Large polyps may show internal color flow vascularity
“Comet tail” artifacts suggest cholesterol polyp
•
CT: Useful for staging in larger polyps where ↑ risk of malignancy
Difficult to visualize many polyps on CT due to lower spatial resolution
Can show variable enhancement; no convincing correlation between enhancement and malignancy
Useful for staging in larger polyps where ↑ risk of malignancy
TOP DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSES
PATHOLOGY
•
Classification
Neoplastic: Adenoma, adenoma-carcinoma, miscellaneous (fibroma, lipoma, etc.)
Nonneoplastic: Cholesterol polyp, adenomyoma, inflammatory polyp, choristoma
CLINICAL ISSUES
•
Size is most important predictor of malignancy
100% of polyps > 20 mm are malignant
43-77% of polyps 10-20 mm are malignant
94% of benign polyps are < 10 mm
•
Risk factors for malignancy: Age > 60, gallstones, coexistence of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)
•
Reassuring factors: Stability over time, multiple polyps, pedunculated (versus sessile) morphology
•
Current recommendations
Cholecystectomy if patient is symptomatic or has cholelithiasis or PSC (regardless of polyp size)
Polyp > 18-20 mm: Open cholecystectomy
Polyp 10-20 mm: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Polyp 6-9 mm: Serial follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months
Polyp ≤ 5 mm: Serial imaging (no consensus; malignancy is extremely rare and some advocate no follow-up)
TERMINOLOGY
Definitions
•
Polypoid or sessile mass protruding from gallbladder (GB) mucosa
IMAGING
General Features
•
Best diagnostic clue
Nonmobile hyperechoic mass protruding from GB mucosa without acoustic shadowing
•
Location
GB lumen
•
Morphology
Sessile or pedunculated
Imaging Recommendations
•
Best imaging tool
Ultrasound; endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)
•
Protocol advice
Grayscale and color Doppler US with 6 MHz transducer
CT Findings
•
Often difficult to visualize on CT due to lower spatial resolution
CT underestimates polyp size compared to US
•
Best visualized on CECT due to vascularity of polyp
Can show variable enhancement
No convincing evidence that polyp enhancement pattern predicts malignancy
•
Ill-defined margins of larger polyps possible predictor of malignancy
•
Useful for local staging (including lymph node metastases, liver invasion, metastases) in larger polyps where risk of malignancy is high
Ultrasonographic Findings
•
Ultrasound is insensitive (only 50%) for polyps, detecting only 1/2 of polyps found at histopathology
•
False-positive rate of up to 30%, with positive predictive value of only 10% (compared to histopathology)
Poor accuracy rates for polyps < 5 mm
Potentially due to stones, GB folds, sludge, or cholesterolosis mimicking polyps
Roughly 10% of polyps disappear on follow-up ultrasounds
–
Original polyp may have been spurious, but could also reflect polyps breaking off or resolution of inflammatory polyps
•
Immobile echogenic mucosal excrescence/nodule, either sessile or lobulated
No acoustic shadowing, unlike stones
Highly echogenic foci or “comet tail” artifacts within polyp suggests a cholesterol polyp
Large polyps may show internal vascularity on color Doppler US
No clear sonographic features to differentiate benign and malignant polyps
–
Questionable link between sessile morphology and malignancy
–
Multiple nodules more likely to be benign (usually cholesterol polyps); neoplastic polyps often solitary
•
EUS has been shown to have higher accuracy in differentiation of benign (97%) vs. malignant (76%) polyps
Related
Diagnostic Imaging_ Gastrointes - Michael P Federle