Comparison of Diagnostic Values of ACR TI-RADS versus C-TIRADS Scoring and Classification Systems for the Elderly Thyroid Cancers.

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic value of the Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) of the American College of Radiology (ACR) versus the Chinese Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (C-TIRADS) scoring and classification system for elderly thyroid cancers.

Patients And Methods: A total of 512 nodules from 465 patients aged ≥60 with surgical pathology-proven thyroid nodules were enrolled in our study. The ultrasound features of thyroid nodules were independently evaluated by the ACR TI-RADS and C-TIRADS classification systems, and the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was plotted. The optimal cut-off values of the ACR TI-RADS and C-TIRADS scoring and classification systems for diagnosing elderly thyroid nodules were estimated, and the diagnostic efficacy was analyzed.

Results: The ACR TI-RADS and C-TIRADS scores and classifications of thyroid cancers were both higher than benign nodules (both < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) of ACR TI-RADS and C-TIRADS scoring and classification systems were 0.861, 0.897, 0.879, and 0.900, respectively, and the AUC of the scoring system was greater than the classification system for both criteria. When the Youden index was the highest, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the ACR TI-RADS scoring and classification systems were consistent, ie, they were 89.66%, 41.70%, 89.93%, and 59.00%, respectively; the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the C-TIRADS scoring and classification systems were also consistent, ie, they were 88.71%, 44.26%, 90.23%, 59.69%, respectively. The diagnostic efficacy between the two systems was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: ACR TI-RADS and C-TIRADS systems had relatively high diagnostic efficacy for elderly thyroid cancer. The diagnostic efficiency of the scoring systems of ACR TI-RADS and C-TIRADS were higher than the classification systems. In addition, the two systems had high clinical practical values, while there is still a significant risk of missed diagnosis.