Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 477

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Natural History of Benign Thyroid Nodules

Durante, Cosimo, Costante, Giuseppe, Lucisano, Giuseppe, Bruno, Rocco, Meringolo, Domenico, Paciaroni, Alessandra, Puxeddu, Efisio, Torlontano, Massimo, Tumino, Salvatore, Attard, Marco, Lamartina, Livia, Nicolucci, Antonio, Filetti, Sebastiano·2015·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Detection of asymptomatic thyroid nodules has increased. Consensus is lacking regarding the optimal follow-up of cytologically proven benign lesions and sonographically nonsuspicious nodules. Current guidelines recommend serial ultrasound examinations and reassessment of cytology if significant growth is observed. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency, magnitude, and factors associated with changes in thyroid nodule size. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, multicenter, observational study involving 992 consecutive patients with 1 to 4 asymptomatic, sonographically or cytologically benign thyroid nodules. Patients were recruited from 8 hospital-based thyroid-disease referral centers in Italy between 2006 and 2008. Data collected during the first 5 years of follow-up, through January 2013, were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Baseline nodule growth (primary end point) was assessed with yearly thyroid ultrasound examinations. Size changes were considered significant for growth if an increase of 20% or more was recorded in at least 2 nodule diameters, with a minimum increase of 2 mm. Baseline factors associated with growth were identified. Secondary end points were the sonographic detection of new nodules and the diagnosis of thyroid cancer during follow-up. RESULTS: Nodule growth occurred in 153 patients (15.4% [95% CI, 14.3%-16.5%]). One hundred seventy-four of the 1567 original nodules (11.1% [95% CI, 10.3%-11.9%]) increased in size, with a mean 5-year largest diameter increase of 4.9 mm (95% CI, 4.2-5.5 mm), from 13.2 mm (95% CI, 12.1-14.2 mm) to 18.1 mm (95% CI, 16.7-19.4 mm). Nodule growth was associated with presence of multiple nodules (OR, 2.2 [95% CI 1.4-3.4] for 2 nodules; OR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.8-5.6 for 3 nodules; and OR, 8.9 [95% CI, 4.4-18.0] for 4 nodules), main nodule volumes larger than 0.2 mL (OR, 2.9 [95% CI, 1.7-4.9] for volumes >0.2 to <1 mL and OR, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.8-5.1] for volumes ≥1 mL), and male sex (OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1-2.6]), whereas an age of 60 years or older was associated with a lower risk of growth than age younger than 45 years (OR, 0.5 [95% CI 0.3-0.9]). In 184 individuals (18.5% [95% CI, 16.4%-20.9%]), nodules shrank spontaneously. Thyroid cancer was diagnosed in 5 original nodules (0.3% [95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%]). Only 2 had grown. An incidental cancer was found at thyroidectomy in a nonvisualized nodule. New nodules developed in 93 patients (9.3% [95% CI, 7.5%-11.1%]), with detection of one cancer. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with asymptomatic, sonographically or cytologically benign thyroid nodules, the majority of nodules exhibited no significant size increase during 5 years of follow-up and thyroid cancer was rare. These findings support consideration of revision of current guideline recommendations for follow-up of asymptomatic thyroid nodules.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2015.0956

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 477

Metadata

Authors
Durante, C., Costante, G., Lucisano, G., Bruno, R., Meringolo, D., Paciaroni, A., Puxeddu, E., Torlontano, M., Tumino, S., Attard, M., Lamartina, L., Nicolucci, A., & Filetti, S.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2015-03-03
Volume
313
Issue
9
Pages
926
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2055238778
Cited by
477
References
2
FWCI
32.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.