Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 25.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-025-11826-4. Online ahead of print.

Resected gallbladder polyps: comparison of the 2022 Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound and Joint European Societies Guidelines' diagnostic performance

Affiliations

Resected gallbladder polyps: comparison of the 2022 Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound and Joint European Societies Guidelines' diagnostic performance

Bipin P Nanda et al. Eur Radiol. .

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) and the 2022 Joint European Societies (JES) Guidelines regarding management at presentation of gallbladder polyps ≥ 7 mm.

Materials and methods: All patients with ≥ 7 mm polyps reported on ultrasound scans at a hepatobiliary centre with eventual cholecystectomy over 20 years were retrospectively included. Four blinded radiologists reviewed selected images/clips. Shape and wall-thickening were used to categorize polyps. Imaging and relevant clinical features were used to derive guideline management into binary categories of no follow-up/follow vs refer-to-surgeon. Histological neoplastic polyps were defined as a positive outcome. Reliability, sensitivity, and specificity for both guidelines were tabulated.

Results: One hundred thirty-five patients (mean age 51.9 years, 62 female [45.9%]) with a median polyp size of 12 mm (range 7-45) formed the study cohort. Twenty-eight out of one hundred thirty-five (20.7%) of patients had neoplastic polyps (1 low-grade dysplasia, 5 pyloric gland adenoma, 8 intracholecystic papillary neoplasm, 12 carcinoma in situ/carcinoma, 2 metastases). Pooled kappa values for SRUs and JES's polyp risk categorization were 0.70 (CI: 0.64-0.76) and 0.64 (CI: 0.57-0.71) for intra-observer and 0.41 (CI: 0.35-0.46) and 0.47 (CI: -0.40 to 0.53) for inter-observer agreement. SRU's low and indeterminate risk polyps had an odds ratio of 4.4 (p = 0.002) and 16.9 (p < 0.001) of being neoplastic compared to "very-low risk" polyps. Sensitivity, specificity and AUROC (CI) for SRU were 62% (43-80), 90% (85-95), 0.76 (0.66-0.86), and JES were 90% (79-100), 41% (32-49), 0.66 (0.58-0.73) respectively. The differences between the sensitivity and specificity of the two guidelines were significant (p = 0.002 and < 0.0001, respectively).

Conclusion: For ≥ 7 mm polyps, the SRU guidelines have significantly higher specificity with acceptable sensitivity, whereas the JES guidelines have significantly higher sensitivity with low specificity.

Key points: Question What are the diagnostic performances of the 2022 SRU and the JES guidelines for the management of ≥ 7 mm gallbladder polyps? Findings The SRU guidelines were significantly more specific but less sensitive than the JES guidelines. Clinical relevance For ≥ 7 mm polyps, the 2022 SRU guidelines would result in fewer surgical referrals and may be more applicable to the low-incidence populations of Europe and North America.

Keywords: Gallbladder neoplasms/diagnosis; Polyps; Practice guidelines as topic; Reproducibility of results; Ultrasonography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with ethical standards. Guarantor: The scientific guarantor of this publication is Korosh Khalili. Conflict of interest: The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. Statistics and biometry: Chantelle Lin, MSc, and Pascal Tyrell, PhD, kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. Informed consent: Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Ethical approval: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Study subjects or cohorts overlap: None. Methodology: Retrospective Diagnostic study Performed at one institution

References

    1. Lin WR, Lin DY, Tai DI et al (2008) Prevalence of and risk factors for gallbladder polyps detected by ultrasonography among healthy Chinese: analysis of 34 669 cases. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23:965–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.05071.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kratzer W, Haenle MM, Voegtle A et al (2008) Ultrasonographically detected gallbladder polyps: a reason for concern? A seven-year follow-up study. BMC Gastroenterol 8:41. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-8-41 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Aldridge MC, Bismuth H (1990) Gallbladder cancer: the polyp-cancer sequence. Br J Surg 77:363–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800770403 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Albores-Saavedra J, Chable-Montero F, Gonzalez-Romo MA, Ramirez Jaramillo M, Henson DE (2012) Adenomas of the gallbladder. Morphologic features, expression of gastric and intestinal mucins, and incidence of high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinoma. Hum Pathol 43:1506–1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2011.11.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kozuka S, Tsubone N, Yasui A, Hachisuka K (1982) Relation of adenoma to carcinoma in the gallbladder. Cancer 50:2226–2234. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19821115)50:10<2226::aid-cncr282050... - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources