Thyroid nodules are being increasingly recognized due to easier access to imaging techniques, such as US (
13,
14). Thyroid nodules are detected in 20-76% of healthy individuals (
4,
15), and they are five times more common in women than in men (
16); however, most of these nodules are benign. In the present study, although the female-to-male ratio was 4:1, no significant association was found between sex and malignancy, similar to the findings reported by Kwak et al. (
9). On the other hand, our malignant cases were significantly older than benign cases, which is inconsistent with the literature (
9,
10) and may reflect population differences.
There are several guidelines on the risk classification of thyroid nodules (
9,
14,
15,
17,
18), providing useful information for the US examination in FNAB procedures. In this study, the TI-RADS classification proposed by Kwak (
9) was used, because it is a practical and highly sensitive system with a similar terminology to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), without assessing nodule vascularization or blood flow characteristics. The present results showed that Kwak TI-RADS is correlated with the FNAB results (i.e., cytological evaluation). Moreover, our results were consistent with the literature, suggesting that Kwak TI-RADS is a simple and reliable classification system that can be used in routine practice in different clinical settings. In this regard, Horvath et al., who were the first researchers to employ the TI-RADS, used similar US features in this system. They also examined the vascularization of nodules, unlike Kwak (
3). Overall, assessment of nodule vascularization may be problematic, because it differs among users. Besides, its use has become more complicated over time, requiring device-dependent technical adjustments.
Moreover, in a study by Yoon et al., which compared six guidelines (SRU, National Comprehensive Cancer Network system, ATA system, French TI-RADS, Kim TI-RADS, and Kwak TI-RADS), the sensitivity of Kwak TI-RADS was the highest (98.8%) (
19). Similar to the present study, the associations between malignancy and the five US findings, recommended by Kwak et al., were evaluated in their study, which were found to be significant (
19). Moreover, in a comparative study by Gao et al., Kwak TI-RADS showed a higher diagnostic efficacy than other methods, with malignancy rates of 1.9%, 10.9%, 55.2%, 88.8%, and 87.1% reported in patients with TI-RADS 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, and 5 lesions, respectively. The malignancy rates for TI-RADS 3, 4a, 4b, and 4c were higher than our results and the rates reported by Kwak and colleagues; the high rate of malignancy was attributed to the high incidence of malignancy in their study population (
9,
10).
According to Kwak TI-RADS, the probability of malignancy was as follows: TI-RADS 1, 0% (negative); TI-RADS 2, 0% (benign); TI-RADS 3, 1.7% (probably benign); TI-RADS 4a, 3.3% (low suspicion for malignancy); TI-RADS 4b, 9.2% (intermediate suspicion for malignancy); TI-RADS 4c, 44.4-72.4% (moderate concern, but not classic for malignancy); and TI-RADS 5, 87.5% (highly suggestive of malignancy) (
9). TI-RADS 1 and 2 lesions were not included in our study. The malignancy rates were lower in patients classified as TI-RADS 3, TI-RADS 4a, and TI-RADS 4b (0.7%, 1.4%, and 5.9%, respectively), and the frequency of benign nodules was higher in our study compared to the study by Kwak and colleagues. It should be noted that an inclusive approach was adopted in our study to perform US-FNAB, even in patients without clear FNAB indications; therefore, the number of benign cases was relatively high in the present study. The number of benign cases undergoing surgery was also higher than their study, which might partly explain the higher frequency of FNAB requested by clinicians before surgery.
Consistent with the study by Kwak et al., the malignancy rates were 46.7% and 89.5% in patients classified as TI-RADS 4c and TI-RADS 5 in the current study, respectively. Besides, the rate of malignancy in TI-RADS 5 patients was similar to the rate reported by Gao et al. (
9,
10). Based on the univariate analysis in the current study, the presence of a solid component, hypoechogenicity, microlobulated or irregular margins, microcalcifications, and a taller-than-wide shape significantly indicated malignancy; this finding is in line with the results reported by Kwak et al. (
9). However, the results of our multivariate analysis were not compatible with the study by Kwak et al., because only hypoechogenicity and a taller-than-wide shape were significant indicators of malignancy.
