4.6 Article

Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of gallbladder lesion

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 744-751

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i6.744

Keywords

Contrast enhanced ultrasound; Conventional ultrasound; Gallbladder carcinoma; Gallbladder adenomyomatosis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81301232]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM To describe contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) features and evaluate differential diagnosis value of CEUS and conventional ultrasound for patients with benign and malignant gallbladder lesions. METHODS This study included 105 gallbladder lesions. Before surgical resection and pathological examination, conventional ultrasound and CEUS were performed to examine for lesions. Then, all the lesions were diagnosed as (1) benign, (2) probably benign, (3) probably malignant or (4) malignant using both conventional ultrasound and CEUS. The CEUS features of these gallbladder lesions were analyzed and diagnostic efficiency between conventional ultrasound and CEUS was compared. RESULTS There were total 17 cases of gallbladder cancer and 88 cases of benign lesion. Some gallbladder lesions had typical characteristics on CEUS (e.g., gallbladder adenomyomatosis had typical characteristics of small nonenhanced areas on CEUS). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of CEUS were 94.1%, 95.5%, 80.0%, 98.8% and 95.2%, respectively. These were significantly higher than conventional ultrasound (82.4%, 89.8%, 60.9%, 96.3% and 88.6%, respectively). CEUS had an accuracy of 100% for gallbladder sludge and CEUS helped in differential diagnosis among gallbladder polyps, gallbladder adenoma and gallbladder cancer. CONCLUSION CEUS may provide more useful information and improve the diagnosis efficiency for the diagnosis of gallbladder lesions than conventional ultrasound.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available