A new discriminant strategy combined with four TIRADS screening procedures increases ultrasound diagnostic accuracy—focusing on “wrong diagnostic” thyroid nodules

Abstract

Objective To utilize the discrepancies of different TIRADS, including ACR-TIRADS, Kwak-TIRADS, C-TIRADS, and EU-TIRADS, to explore methods for improving ultrasound diagnostic accuracy. Methods In total, 795 nodules with cytological or surgical pathology were included. All nodules were screened by the four TIRADS according to their diagnostic concordance (Screening procedures, SP). Discriminant strategy (DS) derived from predictor variables was combined with SP to construct the evaluation method (SP+DS). The diagnostic performance of the SP+DS method alone and its derivational methods and two-TIRADS combined tests was evaluated. Results A total of 86.8% (269/310) malignant nodules and 93.6% (365/390) benign cases diagnosed by the four TIRADS simultaneously were pathologically confirmed, while 12.0% (95/795) nodules could not be consistently diagnosed by them. The criteria of DS were that iso- or hyper-echogenicity nodules should be considered benign, while hypo- or marked hypo-echogenicity nodules malignant. For 95 inconsistently diagnosed nodules screened by at least two TIRADS, DS performed best with an accuracy of 79.0%, followed by Kwak-TIRADS (72.6%). In the overall sample, the sensitivity and AUC were highest for the SP+DS method compared to the four TIRADS (91.3%, 0.895). Combining ACR-TIRADS and Kwak-TIRADS via parallel test resulted in significant improvements in the sensitivity and AUC compared to ACR-TIRADS (89.2% vs. 81.4%, 0.889 vs. 0.863). Combining C-TIRADS and DS in serial resulted in the highest AUC (0.887), followed by Kwak-TIRADS (0.884), while EU-TIRADS was the lowest (0.879). Conclusions For undetermined or suspected thyroid nodules, two-TIRADS combined tests can be used to improve diagnostic accuracy. Otherwise, considering the inconsistent diagnosis of two TIRADS may require attention to the echo characteristics to differentiate between benign and malignant nodules. Key Points • The discrepancies in the diagnostic performance of different TIRADS arise from their performance on inconsistently diagnosed nodules. • ACR-TIRADS improves sensitivity via combining with Kwak-TIRADS in parallel (from 81.4 to 89.2%), while C-TIRADS increases specificity via combining with EU-TIRADS in serial (from 80.9 to 85.7%). • If the diagnostic findings of two TIRADS are inconsistent, echo characteristics will be helpful for the differentiation of benign and malignant nodules with an accuracy of 79.0%.

Diagnostic efficiency among Eu-/C-/ACR-TIRADS and S-Detect for thyroid nodules: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

“…After meta-analysis, in the best risk category threshold TR5 of ACR TIRADS, sensitivity ranged from 65% to 76%; specificity ranged from 84% to 89%; and accuracy ranged from 77% to 80%. 37 studies evaluated Eu-TIRADS ( 20 , 22 , 28 , 48 , 55 , 65 , 66 , 70 , 73 , 74 , 78 , 80 – 82 , 85 , 86 , 92 , 93 , 95 , 99 – 101 , 115 , 118 , 121 , 125 – 136 ). After meta-analysis, in the best risk category threshold TR5 of Eu-TIRADS, sensitivity ranged from 66% to 82%; specificity ranged from 75% to 87%; and accuracy ranged from 74% to 82%.…”

“…After meta-analysis, in the best risk category threshold TR5 of Eu-TIRADS, sensitivity ranged from 66% to 82%; specificity ranged from 75% to 87%; and accuracy ranged from 74% to 82%. 13 studies evaluated C-TIRADS ( 20 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 80 , 87 , 120 , 137 – 142 ), with sensitivity ranging from 70% (C-TIRADS TR4c) to 95% (C-TIRADS TR4a); specificity ranging from 54% (C-TIRADS TR4a) to 92% (C-TIRADS TR4c); and accuracy ranging from 75% (C-TIRADS TR4a) to 88% (C-TIRADS TR4b). 12 studies evaluated S-Detect ( 45 , 46 , 65 , 112 , 114 , 133 , 134 , 143 – 147 ), with sensitivity ranging from 73% to 88%; specificity ranging from 66% to 86%; accuracy ranging from 72% to 83%.…”