Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 3353–3360 | Cite as

Off-site evaluation of three-dimensional ultrasound for the diagnosis of thyroid nodules: comparison with two-dimensional ultrasound

  • Soo Chin Kim
  • Ji-hoon KimEmail author
  • Seung Hong Choi
  • Tae Jin Yun
  • Jae Yeon Wi
  • Sun Ah Kim
  • Hye Young Sun
  • Inseon Ryoo
  • Sun-Won Park
  • Chul-Ho Sohn
Ultrasound

Abstract

Objectives

We compared the diagnostic performance of off-site evaluation between prospectively obtained 3D and 2D ultrasound for thyroid nodules.

Methods

3D and 2D ultrasonographies were preoperatively obtained from 85 consecutive patients (mean age, 51 years; age range, 28–83 years) who were referred for a total thyroidectomy. Three radiologists independently evaluated 3D and 2D images of 91 pathologically confirmed thyroid nodules (30 benign and 61 malignant nodules) for nodule characterization. Diagnostic performance, interobserver agreement and time for scanning were compared between 3D and 2D.

Results

3D had significantly higher sensitivities than 2D for predicting malignancy (78.7 % vs. 61.2 %, P < 0.01) and extrathyroidal extension (66.7 % vs. 46.4 %, P = 0.03) in malignancy. In terms of specificities, there were no statistically significant differences between 2D and 3D for predicting malignancy (78.4 % vs. 74.8 %, P = 1.00) and extrathyroidal extension (63.6 % vs. 57.6 %, P = 0.46). With respect to interobserver agreement, 3D showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.53) for predicting extrathyroidal extension in malignancy compared with 2D ultrasound, which showed fair agreement (κ = 0.37). 3D saved time (30 ± 56.52 s) for scanning compared with 2D.

Conclusion

For off-site evaluation, 3D US is more useful for diagnosis of thyroid nodules than 2D US.

Key Points

3D had higher sensitivity than 2D for predicting malignancy and extrathyroidal extension.

3D showed better agreement for predicting extrathyroidal extension in malignancy than 2D.

3D thyroid ultrasound saved time for scanning compared with 2D.

For off-site evaluation of thyroid nodules, 3D is more useful than 2D.

Keywords

Two-dimensional ultrasound Three-dimensional ultrasound Thyroid nodule Diagnosis Off-site evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Chul-Ho Sohn. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study has received funding by Research Fund of Seoul National University (800–20130043). We thank Kyung-ha Seo, our colleague from the Medical Research Collaborating Centre who provided statistical support. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients in this study. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic or prognostic, single-centre study.

