Next Article in Journal
Involvement of Intestinal Enteroendocrine Cells in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders
Previous Article in Journal
“Flower Power”: Controlled Inhalation of THC-Predominant Cannabis Flos Improves Health-Related Quality of Life and Symptoms of Chronic Pain and Anxiety in Eligible UK Patients
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ultraviolet Light Exposure Decreases Thyroid Cancer Risk: A National Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomedicines
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/biomedicines10102575
biomedicines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Radiologist versus Non-Radiologist Detection of Lymph Node Metastasis in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma by Ultrasound: A Meta-Analysis

by
Peter P. Issa
1,
Lauren Mueller
2,
Mohammad Hussein
3,
Aaron Albuck
2,
Mohamed Shama
3,
Eman Toraih
3,4 and
Emad Kandil
3,*
1
School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA
2
School of Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA
3
Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA
4
Genetics Unit, Department of Histology and Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomedicines 2022, 10(10), 2575; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10102575
Submission received: 30 August 2022 / Revised: 8 October 2022 / Accepted: 9 October 2022 / Published: 14 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Thyroid Cancer: From Diagnosis to Treatment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is the most common thyroid cancer worldwide and is known to spread to adjacent neck lymphatics. Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is a known predictor of disease recurrence and is an indicator for aggressive resection. Our study aims to determine if ultrasound sonographers’ degree of training influences overall LNM detection. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus articles were searched and screened for relevant articles. Two investigators independently screened and extracted the data. Diagnostic test parameters were determined for all studies, studies reported by radiologists, and studies reported by non-radiologists. The total sample size amounted to 5768 patients and 10,030 lymph nodes. Radiologists performed ultrasounds in 18 studies, while non-radiologists performed ultrasounds in seven studies, corresponding to 4442 and 1326 patients, respectively. The overall sensitivity of LNM detection by US was 59% (95%CI = 58–60%), and the overall specificity was 85% (95%CI = 84–86%). The sensitivity and specificity of US performed by radiologists were 58% and 86%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of US performed by non-radiologists were 62% and 78%, respectively. Summary receiver operating curve (sROC) found radiologists and non-radiologists to detect LNM on US with similar accuracy (p = 0.517). Our work suggests that both radiologists and non-radiologists alike detect overall LNM with high accuracy on US.

1. Introduction

Thyroid cancer is the most common endocrine malignancy [1]. Papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is the most common thyroid cancer, accounting for 90% of thyroid cancer diagnoses [2,3]. Though sometimes described as an indolent disease, PTC often metastasizes into adjacent neck lymphatics, increasing the risk of disease recurrence [4]. The risk of PTC recurrence can be as high as 30% [5], and accordingly the determination of factors that can predict PTC aggressiveness is critical. One known independent risk factor for local PTC recurrence is lymph node metastasis (LNM) [5,6].
Cervical LNM is found in 20–50% of PTC patients [7]. Most commonly, lymphatic spread carries PTC metastases toward the central compartment of the neck (level VI). Metastasis is directly related to recurrence and mortality, making an accurate and efficient diagnosis of LMN paramount in managing these patients [8,9]. Furthermore, both the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and the British Thyroid Association (BTA) guidelines often recommend prophylactic central neck dissection with total thyroidectomy as the standard for operative PTC management [10,11]. Current ATA guidelines recommend ultrasound (US) as the first-line diagnostic technique in assessing LMN in PTC patients [11]. Though US is widely available and considerably cheaper than other imaging modalities, US diagnosis is operator-dependent and has been demonstrated to possess variable sensitivity and specificity [12,13]. Additionally, retrosternal, retropharyngeal, and mediastinal visualization may be challenging depending on the sonographer’s level of training [14]. Importantly, accurate lymph node mapping allows for a targeted surgical approach, minimizing the area of neck dissection, decreasing mortality, and increasing optimal cosmetic outcomes [15].
Since US is common practice for patients with thyroid disease and yet an operator-dependent technique, we thought to investigate the diagnostic value of US imaging performed by a radiologist, as opposed to performed by a non-radiologist, such as an ultrasound technician or surgeon.

2. Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy [16].

2.1. Literature Search

Multiple databases were searched in this meta-analysis including PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The search terms were as follows: “thyroid” AND “lymph node metastasis” OR “LNM” AND “ultrasonography” OR “sonography” OR “ultrasound” OR “US.” The search was performed on April 2022 and conducted without time or language restriction. All abstracts and the subsequent full texts were screened to determine the final articles.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies included in our analysis were those which were (1) cohort studies, case controls, or randomized controlled trials, (2) reporting pertinent parameters with respect to LNM detection on preoperative US in PTC patients, (3) confirmed by surgical pathology for the presence and/or absence of LNM. Importantly, each study must have reported sonographer qualification and diagnostic performance metrics such as sensitivity and specificity (or at least calculatable). Works reporting unoriginal work or not of the above-mentioned study types were excluded, including letters, opinions, editorials, case reports, singular abstracts, and reviews.

