Comparison of Sonographic-Based TI-RADS Classification and Cytological-Based Bethesda Scoring: 6-Month Experience in Somalia

Ahmed Adam Osman, Ismail Gedi ibrahim, M. Tahtabaşı, Veysel Kaya, S. Shermatova
{"title":"Comparison of Sonographic-Based TI-RADS Classification and Cytological-Based Bethesda Scoring: 6-Month Experience in Somalia","authors":"Ahmed Adam Osman, Ismail Gedi ibrahim, M. Tahtabaşı, Veysel Kaya, S. Shermatova","doi":"10.54584/lms.2022.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study is to investigate the agreement between ‎the thyroid image reporting and data systems (TI-RADS) ‎classification and the Bethesda scoring in adults with thyroid ‎nodules and to evaluate the effectiveness of our clinic in the ‎management of thyroid nodules. In this prospective study, in ‎which the analyzes of the patients who applied to the ‎Interventional Radiology Department of our hospital for fine ‎needle aspiration biopsy due to thyroid nodule were analyzed, ‎‎59 patients were included between January 1, 2020 and June ‎‎1, 2020. Sonographic features (composition, echogenicity, ‎shape, margin, and echogenic foci) of all nodules were recorded ‎for TI-RADS scoring before biopsy and TI-RADS scoring was ‎performed by the radiologist. It was then the results compared ‎with the Bethesda scoring, which is the cytological ‎classification. A total of 59 patients (n=43; 72.9% female and, ‎n=16; 27.1% male) were analyzed. Of the biopsied nodules, 31 ‎‎(52.5%) were localized in the right lobe and 28 (47.5%) in the ‎left lobe. The mean longest diameter of the nodules was ‎‎35.9±13.9 mm (range, 13-70 mm). The TI-RADS category was ‎also significantly higher in those with larger nodule diameters ‎‎(p=0.026). There was moderate agreement between both ‎scorings (kappa value=0.406 and p<0.001). There were 7 ‎‎(11.9%) patients with TI-RADS ≥ 4 and 10 (16.9%) patients ‎classified as Bethesda ≥ 4. Thyroid nodules reported as highly ‎suspected of malignancy (TIRADS ≥ 4) had good agreement ‎with Bethesda scoring (Kappa value= 0.658 and p<0.001). ‎According to the findings of our study, there is a moderate ‎agreement between TI-RADS scoring and Bethesda. However, ‎the rate of compliance was increasing in nodules classified as ‎malignant nodules (TI-RADS ≥4).‎","PeriodicalId":344016,"journal":{"name":"Life and Medical Sciences","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life and Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54584/lms.2022.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the agreement between ‎the thyroid image reporting and data systems (TI-RADS) ‎classification and the Bethesda scoring in adults with thyroid ‎nodules and to evaluate the effectiveness of our clinic in the ‎management of thyroid nodules. In this prospective study, in ‎which the analyzes of the patients who applied to the ‎Interventional Radiology Department of our hospital for fine ‎needle aspiration biopsy due to thyroid nodule were analyzed, ‎‎59 patients were included between January 1, 2020 and June ‎‎1, 2020. Sonographic features (composition, echogenicity, ‎shape, margin, and echogenic foci) of all nodules were recorded ‎for TI-RADS scoring before biopsy and TI-RADS scoring was ‎performed by the radiologist. It was then the results compared ‎with the Bethesda scoring, which is the cytological ‎classification. A total of 59 patients (n=43; 72.9% female and, ‎n=16; 27.1% male) were analyzed. Of the biopsied nodules, 31 ‎‎(52.5%) were localized in the right lobe and 28 (47.5%) in the ‎left lobe. The mean longest diameter of the nodules was ‎‎35.9±13.9 mm (range, 13-70 mm). The TI-RADS category was ‎also significantly higher in those with larger nodule diameters ‎‎(p=0.026). There was moderate agreement between both ‎scorings (kappa value=0.406 and p<0.001). There were 7 ‎‎(11.9%) patients with TI-RADS ≥ 4 and 10 (16.9%) patients ‎classified as Bethesda ≥ 4. Thyroid nodules reported as highly ‎suspected of malignancy (TIRADS ≥ 4) had good agreement ‎with Bethesda scoring (Kappa value= 0.658 and p<0.001). ‎According to the findings of our study, there is a moderate ‎agreement between TI-RADS scoring and Bethesda. However, ‎the rate of compliance was increasing in nodules classified as ‎malignant nodules (TI-RADS ≥4).‎
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于超声的TI-RADS分类和基于细胞学的Bethesda评分的比较:索马里6个月的经验
本研究的目的是调查甲状腺图像报告和数据系统(TI-RADS)分类与成人甲状腺结节的Bethesda评分之间的一致性,并评估我们诊所在甲状腺结节管理中的有效性。本前瞻性研究对因甲状腺结节在我院介入放射科申请细针穿刺活检的患者进行分析,纳入2020年1月1日至2020年6月1日59例患者。在活检前记录所有结节的超声特征(组成、回声强度、形状、边缘和回声灶)并进行TI-RADS评分,由放射科医生进行TI-RADS评分。然后将结果与Bethesda评分进行比较,Bethesda评分是细胞学分类。59例患者(n=43;72.9%为女性,[n=16];27.1%男性)。在活检的结节中,31例(52.5%)位于右肺叶,28例(47.5%)位于左肺叶。结节平均最长直径为35.9±13.9 mm(范围13 ~ 70 mm)。在结节直径较大的患者中,TI-RADS分类也显著升高(p=0.026)。两种评分之间有中等程度的一致性(kappa值=0.406,p<0.001)。TI-RADS≥4的患者7例(11.9%),Bethesda≥4的患者10例(16.9%)。高度怀疑为恶性的甲状腺结节(TIRADS≥4)与Bethesda评分有很好的一致性(Kappa值= 0.658,p<0.001)。根据我们的研究结果,TI-RADS评分与Bethesda之间存在适度的一致性。然而,在分类为恶性结节(TI-RADS≥4)的结节中,依从率增加
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of the Serum Zinc Level in Patients Followed in Hospital with the Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Samsun Province, Türkiye Choosing Wisely in Immunology Laboratory: Reviewing of Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) Test Requests and Results Together with Other Tests Incidence and Imaging of Colorectal Cancer Between 2015-2020 in Somalia: A Review of 585 Colonoscopy A 6-Year Review of the Electronic Drug Prescription System in the Republic of Türkiye Utilization Rate of Primary Health Services in the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-Up of Patients Diagnosed with Rheumatic Disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1