4.5 Article

Varying Appearances of Cholangiocarcinoma: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation

Journal

RADIOGRAPHICS
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 683-700

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/rg.293085729

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is the second most common primary hepatic tumor. Various risk factors have been reported for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and the radiologic and pathologic findings of this disease entity may differ depending on the underlying risk factors. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma can be classified into three types on the basis of gross morphologic features: mass-forming ( the most common), periductal infiltrating, and intraductal growth. At computed tomography (CT), mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma usually appears as a homogeneous low-attenuation mass with irregular peripheral enhancement and can be accompanied by capsular retraction, satellite nodules, and peripheral intrahepatic duct dilatation. Periductal infiltrating cholangiocarcinoma is characterized by growth along the dilated or narrowed bile duct without mass formation. At CT and magnetic resonance imaging, diffuse periductal thickening and increased enhancement can be seen with a dilated or irregularly narrowed intrahepatic duct. Intraductal cholangiocarcinoma may manifest with various imaging patterns, including diffuse and marked ductectasia either with or without a grossly visible papillary mass, an intraductal polypoid mass within localized ductal dilatation, intraductal castlike lesions within a mildly dilated duct, and a focal stricture-like lesion with mild proximal ductal dilatation. Awareness of the underlying risk factors and morphologic characteristics of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is important for accurate diagnosis and for differentiation from other hepatic tumorous and nontumorous lesions. (C) RSNA, 2009. radiographics.rsnajnls.org

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available