Additionally, Shapira-Zaltsberg et al. used the Kwak TI-RADS classification for a group of pediatric patients and found different malignancy rates in the TI-RADS groups. The malignancy rates of TI-RADS 3, TI-RADS 4a, TI-RADS 4b, TI-RADS 4c, and TI-RADS 5 were 5.9%, 23.4%, 25.0%, 33.3%, and 66.7%, respectively. Compared to the study by Kwak et al., the malignancy rates of TI-RADS 3, TI-RADS 4a, and TI-RADS 4b were higher, while the malignancy rates of TI-RADS 4c and TI-RADS 5 were lower (
20). Moreover, in a study by Seifert et al., the malignancy rates of TI-RADS 3, TI-RADS 4a, TI-RADS 4b, TI-RADS 4c, and TI-RADS 5 were 0%, 7%, 19%, 26%, and 33%, based on Kwak TI-RADS, respectively. The malignancy rates of TI-RADS 3, TI-RADS 4c, and TI-RADS 5 were lower compared to the study by Kwak et al., while the malignancy rates of TI-RADS 4a and TI-RADS 4b were higher (
7). Although the ratio of malignancy increased with the TI-RADS category, the percentage of malignancy in their study was lower than the present study.
While nodule size is critical in the EU TI-RADS classification, in the present study, the nodule size was not considered as an indication of FNAB, similar to Kwak TI-RADS (
21). The sizes of nodules included in our study was 1 cm or larger, based on Kwak TI-RADS. Also, because nodules are not classified by scoring in Kwak TI-RADS (
22), we did not score the nodule size. Overall, in the present study, 38 (4.8%) out of 776 US-FNAB procedures were inadequate, and the failure rate was lower than the rates reported in the literature (
23). The US-FNAB inadequacy rate was estimated at 15.1% in the study by Kwak et al., which is significantly higher than the literature and our study (
9); this discrepancy may be due to the use of a smaller plastic syringe. Larger case-series and controlled studies are needed to further evaluate the causes of inadequate US-FNAB.
The most important limitations of this study included its single-center, retrospective design and the large number of benign cases. Also, patients with Bethesda III, IV, and V lesions were not included in our study, because repeat and/or follow-up FNABs were not examined; therefore, the characteristics of these patient groups were not analyzed. Besides, the low frequency of postoperative histopathological confirmation (n = 117, 18.2%) and the low frequency of malignant cases (n = 42, 6.5%) were limiting factors in our study. Because we did not have a homogeneous patient group, some of our results were inconsistent with the literature. Also, the low malignancy rates of TI-RADS 3, TI-RADS 4a, and TI-RADS 4b lesions might be attributed to the high number of benign cases in our study population. However, this does not diminish the significance of our findings and/or TI-RADS classification, as the malignancy rate significantly increased by using TI-RADS in our study, similar to BI-RADS.
In conclusion, US-FNAB is important in distinguishing malignant from benign nodules and preventing unnecessary surgical interventions. However, the clinicians’ decision to perform US-FNAB may lead to unnecessary FNAB procedures. Radiologists should consider the five mentioned US features (i.e., solid components, hypoechogenicity, microlobulation or irregular margins, microcalcifications, and a taller-than-wide shape) and use Kwak TI-RADS in the US report. The present results indicated that Kwak TI-RADS classification, which allows for US characterization of thyroid nodules, is correlated with the cytopathological results. Overall, the use of Kwak TI-RADS classification may increase communication between radiologists and clinicians. Also, with the widespread use of Kwak TI-RADS, it is possible to select patients who require FNAB more accurately. Since our results are compatible with the literature, they may be easily adopted in daily practice worldwide. Overall, the use of Kwak TI-RADS is recommended in the clinical setting.