2.3. Data Extraction

Eligible articles were screened and reviewed by two investigators (P.P.I. and A.A.) and subsequently extracted. Any inconsistencies were settled by a senior author. Data relevant to the study were extracted, including study characteristics such as author, publication year, country and institution, study design, study period, and sample size. Importantly, the sonographer and their level of radiologic training (radiologist, US technician, or surgeon) and the number of lymph nodes detected were also included. Sensitivity and specificity were either extracted or manually calculated from the number of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using MetaDisc1.4 software (Unit of Clinical Biostatistics, Madrid, Spain) [17]. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The area under the curve (AUC) was estimated for each group. Diagnostic accuracy measures were compared between studies with data recorded by radiologists and those by non-radiologists (US technicians and surgeons) using a student’s t-test.
We quantified the heterogeneity using the I-square (I2) and Chi-squared tests. A fixed-effects model was used to analyze the selected studies’ consistency (I2 < 50% and p > 0.05). If I2 > 50% or p < 0.05, heterogeneity was present. Pooled estimates were performed using the random effects model if there was no obvious reason for heterogeneity. Possible heterogeneity caused by the threshold effect was tested. If there is a strong positive correlation between the logit of sensitivity and logit of 1-specificity (p < 0.05), assessed by Spearman’s correlation coefficients, threshold effects were present. Furthermore, meta-regression models were conducted to trace other heterogeneity sources according to the study design (retrospective versus prospective), sample size (400 patients or more versus less than 400), and year of publication (published in 2015 or more recently versus before). Regression diagnostic odds ratios (rDOR) were reported.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search

A total of 1654 unique articles (2423 total, 670 duplicates) were found using search terms previously mentioned. We excluded 1536 articles as they did not meet inclusion criteria. The remaining articles were reviewed in-depth and considered until the final number of studies was reached. A total of 25 studies were included in our meta-analysis. All studies were published between 2007 and 2022 and include works from Korea (11 studies), China (7 studies), the United States (5 studies), and Chile (1 study) [13,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Four works were published within the last two years (2020 and beyond), suggesting heightened interest in determining the accuracy of diagnostic imaging. The workflow of the literature search is depicted in Figure 1.

3.2. Characteristics of the Study Population

The characteristics of the included studies are detailed in Table 1. Of 25 studies, 17 were retrospective in study design and eight were prospective. The overall study period included patients from 1993 to 2022. The total sample size consisted of 5768 patients with 10,030 lymph nodes analyzed. Radiologists performed ultrasounds in 18 studies, while non-radiologists performed ultrasounds in 7 studies, corresponding to 4442 and 1326 patients, respectively. All LNM diagnoses were confirmed by surgical pathology.

3.3. Detection Accuracy of Lymph Node Metastasis Overall

The overall sensitivity of LNM detection by US was 59% (95%CI = 58–60%) and the overall specificity was 85% (95%CI = 84–86%) (Table 2). The corresponding positive and negative LRs were 3.66 (95%CI = 2.88–4.66) and 0.49 (95%CI = 0.42–0.57), respectively. The DOR was 8.04 (95%CI = 5.86–11.03) and the AUC was determined to be 0.800 ± 0.022.

3.4. Detection of Lymph Node Metastasis Sub-Grouped by Operator

A total of 18 studies reported the diagnostic accuracy of LNM detection by US performed by radiologists. This study population included 4442 patients and 7920 lymph nodes. The sensitivity and specificity of US detection of LNM by radiologists were 58% (95%CI = 56–59%) and 86% (95%CI = 85–87%), respectively (Figure 2A,B). The positive LR was 4.15 (95%CI = 2.96–5.81) and the negative LR was 0.50 (95%CI = 0.42–0.61) (Figure 2C,D).
US detection of LNM by non-radiologists (surgeon or US technician) was reported in 7 studies, totaling 1326 patients and 2110 lymph nodes. Pooled estimates of sensitivities and specificities were 62% (95%CI = 60–65%) and 78% (95%CI = 75–81%), respectively (Figure 3A,B). The positive LR was 2.63 (95%CI = 2.24–3.08), and the negative LR was 0.48 (95%CI = 0.39–0.59) (Figure 3C,D).
The DOR of LNM detection was 8.70 (95%CI = 5.75–13.17) for radiologists and 5.54 (95%CI = 4.17–7.35) for non-radiologists. Comparing the two groups, the AUC was found to be similar at 0.806 ± 0.031 for radiologists and 0.773 ± 0.024 for non-radiologists (p = 0.517) (Figure 4).

