https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0926-9511
Figures & data
Table 1 Proposed Risk Classification Model
Figure 1 (A) Low intra- and peri-nodular vascularisation pattern observed on 2D examination. (B) Low intra- and peri-nodular vascularisation observed on 3D examination (same thyroid nodule).
Figure 2 (A) Low intra- and peri-nodular vascularisation observed in 2D examination. (B) Increased intra- and peri-nodular vascularisation observed in 3D examination (same nodule).
Table 2 Low Intermediate and High-Risk Categories, According to the Conventional, Conventional + Elastography Respectively Conventional + Elastography + Volumetric Characteristics
Figure 3 2B Intermediate risk nodule with normal volumetric aspect (B) and normal stiffness (A) (ES color map 1 and 2 code) is reconsidered as a low-risk lesion.
Figure 4 Low-risk nodules (A) with increased stiffness (B) and increased vascularization in volumetric evaluation (C) versus color Doppler (D) were reconsidered as intermediate risk lesions.
Figure 5 Intermediate risk case (A) with increased stiffness (C) was reconsidered as high risk, regardless of color Doppler (B) or volumetric aspect (D).
Figure 6 Intermediate risk case (A) was reconsidered as high risk, in the presence of high-risk volumetric characteristics (B) despite intermediate stiffness (C).
Table 3 Comparison of Diagnostic Quality (Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy) for Risk Category Assessment by Means of US Only, US+SE and US+SE+V Models
Table 4 Diagnostic Values of Different Risk Stratification Models According to the Nodule Diameter