Incidentally Detected Focal Fundal Gallbladder Wall Thickening at Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: Prevalence and Computed Tomography Features of Malignancy. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2019;43:149-154. [PMID: 30371615 DOI: 10.1097/rct.0000000000000802]

Should we suspect gallbladder cancer if which CT finding is observed in patients with localized gallbladder wall thickening?

PURPOSE

To identify high-risk computed tomography (CT) features for predicting gallbladder (GB) cancer in patients presenting with localized GB wall thickening.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 120 patients (mean age: 63.9 ± 10.0 years; 51 men) exhibiting localized GB wall thickening on CT scans obtained between January 2008 and May 2017. Two radiologists independently evaluated CT imaging features for predicting GB cancer. The diagnostic performance of significant imaging features and their combinations was evaluated. High-risk CT features ranked by accuracy were delineated for predicting GB cancer.

RESULTS

This study included 55 patients with GB cancer and 65 with benign GB conditions. The top-four most accurate CT imaging features for predicting GB cancer were identified: heterogeneously enhancing single layer or strongly enhancing thick inner layer; GB wall thickness > 6.5 mm; hyperenhancement on arterial phase; and absence of intramural small cystic lesions (accuracies of 90.0 %, 88.3 %, 85.0 %, and 85.0 %, respectively). The combination of any three high-risk features exhibited the highest accuracy (94.2 %). The presence of any high-risk feature yielded a sensitivity of 100 %, whereas that of all high-risk features indicated a specificity of 100 %.

CONCLUSION

CT imaging features, whether alone or in combination, could effectively and accurately predict GB cancer among patients with localized GB wall thickening. This finding holds significance in guiding decisions regarding further diagnostic tests and treatment planning.

Imaging patterns of wall thickening type of gallbladder cancer

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) has a high incidence in certain geographical regions. Morphologically, GBC presents as a mass replacing the gallbladder, a polypoidal lesion, or wall thickening. The incidence of preoperative diagnosis of wall thickening type of GBC is less well studied. The patterns of mural involvement and extramural spread are not well described in the literature. Additionally, wall thickening in the gallbladder does not always indicate malignancy and can be secondary to inflammatory or benign gallbladder diseases and extracholecystic causes and systemic pathologies. Objective reporting of gallbladder wall thickening will help us appreciate GBC's early features. In this review, we illustrate the imaging patterns of wall thickening type of GBC.

Current update on gallbladder carcinoma

Gallbladder (GB) carcinoma is a relatively rare malignancy and is associated with poor prognosis. Numerous risk factors have been associated with the development of GB carcinoma. GB carcinomas may present as mass lesions replacing the GB, focal or diffuse thickening of the GB wall, and intraluminal mass in the GB. Various benign conditions can mimic GB carcinoma. This article reviews the epidemiology, pathology, clinical findings, imaging features, and management of GB carcinomas.

Imaging-based algorithmic approach to gallbladder wall thickening

Gallbladder (GB) wall thickening is a frequent finding caused by a spectrum of conditions. It is observed in many extracholecystic as well as intrinsic GB conditions. GB wall thickening can either be diffuse or focal. Diffuse wall thickening is a secondary occurrence in both extrinsic and intrinsic pathologies of GB, whereas, focal wall thickening is mostly associated with intrinsic GB pathologies. In the absence of specific clinical features, accurate etiological diagnosis can be challenging. The survival rate in GB carcinoma (GBC) can be improved if it is diagnosed at an early stage, especially when the tumor is confined to the wall. The pattern of wall thickening in GBC is often confused with benign diseases, especially chronic cholecystitis, xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis, and adenomyomatosis. Early recognition and differentiation of these conditions can improve the prognosis. In this minireview, the authors describe the patterns of abnormalities on various imaging modalities (conventional as well as advanced) for the diagnosis of GB wall thickening. This paper also illustrates an algorithmic approach for the etiological diagnosis of GB wall thickening and suggests a formatted reporting for GB wall abnormalities.

Incidentally detected focal fundal gallbladder wall thickening: Differentiation contrast enhanced ultrasound features with high-resolution linear transducers

AIM

To investigate the value of contrast enhanced ultrasound with high resolution linear transducers (HF-CEUS) for differential diagnosis of focal fundal gallbladder (GB) wall thickening.

METHODS

A total of 32 patients with incidentally detected focal fundal GB wall thickening were included. After conventional B mode ultrasound (BMUS) examinations, HF-CEUS were performed with a 7.5-12 MHz 9L4 linear transducer (S2000 HELX OXANA unit, Siemens). Two radiologists independently reviewed the HF-CEUS enhancement patterns to determine the differential features between malignancy and benignity with a five-point confidence scale. The diagnostic accuracy of BMUS and HF-CEUS for GB wall thickening was compared. The final gold standard was surgery with histological examination.

RESULTS

Final diagnoses included GB adenocarcinoma (n = 16), adenomyomatosis (n = 12), Xanthogranulomatous (n = 2) and cholecystitis (n = 2). HF-CEUS features associated with GB adenocarcinoma including arterial phase inhomogeneous hyperenhancement, venous phase hypoenhancement and disruption of GB wall layer structure (P < 0.05). Two small (5 mm) liver metastasis were confirmed by HF-CEUS during the late phase liver sweep as hypoenhanced lesions. Nonenhanced Rokitansky-Aschoff sinuses were clearly observed in 83.3% focal adenomyomatosis. Overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for differentiation between malignant and benign focal fundal GB wall thickening of HF-CEUS and BMUS were 84.3% vs 53.1%, 90.6% vs 59.3% and 87.5% vs 56.2% (P < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS performed with high frequency linear transducers could be a useful alternative in the differential diagnosis of focal fundal GB wall thickening on conventional ultrasound.

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

Benign gallbladder diseases usually present with intraluminal lesions and localized or diffuse wall thickening. Intraluminal lesions of the gallbladder include gallstones, cholesterol polyps, adenomas, or sludge and polypoid type of gallbladder cancer must subsequently be excluded. Polyp size, stalk width, and enhancement intensity on contrast-enhanced ultrasound and degree of diffusion restriction may help differentiate cholesterol polyps and adenomas from gallbladder cancer. Localized gallbladder wall thickening is largely due to segmental or focal gallbladder adenomyomatosis, although infiltrative cancer may present similarly. Identification of Rokitansky-Aschoff sinuses is pivotal in diagnosing adenomyomatosis. The layered pattern, degree of enhancement, and integrity of the wall are imaging clues that help discriminate innocuous thickening from gallbladder cancer. High-resolution ultrasound is especially useful for analyzing the layering of gallbladder wall. A diffusely thickened wall is frequently seen in inflammatory processes of the gallbladder. Nevertheless, it is important to check for coexistent cancer in instances of acute cholecystitis. Ultrasound used alone is limited in evaluating complicated cholecystitis and often requires complementary computed tomography. In chronic cholecystitis, preservation of a two-layered wall and weak wall enhancement are diagnostic clues for excluding malignancy. Magnetic resonance imaging in conjunction with diffusion-weighted imaging helps to differentiate xathogranulomatous cholecystitis from gallbladder cancer by identifying the presence of fat and degree of diffusion restriction. Such distinctions require a familiarity with typical imaging features of various gallbladder diseases and an understanding of the roles that assorted imaging modalities play in gallbladder evaluations.

Evaluation of gallbladder wall thickening: a multimodality imaging approach

INTRODUCTION

Gallbladder (GB) wall thickening is a relatively common finding on imaging. While there are clear recommendations for the management of gallstones, GB wall thickening presents a significant challenge. Despite advances in radiological as well as endoscopic techniques, the ability to characterize GB wall thickening is still limited.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the currently available literature on various imaging investigations to characterize GB wall thickening. This review also summarizes the differences between benign and malignant GB wall thickening based on available imaging modalities. Transabdominal ultrasonography is the first-line investigation for evaluation of GB wall thickening. However, further characterization requires additional imaging tests. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the use of gadolinium and diffusion-weighted sequence is the preferred modality for GB wall characterization.

EXPERT OPINION

The accurate characterization of GB wall thickening is a challenging task. The available imaging criteria allow differentiation of benign and malignant GB wall thickening with moderate accuracy. The advanced imaging techniques, including contrast enhanced ultrasound, contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound, and shear wave elastography, continue to evolve. There is a need for a well-designed reporting system for GB wall thickening to ensure uniformity of reporting of imaging tests, especially in regions with a high prevalence of GB cancer.

Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Early Detection of Malignant Gallbladder Lesions

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative decision-making for differentiating malignant from benign lesions in the gallbladder remains challenging. We aimed to create a diagnostic nomogram to identify gallbladder cancer (GBC), especially for incidental GBC (IGBC), before surgical resection.

METHODS

A total of 587 consecutive patients with pathologically confirmed gallbladder lesions from a hospital were randomly assigned to a training cohort (70%) and an internal validation cohort (30%), with 287 patients from other centers as an external validation cohort. Radiological features were developed by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression model. Significant radiological features and independent clinical factors, identified by multivariate analyses, were used to construct a nomogram.

RESULTS

A diagnostic nomogram was established by age, CA19.9, and 6 radiological features. The values of area under the curve in the internal and external validation cohorts were up to 0.91 and 0.89, respectively. The calibration curves for probability of GBC showed optimal agreement between nomogram prediction and actual observation. Compared with previous methods, it demonstrated superior sensitivity (91.5%) and accuracy (85.1%) in the diagnosis of GBC. The accuracy using the nomogram was significantly higher in GBC groups compared with that by radiologists in the training cohort (P < 0.001) and similarly in each cohort. Notably, most of the IGBC, which were misdiagnosed as benign lesions, were successfully identified using this nomogram.

DISCUSSION

A novel nomogram provides a powerful tool for detecting the presence of cancer in gallbladder masses, with an increase in accuracy and sensitivity. It demonstrates an unprecedented potential for IGBC identification.