统计进行评估。在 1947 个取样的甲状腺结节中,31.8%(=620)符合 FNA 的 TI-RADS 标准,28.0%(=545)符合 TI-RADS 的随访标准,40.2%(=782)符合 TI-RADS 的忽略标准。应用 2015 年 ATA 标准比应用 2017 年 TI-RADS 标准(ATA 与 TI-RADS:62.3%[1213/1947]比 31.8%[620/1947])更推荐立即进行 FNA 检查,这一比例更高(<0.0001)。两种分类的诊断准确性(AUC:TI-RADS 评分,0.684[95%CI,0.644-0.724];ATA,0.686[95%CI,0.646-0.725])和假阴性率(TI-RADS,2.2%[43/1947];ATA,2.4%[47/1947])相似(=0.75)。两种分类的总体组内一致性均为中等(ICC:TI-RADS,0.437[95%CI,0.357-0.520];ATA 分类,0.460[95%CI,0.391-0.533])。2017 年 ACR TI-RADS 和 2015 年 ATA 分类具有相似的诊断准确性和组内一致性,但 TI-RADS 结果导致更少的结节被推荐进行立即 FNA,更多的结节被推荐进行影像学监测。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验