Search

Purpose: To assess the differences in early imaging features and progression pattern on CT between intrahepatic biliary metastasis (IBM) and non-mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (NMFC) in patients with extrabiliary malignancy. Methods: This retrospective study included 35 patients who were surgically and pathologically confirmed with IBM (n = 14) or NMFC (n = 21) at the time of or after surgery for extrabiliary malignancy. Two observers evaluated the following aspects of biliary lesions on initial or follow-up CT images: location, characteristics of intrahepatic duct (IHD) dilatation, presence of duct wall thickening, and periductal infiltration lesion or periductal expansile mass. Results: All IBMs were associated with colorectal cancer (p = 0.032). As early imaging features on CT, smooth tapered localized IHD dilatation without duct wall thickening and peripheral duct involvement were observed significantly more often in IBM, and IHD dilatation with abrupt tapering or irregularity of transition site and bile duct wall thickening were significantly more common in NMFC (all p < 0.05). Regarding progression pattern, periductal expansile mass was present only in IBM, whereas periductal infiltrative lesion was present only in NMFC (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In the differentiation between IBM and NMFC in patients with extrabiliary malignancy, the differences in early imaging features and progression pattern of the two diseases revealed in this study would be helpful for diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The objective of our study was to estimate the complementary role of ultrasound evaluation in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis after abdominoplevic CT. A total of 104 patients initially underwent abdominopelvic CT before appendix US due to acute abdominal pain. All CT examinations were evaluated retrospectively for the presence of acute appendicitis. The findings of appendix on CT were classified into five categories (definite appendicitis, probably appendicitis, equivocal CT findings for diagnosis of appendicitis, probably not appendicitis, and normal looking appendix). Appendix US images and their radiologic reports were also evaluated retrospectively. Then, CT and US findings were correlated with clinical or pathologic diagnosis. Three all patients with definite appendicitis initially on CT again showed US findings of appendicitis. In the 32 patients of probably appendicitis on CT, US showed normal looking appendix in seven patients (21.8%, 7 of 32) who improved with medical treatment and discharged. In the 16 patients of equivocal CT findings for diagnosis of appendicitis, US showed appendicitis in seven patients (43.8%, 7 of 16) and normal looking appendix in nine patients. In the 12 patients of probably not appendicitis on CT, US showed acute appendicitis in two patients (16.7%, 2 of 12). In the 41 patients of normal looking appendix on CT, US showed acute appendicitis in five patients (12.2%, 5 of 41). US reevaluation enables us to avoid misdiagnosis of appendicitis on CT and improve diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]