Radiologic Signs in Tumoral Pathology: Polyps and Polyposis Syndromes

  • Alain Weissman
  • Jacques Grellet
  • Michel Clot


The radiologic appearance of tumors in double contrast is quite different from that observed in Standard radiology. Whereas in Standard radiology, stenosis and filling defects represent the radiologic signs of tumors, double contrast images are more complex and include three types:
  1. 1.

    Tumoral contour images by the tangent effect (polycyclic or circle images); by accumulation of barium at the base of a lesion (Welin’s “bowler hat sign”) or in tumoral irregularities; and by appearance of the tumor in a barium pool (filling defect)

  2. 2.

    Tumoral surface images by the addition effect: overlapping of barium coatings of the tumor and colonic walls (“hat sign”, addition image)

  3. 3.

    Colonic contour changes caused by the tumor (stenosis, indentation) If filling defects are to be included with these signs, they are less important. With the single contrast technique, the larger the lesion, the more clearly it appears. In double contrast, size does not play as important a role. It is by analysis of all the linear images and filling defects, to determine whether or not they correspond to normal anatomic structures by their form and position, that leads to the detection of abnormal images. One of the major principles in interpreting double contrast is the careful analysis of images and their reasoned interpretation. Since not all images have a corresponding logical explanation (anatomic or artifact), they should be considered pathologic until proven otherwise. While advanced tumors may be more difficult to detect for the nonexperienced observer, they do have different but obvious radiologic signs when the quality of the examination is good and its interpretation thorough.



Filling Defect Tumoral Pathology Radiologic Sign Polyposis Syndrome Double Contrast 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ament AE, Alfidi RJ, Rad PS (1982) Basal indentation of sessile polypoid lesions. A function of geometry rather than a sign of malignancy. Radiology 143: 341–344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bussey HJR (1975) Familial polyposis. John Hopkins - LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins JO, Falk M, Guibone R (1966) Benign lymphoid polyposis of the eolon: a case report. Pediatric 38: 897–899Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ekelund G, Lindstrom C, Rosengren JE (1974) Appearance and growth of early carcinomas of the colon and rectum. Acta Radiol 15: 670–679Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilbersten VA (1974) Proctosigmoidoseopy and polypectomy in reducing the incidence of rectal cancer. Cancer (Suppl) 34: 936–939Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grinnell RS (1964) The chance of cancer and lymphatic metastasis in small colon tumors diseovered on X ray examination. Ann Surg 159: 132–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laufer I, Smith NC, Mullens JE (1976) The radiological demonstration of colorectal polyps undetected by endoscopy. Gastroenterology 70: 167–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marti R, Descombes J (1976) Interet de la radiographie en double contraste dans le depistage des polypes recto-coliques. Arch Fr Mal App Dig 65: 197–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller RE, Skucas J (1983) The radiological examination of the colon. Nijhoff, Amsterdam pp 217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morson B (1974) The polyp cancer sequence of the large bowel. Proc Roy Soc Med 67: 451–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Potet F, Soulard J (1973) Anatomo-pathologie et modalités évolutives spontanées des polypes et polyposes coliques. Rev Prat 23: 2219–2235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riehe MC, Weissman A, Menault JY, Elbim A, Grellet J (1977) Pneumatose kystique à localization sigmoldienne: apports respectifs de la mucographie colique (lavement en double contraste) et de l’endoscopie. A propos de un cas. J Radiol Electrol 55: 833–837Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Soullard J (1975) Proctologie, Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spratt JS, Aekerman LV (1960) Relationship of the size of colonic tumors to their cellular composition and biological behavior. Surg Forum 10: 56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weissman A, Clot M, Grellet J (1977) Règles d’interpretation de la radiologie colique en double contraste Diagnostic des polypes. Gastroentérol Clin Biol 1: 281–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weissman A, Barge HJ, Clot M, Saigot T, Harriague D, Curet P, Grellet J (1981) Aspect nodulare lympholde rectocolique chez Padulte. J Radiol 62: 449–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Welin S (1958) Modern trends in diagnostic roentgenology of the colon. Br J Radiol 31: 453–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Welin S, Youker J, Spratt JS (1963) The rates and patterns of growth of 375 tumors of the large intestine and rectum observed serially by double contrast enema study. Am J Roentgenol 90: 673Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams CB, Hunt RM, et al. (1974) Colonoscopy in the management of colon polyps. Birt J Surg 61: 673–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Youkers JE, Welin S (1965) Differentiation of true polypoid tumors of the colon from extraneous material. A new roentgen sign. Radiology 84: 610–615Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Youkers JE, Welin S, Main B (1968) Computer analysis in the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions of the colon. Radiology 90: 794–797Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Weissman
    • 1
  • Jacques Grellet
    • 1
  • Michel Clot
    • 2
  1. 1.Service Central de RadiologieGroupe Hospitalier Pitie-SalpétriereParis Cedex 13France
  2. 2.Clinique du CastelEaubonneFrance

Personalised recommendations