3.5. Heterogeneity Analysis

Apart from positive LR (I2 = 21.8%, p = 0.26) and DOR (I2 = 26.9%, p = 0.22) in readings by radiologists, all analyses displayed significant heterogeneity (Supplementary Table S1). To trace this heterogeneity, analysis of the diagnostic threshold showed significant correlation (spearman correlation) between the true and false positive rates in LNM detection in our overall analysis (r = 0.619, p = 0.001), subgroup analysis for radiologists (r = 0.528, p = 0.021), and subgroup analysis for non-radiologists (r = 0.821, p = 0.023) (Supplementary Figure S1).
After adjustment of study covariates including study design, US operator, sample size, and the year of publication, meta-regression analysis did not show any significant results. The rDOR based on the sonographer was 1.15 (95%CI = 0.77–1.72; p = 0.48) (Supplementary Table S2).

4. Discussion

Preoperative assessment of LNM in PTC patients is imperative in surgical planning and therefore directly impacts patient outcomes. Importantly, malignancy staging (i.e., TNM staging) is often more important than malignancy grading in determining patient prognosis. Since US is the most common and widely available imaging technique for the thyroid gland, its diagnostic accuracy, including sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC has been studied extensively [33,42]. Yet, to our best knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of overall LNM detection by US performed by radiologists and non-radiologists.
Ultrasound is currently the gold standard and first line of practice in preoperative assessment of PTC and in detecting LNM. It is easy to perform, widely available, low cost, and safe with no risk of radiation [43]. Previous studies have consistently determined sensitivity and specificity reports between 30–57% and 82–92%, respectively [33,44,45]. Our work corroborates the current literature, finding the overall sensitivity and specificity of LNM detection by US to be 59% and 85%, respectively. While subsequent sub-group analyses for central and lateral compartment LNM in our study is warranted, we found that further sub-stratification limited the patient cohorts significantly. Since LNM is an important independent predictor of patient prognosis, several studies have suggested adjunct imaging modalities, such as computed tomography (CT), to help improve the low sensitivity often seen in US to minimize the missed detection of true positives [46,47]. Though prophylactic lymph node dissection during thyroidectomy has been debated [48,49,50,51], complete and thorough surgical resection can positively affect patient survival [52,53]. In consequence, determining factors which could optimize the accuracy of LNM detection, such as the impact of US operator, is important in improving patient outcomes.
Traditionally, radiologists performed ultrasound prior to operative management. However, there has been a movement towards surgeon-preformed ultrasound as an extension of their operative management [54,55]. Oltmann et al. found that surgeons documented lymph node status more often than radiologists and that surgeon-performed US patients had less disease recurrence (0% versus 12%, p = 0.01) [56]. With respect to ultrasound-guided thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA), Graciano et al. reported no difference in efficacy when performed by radiologists or non-radiologists [57]. Other studies demonstrate that experience greater than seven years increases the positive predictive value and confidence of LNM detection [58]. While other meta-analyses have shown differences in diagnostic testing accuracy of US versus CT staging, our study is the first to search and analyze the literature for differences in US staging performed by radiologists compared to non-radiologists [45,59]. Our work found that US performed by radiologists were of similar diagnostic accuracy (p = 0.517) as those performed by non-radiologists. Though our study analyzes over 10,000 lymphatic nodules, our findings are not generalizable to the analysis of other cancers and warrants further study, such as randomized controlled trials, to further determine the role of US technicians in the non-radiologist grouping.
Detection of LNM on preoperative evaluation is critical in patients undergoing active surveillance management. Active surveillance management is the careful monitoring of patients with low-risk primary PTC (small size or without suspicious US features) by yearly or bi-yearly US and/or CT to detect thyroid nodule changes [60]. Importantly, LNM detection is an indication to immediately terminate active surveillance management and proceed with surgical treatment. Since early detection of cancer is vital in patient prognosis and allowing patients to maintain active surveillance management can increase mortality by as much as 130% [5], it is imperative that US diagnostic accuracy be optimized. Further work should elucidate other potentially-relevant factors such as patient body habitus [28].
Finally, we acknowledge several limitations of this study. Although the large sample size allowed for robust analyses, the majority of studies included were retrospective. Furthermore, sub-group analysis by cervical compartment was not feasible, as the four-way split (radiologist vs. non-radiologist as well as central vs. lateral LNM) limited the study population significantly. Additionally, studies took place in multiple countries. While this may lead to a more diverse patient population and greater generalizability, different training qualifications may exist for radiologists, US technicians, and surgeons across locations, which may provide for difficulty in comparing diagnostic testing parameters. In addition, the limited number of studies reporting US performance metrics of surgeons necessitated a non-radiologist versus radiologist comparison. Future works should look to determine the influence of surgeons and US technicians alone, as their trainings differ significantly. Another limitation in our study is the lack of studies reporting the readings of endocrinologists, leaving their detection accuracy unexplored. Finally, whether our findings are consistent with other cancer imaging studies is unknown and warrants further investigation.

