[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Ultrasonography vs Computed Tomography for Papillary Thyroid Cancer Cervical Lymph Node MetastasisA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Educational Objective
To compare thyroid ultrasonography vs computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of papillary thyroid cancer.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  What is the most effective preoperative imaging to detect regional metastasis in papillary thyroid cancer?

Findings  In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 942 individuals, no difference between ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) was found for detection of lateral compartment cervical node metastasis in individuals with papillary thyroid cancer. For detection of central compartment metastasis, CT was more sensitive, while US was more specific.

Meaning  Computed tomography in assessment of cervical lymph node metastasis for papillary thyroid cancer may be warranted, possibly as an adjunct to US; further study is necessary to refine the role of CT imaging in this clinical scenario.

Abstract

Importance  The use of ultrasonography (US) vs cross-sectional imaging for preoperative evaluation of papillary thyroid cancer is debated.

Objective  To compare thyroid US and computed tomography (CT) in the preoperative evaluation of papillary thyroid cancer for cervical lymph node metastasis (CLNM), as well as extrathyroidal disease extension.

Data Sources  MEDLINE and Embase were searched from January 1, 2000, to July 18, 2020.

Study Selection  Studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy of US and/or CT in individuals with treatment-naive papillary thyroid cancer for CLNM and/or extrathyroidal disease extension were included. The reference standard was defined as histopathology/cytology or imaging follow-up. Independent title and abstract review (2515 studies) followed by full-text review (145 studies) was completed by multiple investigators.

Data Extraction and Synthesis  PRISMA guidelines were followed. Methodologic and diagnostic accuracy data were abstracted independently by multiple investigators. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool independently and in duplicate. Bivariate random-effects model meta-analysis and multivariable meta-regression modeling was used.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Diagnostic test accuracy of US and CT of the neck for lateral and central compartment CLNM, as well as for extrathyroidal disease extension, determined prior to study commencement.

Results  A total of 47 studies encompassing 31 942 observations for thyroid cancer (12 771 with CLNM; 1747 with extrathyroidal thyroid extension) were included; 21 and 26 studies were at low and high risk for bias, respectively. Based on comparative design studies, US and CT demonstrated no significant difference in sensitivity (73% [95% CI, 64%-80%] and 77% [95% CI, 67%-85%], respectively; P = .11) or specificity (89% [95% CI, 80%-94%] and 88% [95% CI, 79%-94%], respectively; P = .79) for lateral compartment CLNM. For central compartment metastasis, sensitivity was higher in CT (39% [95% CI, 27%-52%]) vs US (28% [95% CI, 21%-36%]; P = .004), while specificity was higher in US (95% [95% CI, 92%-98%]) vs CT (87% [95% CI, 77%-93%]; P < .001). Ultrasonography demonstrated a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI, 81%-96%) and specificity of 47% (95% CI, 35%-60%) for extrathyroidal extension.

Conclusions and Relevance  The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that further study is warranted of the role of CT for papillary thyroid cancer staging, possibly as an adjunct to US.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: September 26, 2021.

Published Online: November 24, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2021.3387

Corresponding Author: Srinivasan Harish, MBBS, Department of Radiology, McMaster University, and Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St Joseph’s Healthcare, 50 Charlton Ave E, Hamilton, ON L8N 4A6, Canada (sharish@stjoes.ca).

Author Contributions: Dr M. Alabousi had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: M. Alabousi, A. Alabousi, Young, Gupta, Harish.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: M. Alabousi, A. Alabousi, Adham, Pozdnyakov, Ramadan, Chaudhari, Young.

Drafting of the manuscript: M. Alabousi, A. Alabousi, Adham, Ramadan, Chaudhari.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: M. Alabousi, A. Alabousi, Pozdnyakov, Young, Gupta, Harish.

Statistical analysis: M. Alabousi, Pozdnyakov, Ramadan, Chaudhari.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Pozdnyakov.

Supervision: A. Alabousi, Young, Gupta, Harish.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00  AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:

  • 1.00 Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;;
  • 1.00 Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;
  • 1.00 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;
  • 1.00 Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program; and
  • 1.00 credit toward the CME [and Self-Assessment requirements] of the American Board of Surgery’s Continuous Certification program

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.

Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Close
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close