切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2020, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (07) : 684 -690. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2020.07.018

所属专题: 文献

浅表器官超声影像学

ACR-TIRADS、EU-TIRADS及KTA/KSThR-TIRADS评估甲状腺结节一致性的研究
傅强1, 熊颖1,(), 宋可馨1, 闫妍1, 刘昊1   
  1. 1. 100123 民航总医院超声科
  • 收稿日期:2020-01-16 出版日期:2020-07-01
  • 通信作者: 熊颖

Interobserver variability in sonographic evaluation of thyroid nodules with ACR-TI-RADS, EU-TI-RADS and KTA/KSThR-TIRADS

Qiang Fu1, Ying Xiong1,(), Kexin Song1, Yan Yan1, Hao Liu1   

  1. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Civil Aviation General Hospital, Beijing 100123, China
  • Received:2020-01-16 Published:2020-07-01
  • Corresponding author: Ying Xiong
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Xiong Ying, Email:
引用本文:

傅强, 熊颖, 宋可馨, 闫妍, 刘昊. ACR-TIRADS、EU-TIRADS及KTA/KSThR-TIRADS评估甲状腺结节一致性的研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2020, 17(07): 684-690.

Qiang Fu, Ying Xiong, Kexin Song, Yan Yan, Hao Liu. Interobserver variability in sonographic evaluation of thyroid nodules with ACR-TI-RADS, EU-TI-RADS and KTA/KSThR-TIRADS[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2020, 17(07): 684-690.

目的

研究3种不同甲状腺影像报告与数据系统(TI-RADS)及不同超声征象观察者间一致性。

方法

回顾性分析2017年1月至2017年12月民航总医院手术切除的257个甲状腺结节(168例患者),并根据美国放射学会(ACR)TI-RADS、欧洲甲状腺协会(EU)TI-RADS和韩国甲状腺协会(KTA)/韩国甲状腺放射科学会(KSThR)TI-RADS归类。应用加权Kappa检验比较读图者间3种风险分层整体一致性,Kappa检验用于评估读图者间对于3种风险分层分类及不同超声征象的一致性。

结果

ACR-TIRADS、EU-TIRADS及KTA/KSThR-TIRADS评估Kappa值分别为0.62、0.45、0.64。ACR-TIRADS 5类、EU-TI-RADS高危和KTA/KSThR -TI-RADS高度可疑类评估Kappa值分别为0.726、0.686、0.721。各超声征象描述中囊性、卵圆形、直立生长评估Kappa值分别为0.733、0.700、0.738。

结论

ACR-TI-RADS与KTA/KSThR-TI-RADS整体评估一致性较好。3种风险分层对于高风险类结节的评估一致性较好,具有较好的临床适用性。

Objective

To retrospectively evaluate interobserver variability in sonographic evaluation of thyroid nodules with three different thyroid imaging reporting and data systems (TI-RADS).

Methods

This retrospective study included 257 thyroid nodules of 168 patients confirmed by pathology at Civil Aviation General Hospital between January to December 2017. All nodules were categorized according to the ACR-TIRADS, EU-TIRADS, and KTA/KSThR-TIRADS. Interobserver variability for the three different TI-RADS was determined using weighted Kappa statistics. Interobserver variability for the classification level of different TI-RADS and ultrasonic characteristics evaluation was also determined.

Results

The Kappa values for ACR-TI-RADS, EU-TI-RADS, and KTA/KSThR-TI-RADS were 0.62, 0.45, and 0.64 respectively. For ACR-TI-RADS 5, EU-TI-RADS high risk, and KTA/KSThR-TI-RADS high suspicion level, the Kappa values were 0.726, 0.686, and 0.721, respectively. For US assessment of the cystic, oval shape, and taller-than-wide signs, the Kappa value were 0.733, 0.700, and 0.738, respectively.

