AIM: To assess the ability of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to differentiate neoplastic from non-neoplastic polypoid lesions of the gallbladder (PLGs). METHODS: The uses of EUS and transabdominal ultrasonography (US) were retrospectively analyzed in 94 surgical cases of gallbladder polyps less than 20 mm in diameter. RESULTS: The prevalence of neoplastic lesions with a diameter of 5-10 mm was 17.2% (10/58); 11-15 mm, 15.4% (4/26), and 16-20 mm, 50% (5/10). The overall diagnostic accuracies of EUS and US for small PLGs were 80.9% and 63.9% (P < 0.05), respectively. EUS correctly distinguished 12 (63.2%) of 19 neoplastic PLGs but was less accurate for polyps less than 1.0 cm (4/10, 40%) than for polyps greater than 1.0 cm (8/9, 88.9%) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Although EUS was more accurate than US, its accuracy for differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic PLGs less than 1.0 cm was low. Thus, EUS alone is not sufficient for determining a treatment strategy for PLGs of less than 1.0 cm.
AIM: To assess the ability of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to differentiate neoplastic from non-neoplastic polypoid lesions of the gallbladder (PLGs). METHODS: The uses of EUS and transabdominal ultrasonography (US) were retrospectively analyzed in 94 surgical cases of gallbladder polyps less than 20 mm in diameter. RESULTS: The prevalence of neoplastic lesions with a diameter of 5-10 mm was 17.2% (10/58); 11-15 mm, 15.4% (4/26), and 16-20 mm, 50% (5/10). The overall diagnostic accuracies of EUS and US for small PLGs were 80.9% and 63.9% (P < 0.05), respectively. EUS correctly distinguished 12 (63.2%) of 19 neoplastic PLGs but was less accurate for polyps less than 1.0 cm (4/10, 40%) than for polyps greater than 1.0 cm (8/9, 88.9%) (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Although EUS was more accurate than US, its accuracy for differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic PLGs less than 1.0 cm was low. Thus, EUS alone is not sufficient for determining a treatment strategy for PLGs of less than 1.0 cm.
Authors: N Muguruma; S Okamura; S Ichikawa; K Tsujigami; M Suzuki; M Tadatsu; Y Kusaka; Y Okita; M Yano; S Ito Journal: J Clin Ultrasound Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 0.910
Authors: K Segawa; T Arisawa; Y Niwa; T Suzuki; Y Tsukamoto; H Goto; E Hamajima; M Shimodaira; N Ohmiya Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 1992-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: O Ishikawa; H Ohhigashi; S Imaoka; A Nakaizumi; T Kitamura; Y Sasaki; T Shibata; A Wada; T Iwanaga Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 1989-11 Impact factor: 10.864
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: 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: Sarah Z Wennmacker; Mark P Lamberts; Marcello Di Martino; Joost Ph Drenth; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; Cornelis Jhm van Laarhoven Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-15