References

  1. 1.
    Cooper DS, Doherty GM, Haugen BR et al (2009) Revised American thyroid association management guidelines for patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid 19:1167–1214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seo H, Na DG, Kim JH, Kim KW, Yoon JW (2015) Ultrasound-based risk stratification for malignancy in thyroid nodules: a four-tier categorization system. Eur Radiol 25:2153–2162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Park JS, Son KR, Na DG, Kim E, Kim S (2009) Performance of preoperative sonographic staging of papillary thyroid carcinoma based on the sixth edition of the AJCC/UICC TNM classification system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:66–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi JS, Kim J, Kwak JY, Kim MJ, Chang HS, Kim EK (2009) Preoperative staging of papillary thyroid carcinoma: comparison of ultrasound imaging and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:871–878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moon WJ, Jung SL, Lee JH et al (2008) Benign and malignant thyroid nodules: US differentiation–multicenter retrospective study. Radiology 247:762–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Downey DB, Fenster A, Williams JC (2000) Clinical utility of three-dimensional US. Radiographics 20:559–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi SH, Kim EK, Kwak JY, Kim MJ, Son EJ (2010) Interobserver and intraobserver variations in ultrasound assessment of thyroid nodules. Thyroid 20:167–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim SH, Park CS, Jung SL et al (2010) Observer variability and the performance between faculties and residents: US criteria for benign and malignant thyroid nodules. Korean J Radiol 11:149–155CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cho N, Moon WK, Cha JH et al (2006) Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional US. Radiology 240:26–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li QY, Tang J, He EH et al (2012) Clinical utility of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differentiation between noninvasive and invasive neoplasms of urinary bladder. Eur J Radiol 81:2936–2942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lev-Toaff AS, Pinheiro LW, Bega G, Kurtz AB, Goldberg BB (2001) Three-dimensional multiplanar sonohysterography: comparison with conventional two-dimensional sonohysterography and X-ray hysterosalpingography. J Ultrasound Med 20:295–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamper UM, Trapanotto V, DeJong MR, Sheth S, Caskey CI (1999) Three-dimensional US of the prostate: early experience. Radiology 212:719–723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rago T, Bencivelli W, Scutari M et al (2006) The newly developed three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) thyroid ultrasound are strongly correlated, but 2D overestimates thyroid volume in the presence of nodules. J Endocrinol Investig 29:423–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schlogl S, Werner E, Lassmann M et al (2001) The use of three-dimensional ultrasound for thyroid volumetry. Thyroid 11:569–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lyshchik A, Drozd V, Reiners C (2004) Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound for thyroid volume measurement in children and adolescents. Thyroid 14:113–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slapa RZ, Slowinska-Srzednicka J, Szopinski KT, Jakubowski W (2006) Gray-scale three-dimensional sonography of thyroid nodules: feasibility of the method and preliminary studies. Eur Radiol 16:428–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jang M, Kim SM, Lyou CY, Choi BS, Choi SI, Kim JH (2012) Differentiating benign from malignant thyroid nodules: comparison of 2- and 3-dimensional sonography. J Ultrasound Med 31:197–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slapa RZ, Jakubowski WS, Slowinska-Srzednicka J, Szopinski KT (2011) Advantages and disadvantages of 3D ultrasound of thyroid nodules including thin slice volume rendering. Thyroid Res 4:1–12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moon WJ, Baek JH, Jung SL et al (2011) Ultrasonography and the ultrasound-based management of thyroid nodules: consensus statement and recommendations. Korean J Radiol 12:1–14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kundel HL, Polansky M (2003) Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 228:303–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghi T, Giunchi S, Kuleva M et al (2007) Three-dimensional transvaginal sonography in local staging of cervical carcinoma: description of a novel technique and preliminary results. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:778–782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Su MT, Su RM, Yue CT, Chou CY, Hsu CC, Chang FM (2003) Three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound provides clearer delineation of myometrial invasion in a patient with endometrial cancer and uterine leiomyoma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22:434–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang ZY, Wang D, Ni JM et al (2012) Comparison of three-dimensional negative-contrast CT cholangiopancreatography with three-dimensional MR cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of obstructive biliary diseases. Eur J Radiol 81:830–837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mercante G, Frasoldati A, Pedroni C et al (2009) Prognostic factors affecting neck lymph node recurrence and distant metastasis in papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid: results of a study in 445 patients. Thyroid 19:707–716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shaha AR (2004) Implications of prognostic factors and risk groups in the management of differentiated thyroid cancer. Laryngoscope 114:393–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mazzaferri EL, Kloos RT (2001) Clinical review 128: current approaches to primary therapy for papillary and follicular thyroid cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86:1447–1463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B (2005) How sonographic tomography will change the face of obstetric sonography: a pilot study. J Ultrasound Med 24:371–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B (2006) Three-dimensional US of the fetus: volume imaging. Radiology 238:988–996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B (2006) Improving the efficiency of gynecologic sonography with 3-dimensional volumes: a pilot study. J Ultrasound Med 25:165–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hagel J, Bicknell SG (2007) Impact of 3D sonography on workroom time efficiency. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:966–969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xu JM, Xu XH, Xu HX et al (2015) Prediction of cervical lymph node metastasis in patients with papillary thyroid cancer using combined conventional ultrasound, strain elastography, and acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography. Eur Radiol 11:1–12Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soo Chin Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ji-hoon Kim
    • 2
    Email author
  • Seung Hong Choi
    • 2
  • Tae Jin Yun
    • 2
  • Jae Yeon Wi
    • 2
  • Sun Ah Kim
    • 2
  • Hye Young Sun
    • 1
    • 2
  • Inseon Ryoo
    • 3
  • Sun-Won Park
    • 2
    • 4
  • Chul-Ho Sohn
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Gangnam CenterSeoul National University Hospital Healthcare SystemGangnam GuKorea
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of MedicineSeoul National University HospitalChongno-GuKorea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyKorea University Guro HospitalGuro-guKorea
  4. 4.Department of RadiologySMG-SNU Boramae Medical CenterDongjak-guKorea

Personalised recommendations