Role of magnetic resonance in characterising extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas

Guarise, Alessandro; Venturini, S.; Faccioli, Niccolò; Pinali, Lucia; Morana, Giovanni

doi:10.1007/s11547-006-0048-x

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The T2-weighted images and the dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR image can be helpful for detecting and characterizing the tumor (30). Contrast-enhanced MR imaging is also useful in differentiating between benign and malignant bile duct strictures (31,32). MR cholangiopancreatography is helpful in the evaluation of a periductal infiltrating or intraductal growth type tumor (33,34).…”

Section: Imaging Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varying Appearances of Cholangiocarcinoma: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation

Chung¹,

Kim²,

Park³

et al. 2009

RadioGraphics

392

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Imaging Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varying Appearances of Cholangiocarcinoma: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation

Chung¹,

Kim²,

Park³

et al. 2009

RadioGraphics

392

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is another noninvasive test with a higher sensitivity (80–90%) and specificity (88–100%) compared with transabdominal ultrasound (sensitivity <50%) for choledocholithiasis 4,5 . Although noninvasive, obtaining a timely MRCP can be a challenge and lead to delays in definitive treatment.…”

Section: Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is another noninvasive test with a higher sensitivity (80-90%) and specificity (88-100%) compared with transabdominal ultrasound (sensitivity <50%) for choledocholithiasis. 4,5 Although noninvasive, obtaining a timely MRCP can be a challenge and lead to delays in definitive treatment. In addition, it is important to recognize that MRCP may not reveal smaller stones (<6 mm) and those in the periampullary region and provides no therapeutic capability.…”

Section: Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary management of common bile duct stone: What you need to know

Hwang,

Bukur

2023

J Trauma Acute Care Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Choledocholithiasis is a common presentation of symptomatic cholelithiasis encountered by the acute care surgeon. There is a wide spectrum of variation in management of this disease due to evolutions in laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques. Intricacies in management are related to the timing of diagnosis as well as locally available imaging modalities, surgical expertise, and ancillary advanced endoscopy and interventional radiological support. While individual patient demographics and institutional characteristics will determine management of choledocholithiasis, it is incumbent for the treating surgeon to be well versed in all manners of therapy currently available. The objective of this review is to provide an evidence-based summary of the contemporary management of choledocholithiasis.

show abstract

“…A meta‐analysis showed that the sensitivity ranged from 0.32 to 1.00 with a summary sensitivity of 0.73, putting patients at risk of not receiving correct treatments if no further investigations are done 5 . On the other hand, MRCP is highly sensitive and highly specific, and similar to transabdominal US, is noninvasive, but it is more expensive and is thus reserved for certain cases 6,7 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 On the other hand, MRCP is highly sensitive and highly specific, and similar to transabdominal US, is noninvasive, but it is more expensive and is thus reserved for certain cases. 6,7 To the best of our knowledge, research comparing between transabdominal US and MRCP specifically for choledocholithiasis is not extensive. 8 The aim of our study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of transabdominal US with MRCP as the gold standard in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis in context of laboratory blood test values.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the detection of choledocholithiasis

Samara

Azzam

Alshrouf

et al. 2022

J of Clinical Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography (US) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis in context of laboratory blood test values.Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent both MRCP and US as part of their choledocholithiasis workup. MRCP findings, reviewed by two board-certified radiologists, laboratory findings, and US reports were collected.Results: Our study included 243 patients. On US examination 74 cases were found dilated (30.5%), while 94 cases showed dilation (38.7%) by MRCP. The overall accuracy of US was 76.1%, where 185 patients had similar MRCP and US findings, 7.8% had false positive ultrasound, and 16% had false negative ultrasound finding. The accuracy of ultrasound was significantly higher in males (p = .013). In addition, a significant difference in duct dilatation as found by ultrasound and accuracy of diagnosis (p = .01). Conclusion:Although US has a relatively low accuracy, its properties of being cost-effective and non-invasive make it an ideal first step in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. If a patient has elevated liver enzymes or a high risk of choledocholithiasis, we recommend that MRCP be performed even no dilation was seen on US.

show abstract

Role of magnetic resonance in characterising extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas

Cited by 14 publications

References 23 publications

Varying Appearances of Cholangiocarcinoma: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation

Varying Appearances of Cholangiocarcinoma: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation

Contemporary management of common bile duct stone: What you need to know

Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the detection of choledocholithiasis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About