No abstract

BackgroundA key limitation of conventional ultrasound (US) includes poor differentiation of benign from malignant thyroid nodules. Contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) and acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) could provide better characterization of focal thyroid nodules; however, no studies have compared their efficacies.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of conventional US,CEUS, ARFI, and their combined use in differentiating focal solid thyroid nodules.MethodsOne-hundred-forty-six Chinese patients with 175 thyroid nodules (119 benign and 56 malignant) were prospectively enrolled. Each patients underwent conventional US, CEUS and ARFI, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the conventional US, CEUS, ARFI, combined use of either CEUS or ARFI and combined use of the three modalities were assessed and compared using Pathological diagnosis (histological/cytological) as the reference method.ResultsThere were no significant differences between individual groups (CEUS vs US, P = 0.279, ARFI vs US, P = 0.372, CEUS vs ARFI, P = 0.849), combined use of US and CEUS or combined use of US and ARFI yielded significant difference compared to US. (combination of US & CEUS vs US, P = 0.021; combination of US & ARFI vs US, P = 0.036). The combination of three modalities significantly improved the diagnostic accuracy compared with either combination of conventional US and CEUS or combination of conventional US and ARFI (P = 0.045 and P  = 0.027, respectively).ConclusionsCEUS and ARFI can be used as an additional tool in the diagnostic work up of thyroid nodules. The combination of CEUS with ARFI can significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy.

PurposeTo study the thyroid image reporting and data system (TI-RADS) classification and the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) enhancement pattern of thyroid nodules, and to determine whether combined use of both methods is helpful in the diagnosis of thyroid nodules.MethodsA total of 319 thyroid nodules in 246 patients were assessed with TI-RADS, CEUS and a combination of both methods. The diagnostic performance of TI-RADS, CEUS and a combination of both methods was compared.ResultsThe accuracy in the diagnosis of thyroid nodules was 90.3 % for TI-RADS, 90.0 % for CEUS and 96.0 % for a combination of both methods respectively. A statistically significant difference was not observed in the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS and TI-RADS (P > 0.05). However, a significant difference was observed between a combination of both methods and either alone (P < 0.01). A combination of both methods showed high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for TI-RADS classifications of 4a and 4b thyroid nodules compared with TI-RADS alone (P < 0.01) and a statistically significant difference was not observed for thyroid nodules classified as 2, 3, and 5 (P > 0.05).ConclusionsThe improved TI-RADS, when combined with CEUS, could significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy for thyroid nodules, especially for TI-RADS class-4 thyroid nodules.Key Points• TI-RADS can be used as the primary diagnostic standard for thyroid nodules • CEUS can be used as an important complement to TI-RADS • The improved TI-RADS can significantly improve the qualitative diagnostic accuracy