Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

CT diagnosis of gallbladder adenomyomatosis: importance of enhancing mucosal epithelium, the “cotton ball sign”

  • Hepatobiliary-Pancreas
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 04 July 2018

This article has been updated

ABSTRACT

Objectives

To determine the diagnostic value of the cotton ball sign and other CT features in patients with gallbladder (GB) wall thickenings (WTs).

Methods

Three blinded readers reviewed the preoperative CT and MR images of 101 patients with pathologically confirmed GB adenomyomatosis (GA) (n = 34) and other benign (n = 29), malignant (n = 41), and premalignant (n = 2) GBWTs. Three readers analysed the morphological features of GBWT and presence of the “cotton ball sign”, defined as fuzzy grey dots in GBWT or a dotted outer border of the inner enhancing layer on contrast-enhanced (CE) CT. In addition, the “pearl necklace sign” on MR was analysed.

Results

In the GA group (n = 34), prevalence of the cotton ball sign and pearl necklace sign was 74% (25/34) and 44% (15/34), respectively. Presence of the cotton ball sign, smooth contour of the mucosa, double-layering enhancement, and enhancement degree weaker than the renal cortex on CT images were significant predictors of benign GBWT (p < 0.01). When differentiating GA from GB malignancy or premalignancy, accuracy of the cotton ball sign and pearl necklace sign was 81% (62/77) and 74% (57/77), respectively.

Conclusion

The cotton ball sign on CE-CT showed higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to those of the pearl necklace sign in differentiating GA from malignancy.

Key Points

• Prevalence of the cotton ball sign on CT was 74% in gallbladder adenomyomatosis.

• The cotton ball sign was useful in differentiating gallbladder adenomyomatosis from gallbladder cancer.

• The cotton ball sign was more sensitive than the pearl necklace sign for adenomyomatosis diagnosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 04 July 2018

    The original version of this article, published on 09 April 2018, unfortunately contained a mistake. The following correction has therefore been made in the original: The presentation of Fig. 2 was incorrect, “Cotton ball sign” was mistakenly named “Polka-dot sign”.

Abbreviations

CE:

Contrast enhanced

CT:

Computed tomography

GA:

Gallbladder adenomyomatosis

GB:

Gallbladder

GBWT:

Gallbladder wall thickening

GRE:

Gradient echo sequence

HU:

Hounsfield unit

MDCT:

Multi-detector computed tomography

MRCP:

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

PVP:

Portal venous phase

RAS:

Rokitansky-Aschoff sinus

US:

Ultrasound

References

  1. Kim SJ, Lee JM, Lee JY et al (2008) Analysis of enhancement pattern of flat gallbladder wall thickening on MDCT to differentiate gallbladder cancer from cholecystitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:765–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonatti M, Vezzali N, Lombardo F et al (2017) Gallbladder adenomyomatosis: imaging findings, tricks and pitfalls. Insights Imaging 8:243–253

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hammad AY, Miura JT, Turaga KK, Johnston FM, Hohenwalter MD, Gamblin TC (2016) A literature review of radiological findings to guide the diagnosis of gallbladder adenomyomatosis. HPB (Oxford) 18:129–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim JH, Jeong IH, Han JH et al (2010) Clinical/pathological analysis of gallbladder adenomyomatosis; type and pathogenesis. Hepatogastroenterology 57:420–425

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cariati A, Cetta F (2003) Rokitansky-Aschoff sinuses of the gallbladder are associated with black pigment gallstone formation: a scanning electron microscopy study. Ultrastruct Pathol 27:265–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mariani PJ, Hsue A (2011) Adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder: the "good omen" comet. J Emerg Med 40:415–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Joo I, Lee JY, Kim JH et al (2013) Differentiation of adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder from early-stage, wall-thickening-type gallbladder cancer using high-resolution ultrasound. Eur Radiol 23:730–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chantarojanasiri T, Hirooka Y, Kawashima H, Ohno E, Kongkam P, Goto H (2017) The role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of gallbladder diseases. J Med Ultrason (2001) 44:63–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ching BH, Yeh BM, Westphalen AC, Joe BN, Qayyum A, Coakley FV (2007) CT differentiation of adenomyomatosis and gallbladder cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:62–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yoshimitsu K, Honda H, Jimi M et al (1999) MR diagnosis of adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder and differentiation from gallbladder carcinoma: importance of showing Rokitansky-Aschoff sinuses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:1535–1540

