The reproducibility of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and standard B-mode ultrasound in the assessment of radiofrequency-ablated volume of benign thyroid nodules was compared. A preliminary study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of benign thyroid nodules between 2014 and 2016, with available CEUS and B-mode post-ablation checks. CEUS and B-mode images were retrospectively evaluated by two radiologists to assess inter- and intra-observer agreement in the assessment of ablated volume (Bland-Altman test). For CEUS, the mean inter-observer difference (95% limits of agreement) was 0.219 mL (-0.372-0.809 mL); for B-mode, the mean difference was 0.880 mL (-1.655-3.414 mL). Reproducibility was significantly higher for CEUS (85%) than for B-mode (27%). Mean intra-observer differences (95% limits of agreement) were 0.013 mL (0.803-4.097 mL) for Reader 1 and 0.031 mL (0.763-3.931 mL) for Reader 2 using CEUS, while they were 0.567 mL (-2.180-4.317 mL, Reader 1) and 0.759 mL (-2.584-4.290 mL, Reader 2) for B-mode. Intra-observer reproducibility was significantly higher for CEUS (96% and 95%, for the two readers) than for B-mode (21% and 23%). In conclusion, CEUS had higher reproducibility and inter- and intra-observer agreement compared to conventional B-mode in the assessment of radiofrequency-ablated volume of benign thyroid nodules.

Reproducibility of Ablated Volume Measurement Is Higher with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound than with B-Mode Ultrasound after Benign Thyroid Nodule Radiofrequency Ablation—A Preliminary Study / S. Schiaffino, F. Serpi, D. Rossi, V. Ferrara, C. Buonomenna, M. Alì, L. Monfardini, L.M. Sconfienza, G. Mauri. - In: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE. - ISSN 2077-0383. - 9:5(2020 May 16). [10.3390/jcm9051504]

Reproducibility of Ablated Volume Measurement Is Higher with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound than with B-Mode Ultrasound after Benign Thyroid Nodule Radiofrequency Ablation—A Preliminary Study

F. Serpi;D. Rossi;V. Ferrara;C. Buonomenna;M. Alì;L.M. Sconfienza
Penultimo
;
G. Mauri
Ultimo
2020

Abstract

The reproducibility of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and standard B-mode ultrasound in the assessment of radiofrequency-ablated volume of benign thyroid nodules was compared. A preliminary study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of benign thyroid nodules between 2014 and 2016, with available CEUS and B-mode post-ablation checks. CEUS and B-mode images were retrospectively evaluated by two radiologists to assess inter- and intra-observer agreement in the assessment of ablated volume (Bland-Altman test). For CEUS, the mean inter-observer difference (95% limits of agreement) was 0.219 mL (-0.372-0.809 mL); for B-mode, the mean difference was 0.880 mL (-1.655-3.414 mL). Reproducibility was significantly higher for CEUS (85%) than for B-mode (27%). Mean intra-observer differences (95% limits of agreement) were 0.013 mL (0.803-4.097 mL) for Reader 1 and 0.031 mL (0.763-3.931 mL) for Reader 2 using CEUS, while they were 0.567 mL (-2.180-4.317 mL, Reader 1) and 0.759 mL (-2.584-4.290 mL, Reader 2) for B-mode. Intra-observer reproducibility was significantly higher for CEUS (96% and 95%, for the two readers) than for B-mode (21% and 23%). In conclusion, CEUS had higher reproducibility and inter- and intra-observer agreement compared to conventional B-mode in the assessment of radiofrequency-ablated volume of benign thyroid nodules.
contrast-enhanced ultrasound; observer variation; radiofrequency ablation; thyroid nodule; ultrasonography;
Settore MED/36 - Diagnostica per Immagini e Radioterapia
16-mag-2020
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
jcm-09-01504.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 532.58 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
532.58 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/736074
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 7
  • Scopus 17
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 16
social impact