5. Conclusions

Diagnostic accuracy of LNM detection on US performed by radiologists and non-radiologists were similar. Our work suggests that both radiologists and non-radiologists alike detect LNM with high accuracy on US.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biomedicines10102575/s1, Table S1: Heterogeneity analysis; Table S2: Metaregression analysis of parameters possibly influencing ultrasound diagnostic testing accuracy; Figure S1: Analysis of diagnostic threshold. Spearman correlation analysis for Logit (TPR) vs. Logit (FPR) was employed. Black: correlation coefficient of the overall analysis, Green: radiologist operator studies, and Orange: non-radiologist operator studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: all authors; Methodology: M.S., E.T. and E.K.; Validation: all authors; Formal Analysis: M.H., E.T. and E.K.; Investigation: P.P.I., L.M, M.H., A.A. and E.T.; Data Curation: P.P.I., A.A., M.H. and E.T.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation: P.P.I., L.M. and E.T.; Writing—Review and Editing: all authors; Visualization: M.H., E.T. and E.K.; Supervision: E.K.; Funding Acquisition: E.T. and E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a research grant (THYROIDGRANT2021-0000000232) from the (1) Bite Me Cancer and facilitated by the American Thyroid Association (to E.T.) and (2) Tulane University Bridge Fund (to E.K.).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable considering study design.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable considering study design.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Material.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest. The sponsors had no role in the design, execution, interpretation, or writing of the study.

