Diagnostic performance of thyroid ultrasound in Hurthle cell carcinomas

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_SANTANA_Diagnostic_performance_of_thyroid_ultrasound_in_Hurthle_cell_2019.PDF (585.22 KB)
Citações na Scopus
14
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2019
Editora
SBEM-SOC BRASIL ENDOCRINOLOGIA & METABOLOGIA
DOI
Indexadores
SciELO
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Autores
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
ARCHIVES OF ENDOCRINOLOGY METABOLISM, v.63, n.3, p.300-305, 2019
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objective: Hurthle cell carcinomas (HCCs) of the thyroid have been recently reclassified as a separate entity due to their distinct clinical and molecular profiles. Few studies have assessed the ability of preoperative characteristics in differentiating HCCs from Hurthle cell adenomas (HCAs) due to the low prevalence of both lesions. This study aimed to compare the preoperative features of HCCs and HCAs and evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasound in distinguishing between both. Subjetcs and methods: Retrospective study including 101 patients (52 HCCs and 49 HCAs) who underwent thyroid surgery from 2000 to 2016. Clinical, ultrasonographic, and histological data were reviewed. Diagnostic performance of suspicious sonographic features was analyzed in 51 cases (24 HCCs and 27 HCAs). Results: Hurthle cell neoplasms were predominant in females. Subjects >= 55 years represented 58% of the cases of HCCs and 53% of those of HCAs. Carcinomas were significantly larger (p < 0.001), and a tumor size >= 4 cm significantly increased the risk of malignancy (odds ratio 3.67). Other clinical, cytologic, and sonographic data were similar between HCCs and HCAs. Among the HCCs, the lesions were purely solid in 54.2%, hypoechoic in 37.5%, and had coarse calcifications in 12.5%, microcalcifications in 8.3%, irregular contours in 4.2%, and a taller-than-wide shape in 16.7%. Predominantly/exclusive intranodular vascularization was observed in 52.6%. Overall, 58% of the HCCs were classified as TI-RADS 4 or 5 compared with 48% of the HCAs. TI-RADS 4 or 5 had a specificity of only 51.8% and a positive likelihood ratio of 1.21. Conclusions: Apart from the lesion size, no other preoperative feature adequately distinguished HCCs from HCAs. Sonographic characteristics raising suspicion for malignancy, which are mostly present in papillary carcinomas, were infrequent in HCCs. New tools must be developed to improve preoperative diagnosis and deferral of surgery in cases of adenomas.
Palavras-chave
Ultrasound, thyroid cancer, Hurthle cell, Doppler
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/33229
Referências
  1. Auger M, 2014, CANCER CYTOPATHOL, V122, P241, DOI 10.1002/cncy.21391
  2. Besic N, 2003, THYROID, V13, P577, DOI 10.1089/105072503322238845
  3. Brito JP, 2014, J CLIN ENDOCR METAB, V99, P1253, DOI 10.1210/jc.2013-2928
  4. Cannon J, 2011, ONCOLOGIST, V16, P1380, DOI 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0253
  5. CARCANGIU ML, 1991, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V68, P1944, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19911101)68:9<1944::AID-CNCR2820680917>3.0.CO;2-I
  6. Chindris AM, 2015, J CLIN ENDOCR METAB, V100, P55, DOI 10.1210/jc.2014-1634
  7. Giorgadze T, 2004, DIAGN CYTOPATHOL, V31, P307, DOI 10.1002/dc.20132
  8. Harrell RM, 2014, ENDOCR PRACT, V20, P364, DOI 10.4158/EP13330.OR
  9. Hundahl SA, 1998, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V83, P2638, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19981215)83:12<2638::AID-CNCR31>3.0.CO;2-1
  10. Ito Y, 2016, ENDOCR J, V63, P977, DOI 10.1507/endocrj.EJ16-0268
  11. Jeh SK, 2007, KOREAN J RADIOL, V8, P192, DOI 10.3348/kjr.2007.8.3.192
  12. Kim TH, 2010, THYROID, V20, P1229, DOI 10.1089/thy.2009.0443
  13. Kushchayeva Y, 2004, WORLD J SURG, V28, P1266, DOI 10.1007/s00268-004-7602-2
  14. Lee KH, 2013, INT J SURG, V11, P898, DOI 10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.07.010
  15. Lee SK, 2010, J CLIN ULTRASOUND, V38, P169, DOI 10.1002/jcu.20684
  16. Lloyd R. V., 2017, WHO CLASSIFICATION T
  17. Lopez-Penabad L, 2003, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V97, P1186, DOI 10.1002/cncr.11176
  18. Maizlin ZV, 2008, J ULTRAS MED, V27, P751, DOI 10.7863/jum.2008.27.5.751
  19. Mete O, 2010, ENDOCR PATHOL, V21, P16, DOI 10.1007/s12022-009-9102-2
  20. Parikh PP, 2013, J SURG RES, V184, P247, DOI 10.1016/j.jss.2013.03.005
  21. Park JW, 2017, ULTRASONOGRAPHY, V36, P349, DOI 10.14366/usg.17020
  22. Pu RT, 2006, DIAGN CYTOPATHOL, V34, P330, DOI 10.1002/dc.20440
  23. Rago T, 2007, CLIN ENDOCRINOL, V66, P13, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2006.02677.x
  24. Roh MH, 2011, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V135, P139, DOI 10.1309/AJCP0RW2WMDUAKGK
  25. Sawka AM, 2018, THYROID, V28, P692, DOI 10.1089/thy.2018.0070
  26. Sippel RS, 2008, WORLD J SURG, V32, P702, DOI 10.1007/s00268-007-9416-5
  27. Tessler FN, 2017, J AM COLL RADIOL, V14, P587, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.046
  28. Tuzun D, 2015, ANN DIAGN PATHOL, V19, P175, DOI 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2015.03.002

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICESP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/InRad
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/25
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/43
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/44
Carregar mais