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Haradome H, Ichikawa T, Sou H et al (2003) The pearl necklace sign: an imaging sign of adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder at MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 227:80–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mirbagheri SA, Mohamadnejad M, Nasiri J, Vahid AA, Ghadimi R, Malekzadeh R (2005) Prospective evaluation of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of biliary microlithiasis in patients with normal transabdominal ultrasonography. J Gastrointest Surg 9:961–964

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Imazu H, Mori N, Kanazawa K et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of gallbladder wall thickening. Dig Dis Sci 59:1909–1916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Miyazaki T, Yamashita Y, Tsuchigame T, Yamamoto H, Urata J, Takahashi M (1996) MR cholangiopancreatography using HASTE (half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo) sequences. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:1297–1303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hwang JI, Chou YH, Tsay SH et al (1998) Radiologic and pathologic correlation of adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder. Abdom Imaging 23:73–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Clouston JE, Thorpe RJ (1991) Case report--CT findings in adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder. Australas Radiol 35:86–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Chao C, Hsiao HC, Wu CS, Wang KC (1992) Computed tomographic finding in adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder. J Formos Med Assoc 91:467–469

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Stunell H, Buckley O, Geoghegan T, O'Brien J, Ward E, Torreggiani W (2008) Imaging of adenomyomatosis of the gall bladder. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 52:109–117

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Altman DG (1990) Practical statistics for medical research. CRC press

  20. van Breda Vriesman AC, Engelbrecht MR, Smithuis RH, Puylaert JB (2007) Diffuse gallbladder wall thickening: differential diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:495–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Levy AD, Murakata LA, Rohrmann CA Jr (2001) Gallbladder carcinoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 21:295–314 questionnaire, 549-255

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Baron RL (1991) Computed tomography of the biliary tree. Radiol Clin North Am 29:1235–1250

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zissin R, Osadchy A, Shapiro-Feinberg M, Gayer G (2003) CT of a thickened-wall gall bladder. Br J Radiol 76:137–143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Westra WH (2003) Surgical pathology dissection: an illustrated guide, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Bang SH, Lee JY, Woo H et al (2014) Differentiating between adenomyomatosis and gallbladder cancer: revisiting a comparative study of high-resolution ultrasound, multidetector CT, and MR imaging. Korean J Radiol 15:226–234

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Adusumilli S, Siegelman ES (2002) MR imaging of the gallbladder. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 10:165–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Imai H, Osada S, Sasaki Y et al (2011) Gallbladder adenocarcinoma with extended intramural spread in adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder with the pearl necklace sign. Am Surg 77:E57–E58

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yoshimitsu K, Irie H, Aibe H et al (2005) Well-differentiated adenocarcinoma of the gallbladder with intratumoral cystic components due to abundant mucin production: a mimicker of adenomyomatosis. Eur Radiol 15:229–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rice J, Sauerbrei EE, Semogas P, Cooperberg PL, Burhenne HJ (1981) Sonographic appearance of adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder. J Clin Ultrasound 9:336–337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Raghavendra BN, Subramanyam BR, Balthazar EJ, Horii SC, Megibow AJ, Hilton S (1983) Sonography of adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 146:747–752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Brambs HJ, Wrazidlo W, Schilling H (1990) The sonographic image of gallbladder adenomyomatosis. Rofo 153:633–636

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Boscak AR, Al-Hawary M, Ramsburgh SR (2006) Best cases from the AFIP: Adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder. Radiographics 26:941–946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeong Min Lee.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jeong Min Lee.

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

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 28 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, H.K., Lee, J.M., Yu, M.H. et al. CT diagnosis of gallbladder adenomyomatosis: importance of enhancing mucosal epithelium, the “cotton ball sign”. Eur Radiol 28, 3573–3582 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5412-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5412-4

Keywords

Navigation