1.Interpretation, Reporting, Imaging-Based Workups, and Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gallbladder Polyps and Gallbladder Wall Thickening: 2025 Recommendations From the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology
Won CHANG ; Sunyoung LEE ; Yeun-Yoon KIM ; Jin Young PARK ; Sun Kyung JEON ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Jeongin YOO ; Seungchul HAN ; So Hyun PARK ; Jae Hyun KIM ; Hyo Jung PARK ; Jeong Hee YOON
Korean Journal of Radiology 2025;26(2):102-134
Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.
2.Interpretation, Reporting, Imaging-Based Workups, and Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gallbladder Polyps and Gallbladder Wall Thickening: 2025 Recommendations From the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology
Won CHANG ; Sunyoung LEE ; Yeun-Yoon KIM ; Jin Young PARK ; Sun Kyung JEON ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Jeongin YOO ; Seungchul HAN ; So Hyun PARK ; Jae Hyun KIM ; Hyo Jung PARK ; Jeong Hee YOON
Korean Journal of Radiology 2025;26(2):102-134
Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.
3.Interpretation, Reporting, Imaging-Based Workups, and Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gallbladder Polyps and Gallbladder Wall Thickening: 2025 Recommendations From the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology
Won CHANG ; Sunyoung LEE ; Yeun-Yoon KIM ; Jin Young PARK ; Sun Kyung JEON ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Jeongin YOO ; Seungchul HAN ; So Hyun PARK ; Jae Hyun KIM ; Hyo Jung PARK ; Jeong Hee YOON
Korean Journal of Radiology 2025;26(2):102-134
Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.
4.Interpretation, Reporting, Imaging-Based Workups, and Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gallbladder Polyps and Gallbladder Wall Thickening: 2025 Recommendations From the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology
Won CHANG ; Sunyoung LEE ; Yeun-Yoon KIM ; Jin Young PARK ; Sun Kyung JEON ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Jeongin YOO ; Seungchul HAN ; So Hyun PARK ; Jae Hyun KIM ; Hyo Jung PARK ; Jeong Hee YOON
Korean Journal of Radiology 2025;26(2):102-134
Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.
5.Interpretation, Reporting, Imaging-Based Workups, and Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gallbladder Polyps and Gallbladder Wall Thickening: 2025 Recommendations From the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology
Won CHANG ; Sunyoung LEE ; Yeun-Yoon KIM ; Jin Young PARK ; Sun Kyung JEON ; Jeong Eun LEE ; Jeongin YOO ; Seungchul HAN ; So Hyun PARK ; Jae Hyun KIM ; Hyo Jung PARK ; Jeong Hee YOON
Korean Journal of Radiology 2025;26(2):102-134
Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.
6.Survey of Experts’ Opinions on the Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms
Jeong Hee YOON ; In Rae CHO ; Won CHANG ; Bohyun KIM ; Siwon JANG ; Yeun-Yoon KIM ; Jeong Woo KIM ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Min LEE
Korean Journal of Radiology 2024;25(12):1047-1060
Objective:
To survey experts’ opinions in abdominal radiology (radiologists) and pancreas-specialized gastroenterology (pancreatologists) in South Korea regarding diagnosing and managing pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs).
Materials and Methods:
Between August 25, 2023, and October 5, 2023, an online survey was conducted among members of the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology and the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association via email invitation.
Results:
The responses from 100 radiologists and 41 pancreatologists were analyzed. Of the respondents, 55.3% (78/141) reported seeing more than 50 patients or reading more than 50 exams related to PCN each month. The most common and preferred diagnostic modality for PCN was contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), favored by 87.8% (36/41) of pancreatologists. When discrepancies arose between CECT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound, 31.2% (44/141) of the respondents opted for multidisciplinary team discussion, whereas 29.1% (41/141) chose short-term follow-up using CECT or MRI. A total of 88.7% (125/141) of the respondents adhered to the 2017 International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) guidelines in their practice. Among the radiologists, 51.0% (51/100) endorsed a cut-off value of 5 mm for enhancing mural nodules, and 22.0% (22/100) supported a 5 mm/2 yr growth rate in the IAP guidelines v.2017.Additionally, 73.0% (73/100) of radiologists favored discontinuing surveillance, whereas 41.5% (17/41) of pancreatologists disagreed with stopping surveillance.
Conclusion
The survey underscores the clinical burden PCN poses and identifies CECT as the foremost diagnostic tool.Variability was noted in the terminology, differential diagnosis, approaches for resolving discrepancies between imaging examinations, and opinions on surveillance discontinuation among the respondents as a whole, as well as between radiologists and pancreatologists. Although the 2017 IAP guidelines are primarily followed, there remains a level of dissatisfaction with risk stratification among radiologists. This highlights the need for more standardized diagnostic algorithms and improved consensus among specialists to address these challenges.
7.Survey of Experts’ Opinions on the Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms
Jeong Hee YOON ; In Rae CHO ; Won CHANG ; Bohyun KIM ; Siwon JANG ; Yeun-Yoon KIM ; Jeong Woo KIM ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Min LEE
Korean Journal of Radiology 2024;25(12):1047-1060
Objective:
To survey experts’ opinions in abdominal radiology (radiologists) and pancreas-specialized gastroenterology (pancreatologists) in South Korea regarding diagnosing and managing pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs).
Materials and Methods:
Between August 25, 2023, and October 5, 2023, an online survey was conducted among members of the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology and the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association via email invitation.
Results:
The responses from 100 radiologists and 41 pancreatologists were analyzed. Of the respondents, 55.3% (78/141) reported seeing more than 50 patients or reading more than 50 exams related to PCN each month. The most common and preferred diagnostic modality for PCN was contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), favored by 87.8% (36/41) of pancreatologists. When discrepancies arose between CECT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound, 31.2% (44/141) of the respondents opted for multidisciplinary team discussion, whereas 29.1% (41/141) chose short-term follow-up using CECT or MRI. A total of 88.7% (125/141) of the respondents adhered to the 2017 International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) guidelines in their practice. Among the radiologists, 51.0% (51/100) endorsed a cut-off value of 5 mm for enhancing mural nodules, and 22.0% (22/100) supported a 5 mm/2 yr growth rate in the IAP guidelines v.2017.Additionally, 73.0% (73/100) of radiologists favored discontinuing surveillance, whereas 41.5% (17/41) of pancreatologists disagreed with stopping surveillance.
Conclusion
The survey underscores the clinical burden PCN poses and identifies CECT as the foremost diagnostic tool.Variability was noted in the terminology, differential diagnosis, approaches for resolving discrepancies between imaging examinations, and opinions on surveillance discontinuation among the respondents as a whole, as well as between radiologists and pancreatologists. Although the 2017 IAP guidelines are primarily followed, there remains a level of dissatisfaction with risk stratification among radiologists. This highlights the need for more standardized diagnostic algorithms and improved consensus among specialists to address these challenges.
8.Effect of thyroid-stimulating hormone suppression on quality of life in thyroid lobectomy patients: interim analysis of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial in low- to intermediate-risk thyroid cancer patients (MASTER study)
Ja Kyung LEE ; Eu Jeong KU ; Su-jin KIM ; Woochul KIM ; Jae Won CHO ; Kyong Yeun JUNG ; Hyeong Won YU ; Yea Eun KANG ; Mijin KIM ; Hee Kyung KIM ; Junsun RYU ; June Young CHOI ;
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2024;106(1):19-30
Purpose:
Current clinical practices favor less or no thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) suppression for low- to intermediate-risk thyroid cancer patients who receive thyroid lobectomy. The association of TSH suppression on healthrelated quality of life (HR-QoL) in patients after thyroid lobectomy is not well studied. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of TSH suppression on patient HR-QoL after thyroid lobectomy.
Methods:
This study included patients enrolled in an ongoing, multicenter, randomized controlled study investigating the effects of TSH suppression. Patients were randomized to either the low-TSH group (TSH target range, 0.3–1.99 μIU/ mL) or the high-TSH group (TSH target range, 2.0–7.99 μIU/mL). The HR-QoL, hyperthyroidism symptom, and depression symptom questionnaires performed preoperatively and 2 weeks and 3 months postoperatively were evaluated.
Results:
Total of 669 patients (low-TSH group, 340; high-TSH group, 329) were included. Although total HR-QoL score changes were not different between the 2 groups, the high-TSH group had a significantly higher score in the physical domain at postoperative 3 months (P = 0.046). The 2 groups did not have significant differences in hyperthyroidism and depression scores.
Conclusion
In the short-term postoperative period, the physical HR-QoL scores in thyroid lobectomy patients were better when they did not receive TSH suppression. This study suggests the importance of considering HR-QoL when setting TSH suppression targets in thyroid lobectomy patients.
9.Survey of Experts’ Opinions on the Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms
Jeong Hee YOON ; In Rae CHO ; Won CHANG ; Bohyun KIM ; Siwon JANG ; Yeun-Yoon KIM ; Jeong Woo KIM ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Min LEE
Korean Journal of Radiology 2024;25(12):1047-1060
Objective:
To survey experts’ opinions in abdominal radiology (radiologists) and pancreas-specialized gastroenterology (pancreatologists) in South Korea regarding diagnosing and managing pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs).
Materials and Methods:
Between August 25, 2023, and October 5, 2023, an online survey was conducted among members of the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology and the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association via email invitation.
Results:
The responses from 100 radiologists and 41 pancreatologists were analyzed. Of the respondents, 55.3% (78/141) reported seeing more than 50 patients or reading more than 50 exams related to PCN each month. The most common and preferred diagnostic modality for PCN was contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), favored by 87.8% (36/41) of pancreatologists. When discrepancies arose between CECT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound, 31.2% (44/141) of the respondents opted for multidisciplinary team discussion, whereas 29.1% (41/141) chose short-term follow-up using CECT or MRI. A total of 88.7% (125/141) of the respondents adhered to the 2017 International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) guidelines in their practice. Among the radiologists, 51.0% (51/100) endorsed a cut-off value of 5 mm for enhancing mural nodules, and 22.0% (22/100) supported a 5 mm/2 yr growth rate in the IAP guidelines v.2017.Additionally, 73.0% (73/100) of radiologists favored discontinuing surveillance, whereas 41.5% (17/41) of pancreatologists disagreed with stopping surveillance.
Conclusion
The survey underscores the clinical burden PCN poses and identifies CECT as the foremost diagnostic tool.Variability was noted in the terminology, differential diagnosis, approaches for resolving discrepancies between imaging examinations, and opinions on surveillance discontinuation among the respondents as a whole, as well as between radiologists and pancreatologists. Although the 2017 IAP guidelines are primarily followed, there remains a level of dissatisfaction with risk stratification among radiologists. This highlights the need for more standardized diagnostic algorithms and improved consensus among specialists to address these challenges.
10.Survey of Experts’ Opinions on the Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms
Jeong Hee YOON ; In Rae CHO ; Won CHANG ; Bohyun KIM ; Siwon JANG ; Yeun-Yoon KIM ; Jeong Woo KIM ; Sang Hyub LEE ; Jeong Min LEE
Korean Journal of Radiology 2024;25(12):1047-1060
Objective:
To survey experts’ opinions in abdominal radiology (radiologists) and pancreas-specialized gastroenterology (pancreatologists) in South Korea regarding diagnosing and managing pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs).
Materials and Methods:
Between August 25, 2023, and October 5, 2023, an online survey was conducted among members of the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology and the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association via email invitation.
Results:
The responses from 100 radiologists and 41 pancreatologists were analyzed. Of the respondents, 55.3% (78/141) reported seeing more than 50 patients or reading more than 50 exams related to PCN each month. The most common and preferred diagnostic modality for PCN was contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), favored by 87.8% (36/41) of pancreatologists. When discrepancies arose between CECT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound, 31.2% (44/141) of the respondents opted for multidisciplinary team discussion, whereas 29.1% (41/141) chose short-term follow-up using CECT or MRI. A total of 88.7% (125/141) of the respondents adhered to the 2017 International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) guidelines in their practice. Among the radiologists, 51.0% (51/100) endorsed a cut-off value of 5 mm for enhancing mural nodules, and 22.0% (22/100) supported a 5 mm/2 yr growth rate in the IAP guidelines v.2017.Additionally, 73.0% (73/100) of radiologists favored discontinuing surveillance, whereas 41.5% (17/41) of pancreatologists disagreed with stopping surveillance.
Conclusion
The survey underscores the clinical burden PCN poses and identifies CECT as the foremost diagnostic tool.Variability was noted in the terminology, differential diagnosis, approaches for resolving discrepancies between imaging examinations, and opinions on surveillance discontinuation among the respondents as a whole, as well as between radiologists and pancreatologists. Although the 2017 IAP guidelines are primarily followed, there remains a level of dissatisfaction with risk stratification among radiologists. This highlights the need for more standardized diagnostic algorithms and improved consensus among specialists to address these challenges.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail