Dataset Information

Is Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Superior to Computed Tomography for Differential Diagnosis of Gallbladder Polyps? A Cross-Sectional Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) versus computed tomography (CT) for distinguishing neoplastic and non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps. Given whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy is needed, differential diagnosis of neoplastic and non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps is more important than benign and malignant polyps.

Methods

A total of 89 consecutive patients with polypoid lesions of the gallbladder > 10 mm in size without local invasion or distant metastasis during primary screening were enrolled in this prospective and comparative study. All patients who met the inclusion criteria underwent CEUS and CT examinations prior to surgical resection. The enhancement patterns and microvascular imaging types were analyzed on CEUS. The maximum diameter and CT value of the lesions were also recorded and subjected to a comparative analysis. The clinical value of the two diagnostic methods is compared.

Results

Of the 89 patients, there were 58 (65.2%) cases of non-neoplastic polyps and 31 (34.8%) cases of neoplastic polyps. The average diameter of neoplastic polyps was significantly higher than that of non-neoplastic polyps (P<0.001). The detection rate using CEUS was 100%. The proportion of perceived non-neoplastic polyps in the nonenhanced and arterial phases were 48.3% and 77.6%, respectively, which were significantly lower than those of neoplastic polyps (93.5%, P<0.001 and 100.0%, P<0.001, respectively). However, in the venous and delayed phases, all cholesterol polyps and neoplastic polyps were perceived. CT showed that non-neoplastic polyps exhibited delayed enhancement. On CEUS 29.0% neoplastic polyps showed a perfusion defect, whereas 6.9% non-neoplastic polyps showed a perfusion defect (P=0.005). The microvascular architecture of the lesions on CEUS was categorized into 4 types: spotty, linear, branched, and spinous, and there were significant differences between the two groups (P<0.001). The sensitivities and specificities were 87.10% and 68.97% for CEUS and 83.87% and 77.59% for CT, respectively (P=0.406).

Conclusions

CEUS and CT are useful for differential diagnosis of neoplastic and nonneoplastic polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. Diagnostic efficacy was comparable between CEUS and CT. Thus, CEUS is preferred over CT in the differential diagnosis of neoplastic and non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps due to its comparable diagnostic efficacy and lack of radiation dose.

SUBMITTER: Yuan Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8181139 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presented similar clinical symptoms, but required different treatment approaches and had different survival outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in differentiating MFP from PDAC.MethodsA literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu (VIP), and WanFang databases to identify original studies published from inception to August 20, 2021. Studies reporting the diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT for differentiating MFP from PDAC were included. The meta-analysis was performed with Stata 15.0 software. The outcomes included the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves of CEUS and CECT. Meta-regression was conducted to investigate heterogeneity. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to indirectly compare the overall diagnostic performance.ResultsTwenty-six studies with 2115 pancreatic masses were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for MFP were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73%-88%; I2 = 0.00%) and 95% (95% CI, 90%-97%; I2 = 63.44%), respectively; the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 15.12 (95% CI, 7.61-30.01), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.13-0.29), and 78.91 (95% CI, 30.94-201.27), respectively; and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-92). However, the overall sensitivity and specificity of CECT were 81% (95% CI, 75-85%; I2 = 66.37%) and 94% (95% CI, 90-96%; I2 = 74.87%); the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 12.91 (95% CI, 7.86-21.20), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16-0.27), and 62.53 (95% CI, 34.45-113.51), respectively; and, the SROC AUC was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.94). The overall diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was comparable to that of CECT for the differential diagnosis of MFP and PDAC (relative DOR 1.26, 95% CI [0.42-3.83], P > 0.05).ConclusionsCEUS and CECT have comparable diagnostic performance for differentiating MFP from PDAC, and should be considered as mutually complementary diagnostic tools for suspected focal pancreatic lesions.