Comparison between Ultrasonography and Computed Tomography for Detecting the Pyramidal Lobe of the Thyroid Gland: A Prospective Multicenter Study.
10.3348/kjr.2015.16.2.402
- Author:
Dong Wook KIM
1
;
So Lyung JUNG
;
Jinna KIM
;
Ji Hwa RYU
;
Jin Yong SUNG
;
Hyun Kyung LIM
Author Information
1. Department of Radiology, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan 614-735, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study ; Multicenter Study
- Keywords:
Thyroid;
Variation;
Pyramidal lobe;
Ultrasonography;
Computed tomography;
Anatomy
- MeSH:
Adult;
Aged;
Diagnostic Imaging;
Female;
Humans;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Neck/*radiography/*ultrasonography;
Prospective Studies;
Retrospective Studies;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Thyroid Gland/pathology/*radiography/*ultrasonography;
Tomography, X-Ray Computed/*methods;
Young Adult
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology
2015;16(2):402-409
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the detection rates of the pyramidal lobe of the thyroid gland (TPL) using ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) in a prospective multi-center study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled 582 patients who underwent neck CT at six institutions. Each radiologist prospectively evaluated the presence and features of TPLs on thyroid US. Radiologists were divided into two groups according to their previous experience in detecting TPL on US or CT. The same radiologist also retrospectively assessed CT findings, blinded to the corresponding US findings. RESULTS: The pyramidal lobe of the thyroid glands were detected in 230 cases (39.5%) on US and in 276 cases (47.6%) on CT. The TPL detection rate at the six institutions ranged from 22.0% to 59% for US and from 34.1% to 59% using CT. There were significant differences between US and CT in the detection rate, length, anteroposterior diameter, volume, and superior extent of TPL (p < or = 0.027). The TPL detection rates on both US and CT (p < 0.001) differed significantly according to the experience level of the radiologists. When the CT result was used as a reference standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, as well as the accuracy of US for TPL detection were 72.6%, 91.5%, 89.3%, 77.3%, and 82.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our prospective multicenter study revealed that US could detect TPL with relatively high diagnostic accuracy compared to CT. Because the detection rate of TPL varied significantly according to the radiologists' level of experience, careful inspection is necessary to avoid imaging pitfalls and ensure appropriate evaluation of TPL on both US and CT.
