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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background: s/Aims: The enhancing capsule (EC) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis has received varying degrees of recognition across major guidelines. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic utility of EC in HCC detection. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent pre-surgical computed tomography (CT) and hepatobiliary agent-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (HBA-MRI) between January 2016 and December 2019. A single hepatic tumor was confirmed based on the pathology of each patient. Three radiologists independently reviewed the images according to the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 criteria and reached a consensus. Interobserver agreement for EC before reaching a consensus was quantified using Fleiss κ statistics. The impact of EC on the LI-RADS classification was assessed by comparing the positive predictive values for HCC detection in the presence and absence of EC. Results: In total, 237 patients (median age, 60 years; 184 men) with 237 observations were included. The interobserver agreement for EC detection was notably low for CT (κ=0.169) and HBA-MRI (κ=0.138). The presence of EC did not significantly alter the positive predictive value for HCC detection in LI-RADS category 5 observations on CT (94.1% [80/85] vs. 94.6% [88/93], P=0.886) or HBAMRI (95.7% [88/92] vs. 90.6% [77/85], P=0.178). Conclusions The diagnostic value of EC in HCC diagnosis remains questionable, given its poor interobserver agreement and negligible impact on positive predictive values for HCC detection. This study challenges the emphasis on EC in certain diagnostic guidelines and suggests the need to re-evaluate its role in HCC imaging.

The prediction of clinical outcomes in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is paramount for effective management. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of computed tomography (CT) analysis using deep learning algorithms in patients with CHB. Methods: This retrospective study included 2,169 patients with CHB without hepatic decompensation who underwent contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance between January 2005 and June 2016. Liver and spleen volumes and body composition measurements including subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), visceral adipose tissue (VAT), and skeletal muscle indices were acquired from CT images using deep learning-based fully automated organ segmentation algorithms. We assessed the significant predictors of HCC, hepatic decompensation, diabetes mellitus (DM), and overall survival (OS) using Cox proportional hazard analyses. Results: During a median follow-up period of 103.0 months, HCC (n=134, 6.2%), hepatic decompensation (n=103, 4.7%), DM (n=432, 19.9%), and death (n=120, 5.5%) occurred. According to the multivariate analysis, standardized spleen volume significantly predicted HCC development (hazard ratio [HR]=1.01, P=0.025), along with age, sex, albumin and platelet count. Standardized spleen volume (HR=1.01, P<0.001) and VAT index (HR=0.98, P=0.004) were significantly associated with hepatic decompensation along with age and albumin. Furthermore, VAT index (HR=1.01, P=0.001) and standardized spleen volume (HR=1.01, P=0.001) were significant predictors for DM, along with sex, age, and albumin. SAT index (HR=0.99, P=0.004) was significantly associated with OS, along with age, albumin, and MELD. Conclusions: Deep learning-based automatically measured spleen volume, VAT, and SAT indices may provide various prognostic information in patients with CHB.

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement between contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for evaluating the resectability in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included treatment-naïve patients with pathologically confirmed eCCA, who underwent both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP using extracellular contrast media between January 2015 and December 2020.Among the 214 patients (146 males; mean age ± standard deviation, 68 ± 9 years) included, 121 (56.5%) had perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. R0 resection was achieved in 108 of the 153 (70.6%) patients who underwent curative-intent surgery. Four fellowship-trained radiologists independently reviewed the findings of both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP to assess the local tumor extent and distant metastasis for determining resectability. The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were compared using clinical, surgical, and pathological findings as reference standards. The interobserver agreement of resectability was evaluated using Fleiss kappa (κ). Results: No significant differences were observed between CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP in the pooled AUC (0.753 vs. 0.767), sensitivity (84.7% [366/432] vs. 90.3% [390/432]), and specificity (52.6% [223/424] vs. 51.4% [218/424]) (P > 0.05 for all).The AUC for determining resectability was higher when CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were reviewed together than when CECT was reviewed alone in patients with discrepancies between the imaging modalities or with indeterminate resectability (0.798 [0.754–0.841] vs. 0.753 [0.697–0.808], P = 0.014). The interobserver agreement for overall resectability was fair for both CECT (κ = 0.323) and CE-MRI with MRCP (κ = 0.320), without a significant difference (P = 0.884). Conclusion CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP showed no significant differences in the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement in determining the resectability in patients with eCCA.

Objective: To determine whether Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasound (SZUS) was noninferior to SonoVue-enhanced ultrasound (SVUS) in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using the same diagnostic criteria. Materials and Methods: This prospective, single-center, noninferiority study (NCT04847726) enrolled 105 at-risk participants (71 male; mean age ± standard deviation, 63 ± 11 years; range, 26–86 years) with treatment-naïve solid hepatic nodules (≥ 1 cm). All participants underwent same-day SZUS (experimental method) and SVUS (control method) for one representative nodule per participant. Images were interpreted by three readers (the operator and two independent readers). All malignancies were diagnosed histopathologically, while the benignity of other lesions was confirmed by follow-up stability or pathology. The primary endpoint was per-lesion diagnostic accuracy for HCC pooled across three readers using the conventional contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnostic criteria, including arterial phase hyperenhancement followed by mild (assessed within 2 minutes after contrast injection) and late (≥ 60 seconds with a delay of 5 minutes) washout. The noninferiority delta was -10%p. Furthermore, different time delays were compared as washout criteria in SZUS, including delays of 2, 5, and > 10 minutes. Results: A total of 105 lesions (HCCs [n = 61], non-HCC malignancies [n = 19], and benign [n = 25]) were evaluated. Using the 5-minutes washout criterion, per-lesion accuracy of SZUS pooled across the three readers (72.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.1%–79.3%) was noninferior to that of SVUS (71.4%; 95% CI, 63.1%–78.6%), meeting the statistical criterion for non-inferiority (difference of 0.95%p; 95% CI, -3.8%p–5.7%p). The arterial phase hyperenhancement combined with the 5-minutes washout criterion showed the same sensitivity as that of the > 10-minutes criterion (59.0% vs. 59.0%, p = 0.989), and the specificities were not significantly different (90.9% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.072). Conclusion SZUS was noninferior to SVUS for diagnosing HCC in at-risk patients using the same diagnostic criteria. No significant improvement in HCC diagnosis was observed by extending the washout time delay from 5 to 10 minutes.

Objective: To determine the impact of dedicated subspecialized radiologists in multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions on the management of lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract malignancies. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 244 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 61.7 ± 11.9 years) referred to MDT discussions 249 times (i.e., 249 cases, as five patients were discussed twice for different issues) for lower GI tract malignancy including colorectal cancer, small bowel cancer, GI stromal tumor, and GI neuroendocrine tumor between April 2018 and June 2021 in a prospective database. Before the MDT discussions, dedicated GI radiologists reviewed all imaging studies again besides routine clinical reading. The referring clinician’s initial diagnosis, initial treatment plan, change in radiologic interpretation compared with the initial radiology report, and the MDT’s consensus recommendations for treatment were collected and compared. Factors associated with changes in treatment plans and the implementation of MDT decisions were analyzed. Results: Of the 249 cases, radiologic interpretation was changed in 73 cases (29.3%) after a review by dedicated GI radiologists, with 78.1% (57/73) resulting in changes in the treatment plan. The treatment plan was changed in 92 cases (36.9%), and the rate of change in the treatment plan was significantly higher in cases with changes in radiologic interpretation than in those without (78.1% [57/73] vs. 19.9% [35/176], p < 0.001). Follow-up records of patients showed that 91.2% (227/249) of MDT recommendations for treatment were implemented. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the nonsurgical approach (vs. surgical approach) decided through MDT discussion was a significant factor for patients being managed differently than the MDT recommendations (odds ratio, 4.48; p = 0.017). Conclusion MDT discussion involving additional review of radiology examinations by dedicated GI radiologists resulted in a change in the treatment plan in 36.9% of cases. Changes in treatment plans were significantly associated with changes in radiologic interpretation.