References

  1. Davies, L.; Welch, H.G. Current Thyroid Cancer Trends in the United States. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2014, 140, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Davies, L.; Ouellette, M.; Hunter, M.; Welch, H.G. The Increasing Incidence of Small Thyroid Cancers: Where Are the Cases Coming From? Laryngoscope 2010, 120, 2446–2451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rossi, E.D.; Pantanowitz, L.; Hornick, J.L. A Worldwide Journey of Thyroid Cancer Incidence Centred on Tumour Histology. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021, 9, 193–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wada, N.; Duh, Q.-Y.; Sugino, K.; Iwasaki, H.; Kameyama, K.; Mimura, T.; Ito, K.; Takami, H.; Takanashi, Y. Lymph Node Metastasis from 259 Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinomas: Frequency, Pattern of Occurrence and Recurrence, and Optimal Strategy for Neck Dissection. Ann. Surg. 2003, 237, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mazzaferri, E.L.; Jhiang, S.M. Long-Term Impact of Initial Surgical and Medical Therapy on Papillary and Follicular Thyroid Cancer. Am. J. Med. 1994, 97, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Medas, F.; Canu, G.L.; Boi, F.; Lai, M.L.; Erdas, E.; Calò, P.G. Predictive Factors of Recurrence in Patients with Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis on 579 Patients. Cancers 2019, 11, 1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Cooper, D.S.; Doherty, G.M.; Haugen, B.R.; Kloos, R.T.; Lee, S.L.; Mandel, S.J.; Mazzaferri, E.L.; McIver, B.; Pacini, F.; Schlumberger, M. Revised American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association (ATA) Guidelines Taskforce on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid 2009, 19, 1167–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Limaiem, F.; Rehman, A.; Mazzoni, T. Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kitahara, C.M.; Sosa, J.A. The Changing Incidence of Thyroid Cancer. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2016, 12, 646–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. British Thyroid Association BTA Guidelines for the Management of Thyroid Cancer in Adults. 2011. Available online: https://www.british-thyroid-association.org/current-bta-guidelines-and-statements (accessed on 1 August 2022).
  11. Haugen, B.R.; Alexander, E.K.; Bible, K.C.; Doherty, G.M.; Mandel, S.J.; Nikiforov, Y.E.; Pacini, F.; Randolph, G.W.; Sawka, A.M.; Schlumberger, M. 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. Thyroid 2016, 26, 1–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Moon, H.J.; Kim, E.-K.; Yoon, J.H.; Kwak, J.Y. Differences in the Diagnostic Performances of Staging US for Thyroid Malignancy According to Experience. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2012, 38, 568–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lesnik, D.; Cunnane, M.E.; Zurakowski, D.; Acar, G.O.; Ecevit, C.; Mace, A.; Kamani, D.; Randolph, G.W. Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Nodal Surgery Directed by a Preoperative Radiographic Map Utilizing CT Scan and Ultrasound in All Primary and Reoperative Patients. Head Neck 2014, 36, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kim, S.; Kim, K.; Park, H.; Yoo, H.; Chae, B.; Bae, J.; Jung, S.; Song, B. Factors Related with Metastasis of Right Retroesophageal Lymph Nodes in Papillary Thyroid Cancer. Minerva Chir. 2015, 70, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Sakorafas, G.H.; Koureas, A.; Mpampali, I.; Balalis, D.; Nasikas, D.; Ganztzoulas, S. Patterns of Lymph Node Metastasis in Differentiated Thyroid Cancer; Clinical Implications with Particular Emphasis on the Emerging Role of Compartment-Oriented Lymph Node Dissection. Oncol. Res. Treat. 2019, 42, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. McInnes, M.D.; Moher, D.; Thombs, B.D.; McGrath, T.A.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Clifford, T.; Cohen, J.F.; Deeks, J.J.; Gatsonis, C.; Hooft, L. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA 2018, 319, 388–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Zamora, J.; Abraira, V.; Muriel, A.; Khan, K.; Coomarasamy, A. Meta-DiSc: A Software for Meta-Analysis of Test Accuracy Data. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2006, 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, Y.; Li, S.; Yan, C.; He, C.; Yun, M.; Liu, M.; Zhou, J.; Liu, L. Value of Dual-Phase, Contrast-Enhanced CT Combined with Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Metastasis to Central Lymph Nodes in Patients with Papillary Thyroid Cancer. Clin. Imaging 2021, 75, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lu, G.; Chen, L. Cervical Lymph Node Metastases in Papillary Thyroid Cancer: Preoperative Staging with Ultrasound and/or Computed Tomography. Medicine 2022, 101, e28909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gao, L.; Wang, J.; Jiang, Y.; Gao, Q.; Wang, Y.; Xi, X.; Zhang, B. The Number of Central Lymph Nodes on Preoperative Ultrasound Predicts Central Neck Lymph Node Metastasis in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: A Prospective Cohort Study. Int. J. Endocrinol. 2020, 2020, 2698659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Zhang, J.; Fei, M.; Dong, Y.; Xu, S.; Zhan, W. Preoperative Ultrasonographic Staging of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma with the Eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging System. Ultrasound Q. 2020, 36, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lee, D.-H.; Kim, Y.K.; Yu, H.W.; Choi, J.Y.; Park, S.Y.; Moon, J.H. Computed Tomography for Detecting Cervical Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients Who Have Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma with Tumor Characteristics Appropriate for Active Surveillance. Thyroid 2019, 29, 1653–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Eun, N.L.; Son, E.J.; Kim, J.-A.; Gweon, H.M.; Kang, J.-H.; Youk, J.H. Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of Ultrasonography, CT and Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology for the Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Lymph Node Dissection of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Int. J. Surg. 2018, 51, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hong, Y.-R.; Luo, Z.-Y.; Mo, G.-Q.; Wang, P.; Ye, Q.; Huang, P.-T. Role of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Pre-Operative Diagnosis of Cervical Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2017, 43, 2567–2575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lee, Y.; Kim, J.; Baek, J.H.; Jung, S.L.; Park, S.; Kim, J.; Yun, T.J.; Ha, E.J.; Lee, K.E.; Kwon, S.Y. Value of CT Added to Ultrasonography for the Diagnosis of Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Thyroid Cancer. Head Neck 2018, 40, 2137–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Patel, N.U.; McKinney, K.; Kreidler, S.M.; Bieker, T.M.; Russ, P.; Roberts, K.; Glueck, D.H.; Albuja-Cruz, M.; Klopper, J.; Haugen, B.R. Ultrasound-based Clinical Prediction Rule Model for Detecting Papillary Thyroid Cancer in Cervical Lymph Nodes: A Pilot Study. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2016, 44, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Na, D.K.; Choi, Y.J.; Choi, S.H.; Kook, S.H.; Park, H.J. Evaluation of Cervical Lymph Node Metastasis in Thyroid Cancer Patients Using Real-Time CT-Navigated Ultrasonography: Preliminary Study. Ultrasonography 2015, 34, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Choi, J.S.; Lee, H.S.; Kim, E.; Moon, H.J.; Kwak, J.Y. The Influence of Body Mass Index on the Diagnostic Performance of Pre-operative Staging Ultrasound in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. Clin. Endocrinol. 2015, 83, 550–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Khokhar, M.T.; Day, K.M.; Sangal, R.B.; Ahmedli, N.N.; Pisharodi, L.R.; Beland, M.D.; Monchik, J.M. Preoperative High-Resolution Ultrasound for the Assessment of Malignant Central Compartment Lymph Nodes in Papillary Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid 2015, 25, 1351–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xiang, D.; Hong, Y.; Zhang, B.; Huang, P.; Li, G.; Wang, P.; Li, Z. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) Facilitated US in Detecting Lateral Neck Lymph Node Metastasis of Thyroid Cancer Patients: Diagnosis Value and Enhancement Patterns of Malignant Lymph Nodes. Eur. Radiol. 2014, 24, 2513–2519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shim, M.; Roh, J.; Gong, G.; Choi, K.; Lee, J.; Cho, S.; Nam, S.; Kim, S. Preoperative Detection and Predictors of Level V Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. J. Br. Surg. 2013, 100, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lee, D.; Ji, Y.; Sung, E.; Park, J.; Lee, Y.; Park, D.; Tae, K. Roles of Ultrasonography and Computed Tomography in the Surgical Management of Cervical Lymph Node Metastases in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 2013, 39, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hwang, H.S.; Orloff, L.A. Efficacy of Preoperative Neck Ultrasound in the Detection of Cervical Lymph Node Metastasis from Thyroid Cancer. Laryngoscope 2011, 121, 487–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Park, J.S.; Son, K.-R.; Na, D.G.; Kim, E.; Kim, S. Performance of Preoperative Sonographic Staging of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Based on the Sixth Edition of the AJCC/UICC TNM Classification System. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009, 192, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sugitani, I.; Fujimoto, Y.; Yamada, K.; Yamamoto, N. Prospective Outcomes of Selective Lymph Node Dissection for Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Based on Preoperative Ultrasonography. World J. Surg. 2008, 32, 2494–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ahn, J.E.; Lee, J.H.; Yi, J.S.; Shong, Y.K.; Hong, S.J.; Lee, D.H.; Choi, C.G.; Kim, S.J. Diagnostic Accuracy of CT and Ultrasonography for Evaluating Metastatic Cervical Lymph Nodes in Patients with Thyroid Cancer. World J. Surg. 2008, 32, 1552–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, E.; Park, J.S.; Son, K.-R.; Kim, J.-H.; Jeon, S.J.; Na, D.G. Preoperative Diagnosis of Cervical Metastatic Lymph Nodes in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: Comparison of Ultrasound, Computed Tomography, and Combined Ultrasound with Computed Tomography. Thyroid 2008, 18, 411–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. González, H.E.; Cruz, F.; O’Brien, A.; Goni, I.; León, A.; Claure, R.; Camus, M.; Dominguez, F.; Mosso, L.; Arteaga, E. Impact of Preoperative Ultrasonographic Staging of the Neck in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2007, 133, 1258–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Choi, J.S.; Kim, J.; Kwak, J.Y.; Kim, M.J.; Chang, H.S.; Kim, E.-K. Preoperative Staging of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: Comparison of Ultrasound Imaging and CT. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009, 193, 871–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, L.; Cheng, S.-N.; Zhao, Y.-F.; Wang, X.-Y.; Luo, D.-H.; Wang, Y. Diagnostic Accuracy of Single-Source Dual-Energy Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography for Detection of Lateral Cervical Lymph Node Metastases of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. J. Thorac. Dis. 2019, 11, 5032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, C.Y.; Snyder, S.K.; Lairmore, T.C.; Dupont, S.C.; Jupiter, D.C. Utility of Surgeon-Performed Ultrasound Assessment of the Lateral Neck for Metastatic Papillary Thyroid Cancer. J. Oncol. 2012, 2012, 973124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Choi, Y.J.; Kim, S.M.; Choi, S.I. Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound Features in Thyroid Microcarcinomas. Endocr. J. 2008, 55, 931–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wong, K.; Ahuja, A.T. Ultrasound of Thyroid Cancer. Cancer Imaging 2005, 5, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Choi, Y.J.; Yun, J.S.; Kook, S.H.; Jung, E.C.; Park, Y.L. Clinical and Imaging Assessment of Cervical Lymph Node Metastasis in Papillary Thyroid Carcinomas. World J. Surg. 2010, 34, 1494–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, Y.; Chen, M.; Chen, P.; Tong, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, G. Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound and Computed Tomography in Parallel for the Diagnosis of Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Thyroid Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gland Surg. 2022, 11, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Alabousi, M.; Alabousi, A.; Adham, S.; Pozdnyakov, A.; Ramadan, S.; Chaudhari, H.; Young, J.E.M.; Gupta, M.; Harish, S. Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Ultrasonography vs Computed Tomography for Papillary Thyroid Cancer Cervical Lymph Node Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2022, 148, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xing, Z.; Qiu, Y.; Yang, Q.; Yu, Y.; Liu, J.; Fei, Y.; Su, A.; Zhu, J. Thyroid Cancer Neck Lymph Nodes Metastasis: Meta-Analysis of US and CT Diagnosis. Eur. J. Radiol. 2020, 129, 109103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Monchik, J.M.; Simon, C.J.; Caragacianu, D.L.; Thomay, A.A.; Tsai, V.; Cohen, J.; Mazzaglia, P.J. Does Failure to Perform Prophylactic Level VI Node Dissection Leave Persistent Disease Detectable by Ultrasonography in Patients with Low-Risk Papillary Carcinoma of the Thyroid? Surgery 2009, 146, 1182–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. White, M.L.; Gauger, P.G.; Doherty, G.M. Central Lymph Node Dissection in Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. World J. Surg. 2007, 31, 895–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Roh, J.-L.; Park, J.-Y.; Park, C.I. Total Thyroidectomy plus Neck Dissection in Differentiated Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Patients: Pattern of Nodal Metastasis, Morbidity, Recurrence, and Postoperative Levels of Serum Parathyroid Hormone. Ann. Surg. 2007, 245, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Forest, V.-I.; Clark, J.R.; Ebrahimi, A.; Cho, E.-A.; Sneddon, L.; Gao, K.; O’brien, C.J. Central Compartment Dissection in Thyroid Papillary Carcinoma. Ann. Surg. 2011, 253, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lundgren, C.I.; Hall, P.; Dickman, P.W.; Zedenius, J. Clinically Significant Prognostic Factors for Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma: A Population-based, Nested Case–Control Study. Cancer Interdiscip. Int. J. Am. Cancer Soc. 2006, 106, 524–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tisell, L.-E.; Nilsson, B.; Mölne, J.; Hansson, G.; Fjälling, M.; Jansson, S.; Wingren, U. Improved Survival of Patients with Papillary Thyroid Cancer after Surgical Microdissection. World J. Surg. 1996, 20, 854–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pasqual, E.; Sosa, J.A.; Chen, Y.; Schonfeld, S.J.; Berrington de González, A.; Kitahara, C.M. Trends in the Management of Localized Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma in the United States (2000–2018). Thyroid 2022, 32, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kumbhar, S.S.; O’Malley, R.B.; Robinson, T.J.; Maximin, S.; Lalwani, N.; Byrd, D.R.; Wang, C.L. Why Thyroid Surgeons Are Frustrated with Radiologists: Lessons Learned from Pre-and Postoperative US. Radiographics 2016, 36, 2141–2153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Oltmann, S.C.; Schneider, D.F.; Chen, H.; Sippel, R.S. All Thyroid Ultrasound Evaluations Are Not Equal: Sonographers Specialized in Thyroid Cancer Correctly Label Clinical N0 Disease in Well Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Graciano, A.J.; Fischer, C.A.; Chone, C.T.; Bublitz, G.S.; Sonagli, M.; Filho, C.A.R. Efficacy of Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration Performed by Surgeons Newly Trained in Thyroid Ultrasound. Head Neck 2017, 39, 439–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hong, Y.J.; Son, E.J.; Kim, E.-K.; Kwak, J.Y.; Hong, S.W.; Chang, H.-S. Positive Predictive Values of Sonographic Features of Solid Thyroid Nodule. Clin. Imaging 2010, 34, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yang, J.; Zhang, F.; Qiao, Y. Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound, CT and Their Combination in Detecting Cervical Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Papillary Thyroid Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e051568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ze, Y.; Zhang, X.; Shao, F.; Zhu, L.; Shen, S.; Zhu, D.; Bi, Y. Active Surveillance of Low-Risk Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: A Promising Strategy Requiring Additional Evidence. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 145, 2751–2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biomedicines 10 02575 g001 550
Figure 1. Workflow of the literature search. A total of 25 studies were included.
Figure 1. Workflow of the literature search. A total of 25 studies were included.
Biomedicines 10 02575 g001
Biomedicines 10 02575 g002 550
Figure 2. Diagnostic parameters of ultrasound performed by radiologists [18,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,32,34,35,36,37,38,39]. The (A) sensitivity, (B) specificity, (C) positive likelihood ratio, and (D) negative likelihood ratio are presented. Data is reported as an estimate and 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran-Q test and magnitude was estimated by the I-square value. CI = Confidence Interval; LR = Likelihood Ratio.
Figure 2. Diagnostic parameters of ultrasound performed by radiologists [18,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,32,34,35,36,37,38,39]. The (A) sensitivity, (B) specificity, (C) positive likelihood ratio, and (D) negative likelihood ratio are presented. Data is reported as an estimate and 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran-Q test and magnitude was estimated by the I-square value. CI = Confidence Interval; LR = Likelihood Ratio.
Biomedicines 10 02575 g002
Biomedicines 10 02575 g003 550
Figure 3. Diagnostic parameters of ultrasound performed by non-radiologists [13,19,21,22,31,33,41]. The (A) sensitivity, (B) specificity, (C) positive likelihood ratio, and (D) negative likelihood ratio are presented. Data is reported as an estimate and 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran-Q test and magnitude was estimated by the I-square value. CI = Confidence Interval; LR = Likelihood Ratio.
Figure 3. Diagnostic parameters of ultrasound performed by non-radiologists [13,19,21,22,31,33,41]. The (A) sensitivity, (B) specificity, (C) positive likelihood ratio, and (D) negative likelihood ratio are presented. Data is reported as an estimate and 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran-Q test and magnitude was estimated by the I-square value. CI = Confidence Interval; LR = Likelihood Ratio.
Biomedicines 10 02575 g003
Biomedicines 10 02575 g004 550
Figure 4. Comparison of diagnostic parameters of ultrasound performed by radiologists with those performed by non-radiologists. The (A) diagnostic odds ratio of radiologists [18,20,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,32,34,35,36,37,38,39], (B) diagnostic odds ratio of non-radiologists [13,19,21,22,31,33,41], and (C) summary receiver operating curve are presented. Summary receiver operating curve is presented as an area under the curve and standard error. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran-Q test and magnitude was estimated by the I-square value. OR = Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; AUC = area under the curve; sROC = summary receiver operating curve.
Figure 4. Comparison of diagnostic parameters of ultrasound performed by radiologists with those performed by non-radiologists. The (A) diagnostic odds ratio of radiologists [18,20,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,32,34,35,36,37,38,39], (B) diagnostic odds ratio of non-radiologists [13,19,21,22,31,33,41], and (C) summary receiver operating curve are presented. Summary receiver operating curve is presented as an area under the curve and standard error. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran-Q test and magnitude was estimated by the I-square value. OR = Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; AUC = area under the curve; sROC = summary receiver operating curve.
Biomedicines 10 02575 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the study population.
Table 1. Characteristics of the study population.
First AuthorYearCountryStudy PeriodStudy DesignSample SizeNumber of Lymph NodesSonographer
Qualification
Lu [19]2022China01/2018–01/2020Retro185185US Technician
Liu [18]2021China04/2016–05/2018Retro600661Radiology
Gao [20]2020China05/2017–07/2017Pro501618Radiology
Zhang [21]2020China01/2018–09/2018Retro665665US Technician
Li [40]2019China01/2017–12/2017Pro3099US Technician
Lee [22]2019Korea12/2014–12/2016Retro218479Radiology
Eun [23]2018Korea01/2013–12/2015Retro3021128Radiology
Hong [24]2017China01/2014–09/2016Pro253319Radiology
Lee [25]2017Korea11/2011–12/2012Pro351801Radiology
Patel [26]2016USA01/2011–12/2011Retro4471Radiology
Na [27]2015Korea03/2011–02/2012Retro176352Radiology
Choi [28]2015Korea12/2012–04/2013Retro6251250Radiology
Khokhar [29]2015USA2004–2014Retro51227Radiology
Xiang [30]2014China05/2012–01/2014Retro5382Radiology
Shim [31]2013Korea2006–2010Retro143715US Technician
Lee [32]2013Korea01/2007–5/2010Retro252558Radiology
Lesnik [13]2013USA2003–2008Pro95196US Technician
Lee [41]2012USA2000–2008Retro109109Endocrine Surgeon
Hwang & Orloff [33]2011USA10/2004–12/2007Retro99141Head and Neck Surgeon
Park [34]2009Korea11/2006–03/2007Pro94147Radiology
Choi [39]2009Korea02/2006–04/2007Retro299352Radiology
Sugitani [35]2008Japan1993–2001Pro361357Radiology
Ahn [36]2008Korea01/2005–12/2005Retro37181Radiology
Kim [37]2008Korea04/2006–10/2006Retro165277Radiology
Gonzalez [38]2007Chile01/2006–06/2006Pro6060Radiology
In the study design column, “Pro” designates prospective, and “Retro” designates retrospective. US = Ultrasound.
Table
Table 2. Diagnostic accuracy of overall lymph node metastasis detection by ultrasound by radiologists or non-radiologists.
Table 2. Diagnostic accuracy of overall lymph node metastasis detection by ultrasound by radiologists or non-radiologists.
Diagnostic ParameterMeta-Analysis Pooled Estimate (95%CI)
Sensitivity59% (58–60%)
Specificity85% (84–86%)
Positive Likelihood Ratio3.66 (2.88–4.66)
Negative Likelihood Ratio0.49 (0.42–0.57)
Diagnostic Odds Ratio8.04 (5.86–11.03)
Area Under the Curve (SE)0.800 ± 0.022
A total of 25 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Total sample size consisted of 5768 patients with 10,030 lymph nodes analyzed. Radiologists performed ultrasounds in 18 studies, while non-radiologists performed ultrasounds in 7 studies, corresponding to 4442 and 1326 patients, respectively. CI = Confidence Interval; SE = Standard Error.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Issa, P.P.; Mueller, L.; Hussein, M.; Albuck, A.; Shama, M.; Toraih, E.; Kandil, E. Radiologist versus Non-Radiologist Detection of Lymph Node Metastasis in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma by Ultrasound: A Meta-Analysis. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 2575. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10102575

AMA Style

Issa PP, Mueller L, Hussein M, Albuck A, Shama M, Toraih E, Kandil E. Radiologist versus Non-Radiologist Detection of Lymph Node Metastasis in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma by Ultrasound: A Meta-Analysis. Biomedicines. 2022; 10(10):2575. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10102575

Chicago/Turabian Style

Issa, Peter P., Lauren Mueller, Mohammad Hussein, Aaron Albuck, Mohamed Shama, Eman Toraih, and Emad Kandil. 2022. "Radiologist versus Non-Radiologist Detection of Lymph Node Metastasis in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma by Ultrasound: A Meta-Analysis" Biomedicines 10, no. 10: 2575. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10102575

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop