Literature DB >> 27846377

Tumefactive Gallbladder Sludge at US: Prevalence and Clinical Importance.

Mimi Kim1, Tae Wook Kang1, Kyung Mi Jang1, Young Kon Kim1, Seong Hyun Kim1, Sang Yun Ha1, Dong Hyun Sinn1, Seonhye Gu1.   

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the prevalence of tumefactive sludge of the gallbladder detected at ultrasonography (US) and to assess whether any clinical and imaging differences exist between benign and malignant tumefactive sludge. Materials and Methods The institutional review board approved this retrospective study. The requirement for informed consent was waived. The study included a cohort (n = 6898) of patients with gallbladder sludge drawn from all adults (n = 115 178) who underwent abdominal US between March 2001 and March 2015. Tumefactive sludge was identified according to the following US findings: (a) nonmovable mass-like lesion and (b) absence of posterior acoustic shadowing at B-mode US and vascularity at color Doppler US. Follow-up examinations were arranged to ascertain whether the results showed true sludge or gallbladder cancer. Risk factors for malignant tumefactive sludge based on clinical and US characteristics were identified with multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results The prevalence of gallbladder and tumefactive sludge at abdominal US during the observation period was 6.0% (6898 of 115 178) and 0.1% (135 of 115 178), respectively. Twenty-eight (20.7%) patients were lost to follow-up. Of the 107 with tumefactive sludge, 15 (14%) were confirmed to have malignant tumefactive sludge. The risk factors for malignant tumefactive sludge were old age (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P = .035), female sex (OR, 5.48; P = .014), and absence of hyperechoic spots within the sludge (OR, 6.78; P = .008). Conclusion Although the prevalence of tumefactive sludge at US was rare, a considerable proportion of patients had a malignancy. Careful follow-up is essential, especially for older patients, women, and those with an absence of hyperechoic spots at US. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27846377     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016161042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  4 in total

Review 1.  Gallbladder reporting and data system (GB-RADS) for risk stratification of gallbladder wall thickening on ultrasonography: an international expert consensus.

Authors:  Pankaj Gupta; Usha Dutta; Pratyaksha Rana; Manphool Singhal; Ajay Gulati; Naveen Kalra; Raghuraman Soundararajan; Daneshwari Kalage; Manika Chhabra; Vishal Sharma; Vikas Gupta; Thakur Deen Yadav; Lileshwar Kaman; Santosh Irrinki; Harjeet Singh; Yashwant Sakaray; Chandan Krishuna Das; Uma Saikia; Ritambhara Nada; Radhika Srinivasan; Manavjit Singh Sandhu; Raju Sharma; Nitin Shetty; Anu Eapen; Harmeet Kaur; Avinash Kambadakone; Robbert de Haas; Vinay K Kapoor; Savio George Barreto; Atul K Sharma; Amol Patel; Pramod Garg; Sujoy K Pal; Mahesh Goel; Shraddha Patkar; Anu Behari; Anil K Agarwal; Bhawna Sirohi; Milind Javle; Giuseppe Garcea; Flavio Nervi; Volkan Adsay; Juan Carlos Roa; Ho-Seong Han
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-12-01

Review 2.  Benign gallbladder diseases: Imaging techniques and tips for differentiating with malignant gallbladder diseases.

Authors:  Mi Hye Yu; Young Jun Kim; Hee Sun Park; Sung Il Jung
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Tumefactive Sludge Mimicking Gallbladder Neoplasm: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Cheng-Chi Lee; Jen-Chieh Huang; Jeng-Shiann Shin; Ming-Je Wu
Journal:  J Med Ultrasound       Date:  2018-06-12

Review 4.  Gallbladder polyps ultrasound: what the sonographer needs to know.

Authors:  G Cocco; R Basilico; A Delli Pizzi; N Cocco; A Boccatonda; D D'Ardes; S Fabiani; N Anzoletti; P D'Alessandro; G Vallone; F Cipollone; C Schiavone
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2021-02-06
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.