Conclusion

Interobserver agreement is good for diagnosing thyroid nodules with ACR-TIRADS and KTA/KSThR-TIRADS. There is good interobserver agreement on high risk level among the three different TIRADS, which providing better clinical practicability.

表1 三种风险分层分类标准
图1 患者,女性,64岁,甲状腺左叶结节超声图像。微囊(箭头所示)比例是定义海绵样结节的一部分,根据美国放射协会、韩国甲状腺协会/韩国甲状腺放射科学会标准定义为微囊结构>50%,而根据欧洲甲状腺协会标准定义为完全微囊结构
图2 患者,女性,42岁,甲状腺右叶结节超声图像。甲状腺右叶等回声为主伴有低回声(箭头所示)的实性结节,根据美国放射协会、韩国甲状腺协会/韩国甲状腺放射科学会标准定义为等回声,根据欧洲甲状腺协会标准定义为低回声
表2 三种风险分层区别
表3 三种危险分层各类甲状腺结节一致性分析(例)
图3 患者,女性,60岁,甲状腺右叶实性结节超声图像。结节纵横比接近1,读图者1判断为圆形,读图者2判断为卵圆形,手术病理为结节性甲状腺肿伴纤维化及钙化
图4 患者,女性,35岁,甲状腺右叶实性结节超声图像。甲状腺背景回声不均匀,读图者1判断为边缘光滑,读图者2判断为边缘模糊,手术病理为甲状腺乳头状癌合并甲状腺腺体慢性淋巴细胞性甲状腺炎
图5 患者,女性,29岁,甲状腺左叶实性结节超声图像。读图者1判断为无微分叶,读图者2判断为存在微分叶(箭头所示),手术病理为甲状腺乳头状癌
图6 患者,男性,56岁,甲状腺右叶实性结节超声图像。甲状腺背景回声不均匀,读图者1判断为无针刺样边缘,读图者2判断为针刺样边缘(箭头所示),手术病理为结节性甲状腺肿伴腺瘤样增生合并甲状腺腺体慢性淋巴细胞性甲状腺炎
表4 各超声征象观察者间一致性
1
Brito JP, Gionfriddo MR, Al Nofal A, et al. The accuracy of thyroid nodule ultrasound to predict thyroid cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2014, 99(4): 1253-1263.
2
Remonti LR, Kramer CK, Leitão CB, et al. Thyroid ultrasound features and risk of carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies [J]. Thyroid, 2015, 25(5): 538-550.
3
Horvath E, Majlis S, Rossi R, et al. An ultrasonogram reporting system for thyroid nodules stratifying cancer risk for clinical management [J]. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2009, 94(5): 1748-1751.
4
Kwak JY, Han KH, Yoon JH, et al. Thyroid imaging reporting and data system for US features of nodules: a step in establishing better stratification of cancer risk [J]. Radiology, 2011, 260(3): 892-899.
5
Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer [J]. Thyroid, 2016, 26(1): 1-133.
6
Tessler FN, Middleton WD, Grant EG, et al. ACR Thyroid Imaging, Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS): White Paper of the ACR TI-RADS Committee [J]. J Am Coll Radiol, 2017, 14(5): 587-595.
7
Shin JH, Baek JH, Chung J, et al. Ultrasonography Diagnosis and Imaging-Based Management of Thyroid Nodules: Revised Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology Consensus Statement and Recommendations [J]. Korean J Radiol, 2016, 17(3): 370-395.
8
Russ G, Bonnema SJ, Erdogan MF, et al. European Thyroid Association Guidelines for Ultrasound Malignancy Risk Stratification of Thyroid Nodules in Adults: The EU-TIRADS [J]. Eur Thyroid J, 2017, 6(5): 225-237.
9
Basha M, Alnaggar AA, Refaat R, et al. The validity and reproducibility of the thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) in categorization of thyroid nodules: Multicentre prospective study [J]. Eur J Radiol, 2019, 117: 184-192.
10
Middleton WD, Teefey SA, Reading CC, et al. Comparison of Performance Characteristics of American College of Radiology TI-RADS, Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology TIRADS, and American Thyroid Association Guidelines [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2018, 210(5): 1148-1154.
11
Nachiappan AC, Metwalli ZA, Hailey BS, et al. The thyroid: review of imaging features and biopsy techniques with radiologic-pathologic correlation [J]. Radiographics, 2014, 34(2): 276-293.
12
Lee HJ, Yoon DY, Seo YL, et al. Intraobserver and Interobserver Variability in Ultrasound Measurements of Thyroid Nodules [J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2018, 37(1): 173-178.
13
Valderrabano P, McIver B. Evaluation and Management of Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules: The Revolution of Risk Stratification Beyond Cytological Diagnosis [J]. Cancer Control, 2017, 24(5): 1073274817729231.
14
Park CS, Kim SH, Jung SL, et al. Observer variability in the sonographic evaluation of thyroid nodules [J]. J Clin Ultrasound, 2010, 38(6): 287-293.
[1] 章建全, 程杰, 陈红琼, 闫磊. 采用ACR-TIRADS评估甲状腺消融区的调查研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(10): 966-971.
[2] 罗辉, 方晔. 品管圈在提高甲状腺结节细针穿刺检出率中的应用[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(10): 972-977.
[3] 杨忠, 时敬业, 邓学东, 姜纬, 殷林亮, 潘琦, 梁泓, 马建芳, 王珍奇, 张俊, 董姗姗. 产前超声在胎儿22q11.2 微缺失综合征中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 852-858.
[4] 孙佳丽, 金琳, 沈崔琴, 陈晴晴, 林艳萍, 李朝军, 徐栋. 机器人辅助超声引导下经皮穿刺的体外实验研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 884-889.
[5] 史学兵, 谢迎东, 谢霓, 徐超丽, 杨斌, 孙帼. 声辐射力弹性成像对不可切除肝细胞癌门静脉癌栓患者放射治疗效果的评价[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 778-784.
[6] 刘畅, 蒋洁, 胥雪冬, 崔立刚, 王淑敏, 陈文. 北京市海淀区医疗机构甲状腺超声检查及TIRADS分类基线调查[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(07): 693-697.
[7] 李洋, 蔡金玉, 党晓智, 常婉英, 巨艳, 高毅, 宋宏萍. 基于深度学习的乳腺超声应变弹性图像生成模型的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 563-570.
[8] 洪玮, 叶细容, 刘枝红, 杨银凤, 吕志红. 超声影像组学联合临床病理特征预测乳腺癌新辅助化疗完全病理缓解的价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 571-579.
[9] 项文静, 徐燕, 茹彤, 郑明明, 顾燕, 戴晨燕, 朱湘玉, 严陈晨. 神经学超声检查在产前诊断胼胝体异常中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(05): 470-476.
[10] 胡可, 鲁蓉. 基于多参数超声特征的中老年女性压力性尿失禁诊断模型研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(05): 477-483.
[11] 张妍, 原韶玲, 史泽洪, 郭馨阳, 牛菁华. 小肾肿瘤超声漏诊原因分析新思路[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(05): 500-504.
[12] 席芬, 张培培, 孝梦甦, 刘真真, 张一休, 张璟, 朱庆莉, 孟华. 乳腺错构瘤的临床与超声影像学特征分析[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(05): 505-510.
[13] 杨敬武, 周美君, 陈雨凡, 李素淑, 何燕妮, 崔楠, 刘红梅. 人工智能超声结合品管圈活动对低年资超声医师甲状腺结节风险评估能力的作用[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(05): 522-526.
[14] 钱警语, 郑明明. 《2024意大利妇产科学会非侵入性和侵入性产前诊断指南》解读[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(05): 486-492.
[15] 张琛, 秦鸣, 董娟, 陈玉龙. 超声检查对儿童肠扭转缺血性改变的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 565-568.
阅读次数
全文


摘要