Endosonographic Features of Cholangiocarcinoma and Comparison with Computed Tomography and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography Findings

Volume: 5 Number: 2 January 1, 2019
  • Gökhan Aksakal
  • Mete Akın
  • Yıldıran Songür
TR EN

Endosonographic Features of Cholangiocarcinoma and Comparison with Computed Tomography and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography Findings

Abstract

Objective: Endosonographic EUS features of cholangiocarcinoma CC have not been clearly described in the literature. The aim of our study was to determine the EUS features of CC and to compare them to computed tomography CT and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography ERCP findings.Material and Methods: Thirty-five patients who were diagnosed with CC between January 2008 and January 2011 were recruited in the study. Their EUS, CT, and ERCP findings were retrospectively evaluated. Results: EUS showed a hypoechoic mass lesion in 33 95% patients. CT and ERCP findings were concordant with EUS findings in terms of localization of the tumor. The margin and contour of the mass lesions were regular and well defined in 15 patients; however, they were irregular and ill defined in 20. Considering these features, we identified 2 patterns of CC on EUS: 1 a hypoechoic lesion with an irregular and ill-defined border without a clear relationship with the bile ducts and 2 a hypoechoic lesion with a regular and well-defined border, with the relationship to the bile ducts clearly demonstrated.Conclusion: In this retrospective study, EUS revealed mass lesions in all the patients with CC. CC may exhibit two distinct patterns on EUS

Keywords

References

  1. 1. Ustundag Y, Bayraktar Y. Cholangiocarcinoma: A compact review litarature. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14:6458-66.
  2. 2. Weber A, Schmid RM, Prinz C. Diagnostic approaches for cholangiocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14:4131-6.
  3. 3. Mohamadnejad M, DeWitt JM, Sherman S, LeBlanc JK. Role of EUS for preoperative evaluation of cholangiocarcinoma: A large single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73:71-8.
  4. 4. Fritscher-Ravens A, Broering DC, Sriram PV. EUSguided fine-needle aspiration cytodiagnosis of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: A case series. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 53:534-40.
  5. 5. Varghese JC, Farrell MA, Courtney G, Osborne H, Murray FE, Lee MJ. A prospective comparison of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of patients with suspected biliary tract disease. Clin Radiol 1999; 54:513-20.
  6. 6. Garrow D, Miller S, Sinha D, Conway J, Hoffman BJ, Hawes RH, Romagnuolo J. Endoscopic Ultrasound: A meta analysis of test performance in suspected biliary obstruction. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5:616-23.
  7. 7. Aljiffry M, Walsh MJ, Molinari M. Advances in diagnosis, treatment and palliation of cholangiocarcinoma: 1990- 2009. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15:4240-62.
  8. 8. Patel T. Cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 3:33-42.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

-

Journal Section

-

Authors

Gökhan Aksakal This is me

Mete Akın This is me

Yıldıran Songür This is me

Publication Date

January 1, 2019

Submission Date

-

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 2019 Volume: 5 Number: 2

Vancouver
1.Gökhan Aksakal, Mete Akın, Yıldıran Songür. Endosonographic Features of Cholangiocarcinoma and Comparison with Computed Tomography and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography Findings. Akd Med J [Internet]. 2019 Jan. 1;5(2):317-23. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA48CK33AW