Y Sadamoto1, S Oda, M Tanaka, N Harada, H Kubo, T Eguchi, H Nawata. 1. Department of Medicine and Bioregulatory Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. ysada@intmed3.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in making a differential diagnosis of small (< or = 20 mm in diameter) polypoid lesions of the gallbladder, and to construct an EUS scoring system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EUS findings were retrospectively analyzed in 70 surgical cases of small polypoid lesions classified into two groups: neoplastic (adenocarcinoma in 11, and adenoma in 7), and non-neoplastic (cholesterol polyp in 44, inflammatory polyp in 7 and fibrous polyp in 1). The EUS variables were the maximum diameter and height/width ratio of the largest polyps, echo level, internal echo pattern, surface patterns, number and shape of polyps, presence of hyperechoic spotting, complication of gallbladder stones. The EUS data were used for the construction of an EUS scoring system to ascertain the risk of neoplasia. RESULTS: Three EUS variables, i. e. tumor maximum size, internal echo pattern, and hyperechoic spotting were statistically significant according to multivariate analysis using stepwise logistic regression models (P < 0.01, P < 0.05, and P < 0.01, respectively). The total EUS score based on the coefficient of multivariate analysis was as follows: (maximum diameter in mm) + (internal echo pattern score; where heterogeneous = 4, homogeneous = 0) + (hyperechoic spot[s] score; where presence = - 5, absence = 0). According to our EUS scoring system, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the risk of neoplastic polyps with scores of 12 or higher were 77.8 %, 82.7 % and 82.9 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The EUS scoring system will be a useful means of differentiating between neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps of the gallbladder.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in making a differential diagnosis of small (< or = 20 mm in diameter) polypoid lesions of the gallbladder, and to construct an EUS scoring system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EUS findings were retrospectively analyzed in 70 surgical cases of small polypoid lesions classified into two groups: neoplastic (adenocarcinoma in 11, and adenoma in 7), and non-neoplastic (cholesterol polyp in 44, inflammatory polyp in 7 and fibrous polyp in 1). The EUS variables were the maximum diameter and height/width ratio of the largest polyps, echo level, internal echo pattern, surface patterns, number and shape of polyps, presence of hyperechoic spotting, complication of gallbladder stones. The EUS data were used for the construction of an EUS scoring system to ascertain the risk of neoplasia. RESULTS: Three EUS variables, i. e. tumor maximum size, internal echo pattern, and hyperechoic spotting were statistically significant according to multivariate analysis using stepwise logistic regression models (P < 0.01, P < 0.05, and P < 0.01, respectively). The total EUS score based on the coefficient of multivariate analysis was as follows: (maximum diameter in mm) + (internal echo pattern score; where heterogeneous = 4, homogeneous = 0) + (hyperechoic spot[s] score; where presence = - 5, absence = 0). According to our EUS scoring system, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the risk of neoplastic polyps with scores of 12 or higher were 77.8 %, 82.7 % and 82.9 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The EUS scoring system will be a useful means of differentiating between neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps of the gallbladder.
Authors: Byung Hyo Cha; Jin-Hyeok Hwang; Sang Hyub Lee; Jang Eon Kim; Jai Young Cho; Haeryoung Kim; So Yeon Kim Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-05-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Joo Kyung Park; Yong Bum Yoon; Yong-Tae Kim; Ji Kon Ryu; Won Jae Yoon; Sang Hyub Lee; Su-Jong Yu; Hae Yeon Kang; Jae Young Lee; Min Jung Park Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Abdulrahman Y Hammad; John T Miura; Kiran K Turaga; Fabian M Johnston; Mark D Hohenwalter; T Clark Gamblin Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Su Young Kim; Jae Hee Cho; Eui Joo Kim; Dong Hae Chung; Kun Kuk Kim; Yeon Ho Park; Yeon Suk Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Young Koog Cheon; Won Young Cho; Tae Hee Lee; Young Deok Cho; Jong Ho Moon; Joon Seong Lee; Chan Sup Shim Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 5.742