Effectiveness of Molecular Testing Techniques for Diagnosis of Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Approximately 20% of thyroid nodules display indeterminate cytology. Molecular testing can refine the risk of malignancy and reduce the need for diagnostic hemithyroidectomy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance between an RNA test (Afirma genomic sequencing classifier) and DNA-RNA test (ThyroSeq v3 multigene genomic classifier). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This parallel randomized clinical trial of monthly block randomization included patients in the UCLA Health system who underwent thyroid biopsy from August 2017 to January 2020 with indeterminate cytology (Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology category III or IV). INTERVENTIONS: Molecular testing with the RNA test or DNA-RNA test. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Diagnostic test performance of the RNA test compared with the DNA-RNA test. The secondary outcome was comparison of test performance with prior versions of the molecular tests. RESULTS: Of 2368 patients, 397 were eligible for inclusion based on indeterminate cytology, and 346 (median [interquartile range] age, 55 [44-67] years; 266 [76.9%] women) were randomized to 1 of the 2 tests. In the total cohort assessed for eligibility, 3140 thyroid nodules were assessed, and 427 (13.6%) nodules were cytologically indeterminate. The prevalence of malignancy was 20% among indeterminate nodules. The benign call rate was 53% (95% CI, 47%-61%) for the RNA test and 61% (95% CI, 53%-68%) for the DNA-RNA test. The specificities of the RNA test and DNA-RNA test were 80% (95% CI, 72%-86%) and 85% (95% CI, 77%-91%), respectively (P = .33); the positive predictive values (PPV) of the RNA test and DNA-RNA test were 53% (95% CI, 40%-67%) and 63% (95% CI, 48%-77%), respectively (P = .33). The RNA test exhibited a higher PPV compared with the prior test version (Afirma gene expression classifier) (54% [95% CI, 40%-67%] vs 38% [95% CI, 27%-48%]; P = .01). The DNA-RNA test had no statistically significant difference in PPV compared with its prior version (ThyroSeq v2 next-generation sequencing) (63% [95% CI, 48%-77%] vs 58% [95% CI, 43%-73%]; P = .75). Diagnostic thyroidectomy was avoided in 87 (51%) patients tested with the RNA test and 83 (49%) patients tested with the DNA-RNA test. Surveillance ultrasonography was available for 90 nodules, of which 85 (94%) remained stable over a median of 12 months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both the RNA test and DNA-RNA test displayed high specificity and allowed 49% of patients with indeterminate nodules to avoid diagnostic surgery. Although previous trials demonstrated that the prior version of the DNA-RNA test was more specific than the prior version of the RNA test, the current molecular test techniques have no statistically significant difference in performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02681328.

Gene Expression Classifier vs Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing in the Management of Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules.

Context: Molecular testing has reduced the need for diagnostic hemithyroidectomy for indeterminate thyroid nodules. No studies have directly compared molecular testing techniques. Objective: Compare the diagnostic performance of Afirma Gene Expression Classifier (GEC) with that of ThyroSeq v2 next-generation sequencing assay. Design: Parallel randomized trial, monthly block randomization of patients with Bethesda III/IV cytology to GEC or ThyroSeq v2. Setting: University of California, Los Angeles. Participants: Patients who underwent thyroid biopsy (April 2016 to June 2017). Intervention: Testing with GEC or ThyroSeq v2. Main Outcome Measure: Molecular test performance. Results: Of 1372 thyroid nodules, 176 (13%) had indeterminate cytology and 149 of 157 eligible indeterminate nodules (95%) were included in the study. Of nodules tested with GEC, 49% were suspicious, 43% were benign, and 9% were insufficient. Of nodules tested with ThyroSeq v2, 19% were mutation positive, 77% were mutation negative, and 4% were insufficient. The specificities of GEC and ThyroSeq v2 were 66% and 91%, respectively (P = 0.002); the positive predictive values of GEC and ThyroSeq v2 were 39% and 57%, respectively. Diagnostic hemithyroidectomy was avoided in 28 patients tested with GEC (39%) and 49 patients tested with ThyroSeq v2 (62%). Surveillance ultrasonography was available for 46 nodules (45 remained stable). Conclusions: ThyroSeq v2 had higher specificity than Afirma GEC and allowed more patients to avoid surgery. Long-term surveillance is necessary to assess the false-negative rate of these particular molecular tests. Further studies are required for comparison with other available molecular diagnostics and for newer tests as they are developed.

Safe Use of Contrast Media: What the Radiologist Needs to Know.

Iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast media are used on a daily basis in most radiology practices. These agents often are essential to providing accurate diagnoses, and are nearly always safe and effective when administered correctly. However, reactions to contrast media do occur and can be life threatening. Therefore, it is critical for faculty and staff to know how reactions to contrast agents manifest and how to treat them promptly. The decline in renal function seen occasionally after intravenous administration of iodinated contrast agents is poorly understood and likely multifactorial, and its association with the contrast medium may be overemphasized. However, it is important that radiologists be aware of current understanding and strategies to decrease the incidence of renal dysfunction. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, a skin disease, is an adverse reaction related to use of some gadolinium-based contrast agents in patients with chronic renal failure. The types of gadolinium most often associated with this condition and the indications for withholding gadolinium are important and are discussed in this article. The use of enteric contrast agents and contrast agents during pregnancy and nursing are reviewed briefly. Current knowledge for safe use of contrast media and key concepts that all radiologists should know are summarized in this review.