Jae Seok Bae1,2, Se Hyung Kim3,4,5, Hyo-Jin Kang1,2, Haeryoung Kim6, Ji Kon Ryu7, Jin-Young Jang8, Sang Hyub Lee7, Woo Hyun Paik7, Wooil Kwon8, Jae Young Lee1,2,9, Joon Koo Han1,2,9. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. shkim7071@gmail.com. 4. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. shkim7071@gmail.com. 5. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. shkim7071@gmail.com. 6. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 8. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 9. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To differentiate between large (≥ 1 cm in diameter) gallbladder (GB) non-neoplastic and neoplastic polyps using quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) findings. METHODS: From September 2017 to May 2018, 29 patients (10 males; median age, 63 years) with GB polyps of ≥ 1 cm in diameter who were undergoing cholecystectomy were consecutively enrolled. All patients underwent preoperative conventional US and CEUS examinations. Quantitative analysis of CEUS findings using time-intensity curves between the two groups was independently performed by two radiologists. The interobserver agreement for the quantitative analysis of the CEUS results was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEUS examination. RESULTS: After the cholecystectomy, the patients were classified into the non-neoplastic polyp group (n = 12) and the neoplastic polyp group (n = 17) according to the pathological results. The interobserver agreement for quantitative assessment between the two radiologists was near perfect to substantial. Quantitative assessment of the CEUS findings revealed that the rise time, mean transit time, time to peak, and fall time of non-neoplastic GB polyps were significantly shorter than those of neoplastic polyps (p < 0.001, p = 0.008, p = 0.013, and p = 0.002, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of the quantitative CEUS parameters for the differentiation between the two groups were 76.5-100% and 75%, respectively, with an area under the curve of 0.765-0.887. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis of CEUS findings could be valuable in differentiating GB neoplastic polyps from non-neoplastic polyps. KEY POINTS: • Quantitative analysis of CEUS findings could be valuable in differentiating gallbladder neoplastic polyps from non-neoplastic polyps. • Quantitative analysis of CEUS findings in gallbladder polyps provides cut-off values for differentiation between neoplastic polyps and non-neoplastic polyps with near-perfect to substantial interobserver agreement.
OBJECTIVES: To differentiate between large (≥ 1 cm in diameter) gallbladder (GB) non-neoplastic and neoplastic polyps using quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) findings. METHODS: From September 2017 to May 2018, 29 patients (10 males; median age, 63 years) with GB polyps of ≥ 1 cm in diameter who were undergoing cholecystectomy were consecutively enrolled. All patients underwent preoperative conventional US and CEUS examinations. Quantitative analysis of CEUS findings using time-intensity curves between the two groups was independently performed by two radiologists. The interobserver agreement for the quantitative analysis of the CEUS results was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEUS examination. RESULTS: After the cholecystectomy, the patients were classified into the non-neoplastic polyp group (n = 12) and the neoplastic polyp group (n = 17) according to the pathological results. The interobserver agreement for quantitative assessment between the two radiologists was near perfect to substantial. Quantitative assessment of the CEUS findings revealed that the rise time, mean transit time, time to peak, and fall time of non-neoplastic GB polyps were significantly shorter than those of neoplastic polyps (p < 0.001, p = 0.008, p = 0.013, and p = 0.002, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of the quantitative CEUS parameters for the differentiation between the two groups were 76.5-100% and 75%, respectively, with an area under the curve of 0.765-0.887. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis of CEUS findings could be valuable in differentiating GB neoplastic polyps from non-neoplastic polyps. KEY POINTS: • Quantitative analysis of CEUS findings could be valuable in differentiating gallbladder neoplastic polyps from non-neoplastic polyps. • Quantitative analysis of CEUS findings in gallbladder polyps provides cut-off values for differentiation between neoplastic polyps and non-neoplastic polyps with near-perfect to substantial interobserver agreement.
Authors: F Piscaglia; C Nolsøe; C F Dietrich; D O Cosgrove; O H Gilja; M Bachmann Nielsen; T Albrecht; L Barozzi; M Bertolotto; O Catalano; M Claudon; D A Clevert; J M Correas; M D'Onofrio; F M Drudi; J Eyding; M Giovannini; M Hocke; A Ignee; E M Jung; A S Klauser; N Lassau; E Leen; G Mathis; A Saftoiu; G Seidel; P S Sidhu; G ter Haar; D Timmerman; H P Weskott Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: K Yoshimitsu; H Honda; K Kaneko; T Kuroiwa; H Irie; K Chijiiwa; K Takenaka; K Masuda Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kieran G Foley; Max J Lahaye; Ruedi F Thoeni; Marek Soltes; Catherine Dewhurst; Sorin Traian Barbu; Yogesh K Vashist; Søren Rafael Rafaelsen; Marianna Arvanitakis; Julie Perinel; Rebecca Wiles; Stuart Ashley Roberts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 7.034