Endocr Pract. 2020 May;26(5):552-563. doi: 10.4158/EP-2019-0237.
We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR TI-RADS) with the American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines in risk stratification of thyroid nodules. We performed a computerized search of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify eligible articles published before July 31, 2019. We included studies providing head-to-head comparison between ACR TI-RADS and ATA guidelines, with fine-needle aspiration biopsy cytology results or pathology results as the reference standard. Quality assessment of included studies was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated by bivariate modeling and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic modeling. We also performed multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Twelve original articles with 13,000 patients were included, involving a total of 14,867 thyroid nodules. The pooled sensitivity of ACR TI-RADS and ATA guidelines was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.89) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.95), with specificity of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.56-0.76) and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.29-0.63), respectively. There were no significant differences between the two classification criteria in terms of both sensitivity ( = .26) and specificity ( = .05). For five studies providing direct comparison of ACR TI-RADS, ATA guidelines, and Korean TI-RADS, our analyses showed that the Korean TI-RADS yielded the highest sensitivity (0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94), but at the cost of a significant decline in specificity (0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.30). Both classification criteria demonstrated favorable sensitivity and moderate specificity in the stratification of thyroid nodules. However, use of ACR TI-RADS could avoid a large number of biopsies at the cost of only a slight decrease in sensitivity. = American College of Radiology; = American Thyroid Association; = fine-needle aspiration biopsy; = hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic; = summary receiver operating characteristic; = Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System; = ultrasonography.
我们旨在比较美国放射学院甲状腺成像报告和数据系统(ACR TI-RADS)与美国甲状腺协会(ATA)指南在甲状腺结节风险分层中的诊断准确性。我们在 Medline、EMBASE、Web of Science、Cochrane 图书馆和 Google Scholar 上进行了计算机检索,以确定 2019 年 7 月 31 日之前发表的合格文章。我们纳入了提供 ACR TI-RADS 与 ATA 指南头对头比较的研究,并以细针抽吸活检细胞学结果或病理结果为参考标准。使用诊断准确性研究的质量评估-2 工具对纳入研究进行质量评估。通过双变量建模和层次汇总受试者工作特征建模计算敏感性和特异性的汇总估计值。我们还进行了多项亚组分析和荟萃回归。
纳入了 12 篇原始文章和 13000 名患者,共涉及 14867 个甲状腺结节。ACR TI-RADS 和 ATA 指南的汇总敏感性分别为 0.84(95%置信区间 [CI],0.76-0.89)和 0.89(95%CI,0.80-0.95),特异性分别为 0.67(95%CI,0.56-0.76)和 0.46(95%CI,0.29-0.63)。两种分类标准在敏感性( =.26)和特异性( =.05)方面均无显著差异。对于提供 ACR TI-RADS、ATA 指南和韩国 TI-RADS 直接比较的五项研究,我们的分析表明,韩国 TI-RADS 的敏感性最高(0.89;95%CI,0.82-0.94),但特异性显著下降(0.23;95%CI,0.17-0.30)。
两种分类标准在甲状腺结节分层中均表现出良好的敏感性和中等特异性。然而,使用 ACR TI-RADS 可以在不显著降低敏感性的情况下避免大量活检。
ACR = 美国放射学院;ATA = 美国甲状腺协会;FNAB = 细针抽吸活检;HSROC = 层次汇总受试者工作特征;ROC = 受试者工作特征;TI-RADS = 甲状腺成像报告和数据系统;US = 超声。