Diagnostic performance of imaging criteria for distinguishing autoimmune cholangiopathy from primary sclerosing cholangitis and bile duct malignancy

Verfasser / Beitragende:
[Carly Gardner, Mustafa Bashir, Daniele Marin, Rendon Nelson, Kingshuk Choudhury, Lisa Ho]
Ort, Verlag, Jahr:
2015
Enthalten in:
Abdominal Imaging, 40/8(2015-10-01), 3052-3061
Format:
Artikel (online)
ID: 605494428
LEADER caa a22 4500
001 605494428
003 CHVBK
005 20210128100526.0
007 cr unu---uuuuu
008 210128e20151001xx s 000 0 eng
024 7 0 |a 10.1007/s00261-015-0543-4  |2 doi 
035 |a (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s00261-015-0543-4 
245 0 0 |a Diagnostic performance of imaging criteria for distinguishing autoimmune cholangiopathy from primary sclerosing cholangitis and bile duct malignancy  |h [Elektronische Daten]  |c [Carly Gardner, Mustafa Bashir, Daniele Marin, Rendon Nelson, Kingshuk Choudhury, Lisa Ho] 
520 3 |a Objective: To determine the diagnostic performance of imaging criteria for distinguishing Ig-G4-associated autoimmune cholangiopathy (IAC) from primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and bile duct malignancy. Methods: A medical records search between January 2008 and October 2013 identified 10 patients (8M, 2F, mean age 61years, range 34-82) with a clinical diagnosis of IAC. Fifteen cases of PSC (6M, 9F, mean age 50, range 22-65) and 15 cases of biliary malignancy (7M, 8F, mean age 65, range 48-84) were randomly selected for comparative analysis. Three abdominal radiologists independently reviewed MRI with MRCP (n=32) or CT (n=8) and ERCP (n=8) for the following IAC imaging predictors: single-wall bile duct thickness >2.5mm, continuous biliary involvement, gallbladder involvement, liver disease, peribiliary mass, or pancreatic and renal abnormalities. Each radiologist provided an imaging-based diagnosis (IAC, PSC, or cancer). Imaging predictor sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and association with IAC using Fisher's exact test. Inter-reader agreement determined using Fleiss' kappa statistics. Results: For diagnosis of IAC, sensitivities and specificities were high (70-93%). Pancreatic abnormality was strongest predictor for distinguishing IAC from PSC and cancer, with high diagnostic performance (70-80% sensitivity, 87-97% specificity), significant association (p<0.01), and moderate inter-reader agreement (κ=0.59). Continuous biliary involvement was moderately predictive (50-100% sensitivity, 53-83% specificity) and trended toward significant association in distinguishing from PSC (p=0.01-0.19), but less from cancer (p=0.06-0.62). Conclusion: It remains difficult to distinguish IAC from PSC or bile duct malignancy based on imaging features alone. The presence of pancreatic abnormalities, including peripancreatic rind, atrophy, abnormal enhancement, or T2 signal intensity, strongly favors a diagnosis of IAC. 
540 |a Springer Science+Business Media New York, 2015 
690 7 |a Autoimmune cholangiopathy  |2 nationallicence 
690 7 |a IgG4  |2 nationallicence 
690 7 |a Primary sclerosing cholangitis  |2 nationallicence 
690 7 |a Cholangiocarcinoma  |2 nationallicence 
700 1 |a Gardner  |D Carly  |u Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza-BCM360, Houston, TX, USA  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Bashir  |D Mustafa  |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, USA  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Marin  |D Daniele  |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, USA  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Nelson  |D Rendon  |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, USA  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Choudhury  |D Kingshuk  |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, USA  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Ho  |D Lisa  |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, USA  |4 aut 
773 0 |t Abdominal Imaging  |d Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com  |g 40/8(2015-10-01), 3052-3061  |x 0942-8925  |q 40:8<3052  |1 2015  |2 40  |o 261 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0543-4  |q text/html  |z Onlinezugriff via DOI 
898 |a BK010053  |b XK010053  |c XK010000 
900 7 |a Metadata rights reserved  |b Springer special CC-BY-NC licence  |2 nationallicence 
908 |D 1  |a research-article  |2 jats 
949 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |F NATIONALLICENCE  |b NL-springer 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 856  |E 40  |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0543-4  |q text/html  |z Onlinezugriff via DOI 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 700  |E 1-  |a Gardner  |D Carly  |u Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza-BCM360, Houston, TX, USA  |4 aut 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 700  |E 1-  |a Bashir  |D Mustafa  |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, USA  |4 aut 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 700  |E 1-  |a Marin  |D Daniele  |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, USA  |4 aut 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 700  |E 1-  |a Nelson  |D Rendon  |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, USA  |4 aut 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 700  |E 1-  |a Choudhury  |D Kingshuk  |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, USA  |4 aut 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 700  |E 1-  |a Ho  |D Lisa  |u Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, USA  |4 aut 
950 |B NATIONALLICENCE  |P 773  |E 0-  |t Abdominal Imaging  |d Springer US; http://www.springer-ny.com  |g 40/8(2015-10-01), 3052-3061  |x 0942-8925  |q 40:8<3052  |1 2015  |2 40  |o 261