Search Results
Servizio di Endocrinologia e Diabetologia, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Lugano, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Tommaso Piticchio in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Gilles Russ in
Google Scholar
PubMed
University of Latvia, Faculty of Medicine, Riga, Latvia
Search for other papers by Maija Radzina in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Francesco Frasca in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Cosimo Durante in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Facoltà di Scienze Biomediche, Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI), Lugano, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Pierpaolo Trimboli in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Context
Ultrasound-based risk stratification systems (Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (TIRADSs)) of thyroid nodules (TNs) have been implemented in clinical practice worldwide based on their high performance. However, it remains unexplored whether different TIRADSs perform uniformly across a range of TNs in routine practice. This issue is highly relevant today, given the ongoing international effort to establish a unified TIRADS (i.e. I-TIRADS), supported by the leading societies specializing in TNs. The study aimed to conduct a direct comparison among ACR-, EU-, and K-TIRADS in the distribution of TNs: (1) across the TIRADS categories, and (2) based on their estimated cancer risk.
Methods
A search was conducted on PubMed and Embase until June 2023. Original studies that sequentially assessed TNs using TIRADSs, regardless of FNAC indication, were selected. General study characteristics and data on the distribution of TNs across TIRADSs were extracted.
Results
Seven studies, reporting a total of 41,332 TNs, were included in the analysis. The prevalence of ACR-TIRADS 1–2 was significantly higher than that of EU-TIRADS 2 and K-TIRADS 2, with no significant difference observed among intermediate- and high-risk categories of TIRADSs. According to malignancy risk estimation, K-TIRADS often classified TNs as having more severe risk, ACR-TIRADS as having moderate risk, and EU-TIRADS classified TNs as having lower risk.
Conclusion
ACR-, EU-, and K-TIRADS assess TNs similarly across their categories, with slight differences in low-risk classifications. Despite this, focusing on cancer risk estimation, the three TIRADSs assess TNs differently. These findings should be considered as a prerequisite for developing the I-TIRADS.
