Objective: Although most gallbladder polyps are benign, some neoplastic polyps may be malignant or may serve as precursors to malignancy. Distinguishing neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps using imaging examinations remains a major challenge.This meta-analysis aimed to identify the ultrasound (US) features that are significantly associated with neoplastic polyps. Materials and Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and KoreaMed databases were searched for articles published up to August 31, 2025. Bivariate random-effects models were used to calculate the meta-analytic pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), sensitivities, and specificities, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each US imaging feature in the diagnosis of neoplastic polyps. Results: Thirty studies evaluating 8,953 patients, including 1,216 (13.6%) patients with neoplastic polyps, were included.Among the nine evaluated US imaging features, namely, size ≥10 mm, sessile morphology, single polyp, coexisting gallstones, hypoechogenicity, heterogeneous echogenicity, gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT), absence of hyperechoic spot, and vascularity, eight were significantly associated with neoplastic polyps: size ≥10 mm (DOR: 6.23 [95% CI: 1.86– 20.90]), sessile morphology (DOR: 3.54 [1.93–5.97]), single polyp (DOR: 2.21 [1.76–2.74]), coexisting gallstones (DOR:1.86 [1.29–2.60]), hypoechogenicity (DOR: 3.55 [1.47–7.30]), GBWT (DOR: 9.38 [1.47–32.20]), absence of hyperechoic spots (DOR: 4.23 [2.46–6.83]), and vascularity (DOR: 9.72 [5.81–15.30]). Of these, size ≥10 mm demonstrated the highest pooled sensitivity (0.79 [95% CI: 0.68–0.87]), whereas hypoechogenicity showed the highest pooled specificity (0.93 [95% CI: 0.82–0.98]). Conclusion Eight US imaging features (size ≥10 mm, sessile morphology, single polyp, coexisting gallstones, hypoechogenicity, GBWT, absence of hyperechoic spots, and vascularity) were significantly associated with the presence of neoplastic polyps.These features may facilitate the management of gallbladder polyps.

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.

Local ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a non-surgical option that directly targets and destroys tumor cells, has advanced significantly since the 1990s. Therapies with different energy sources, such as radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation, employ different mechanisms to induce tumor necrosis. The precision, safety, and effectiveness of these therapies have increased with advances in guiding technologies and device improvements. Consequently, local ablation has become the firstline treatment for early-stage HCC. The lack of organized evidence and expert opinions regarding patient selection, pre-procedure preparation, procedural methods, swift post-treatment evaluation, and follow-up has resulted in clinicians following varied practices. Therefore, an expert consensus-based practical recommendation for local ablation was developed by a group of experts in radiology and hepatology from the Research Committee of the Korean Liver Cancer Association in collaboration with the Korean Society of Image-guided Tumor Ablation to provide useful information and guidance for performing local ablation and for the pre- and posttreatment management of patients.

Local ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a non-surgical option that directly targets and destroys tumor cells, has advanced significantly since the 1990s. Therapies with different energy sources, such as radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation, employ different mechanisms to induce tumor necrosis. The precision, safety, and effectiveness of these therapies have increased with advances in guiding technologies and device improvements. Consequently, local ablation has become the first-line treatment for early-stage HCC. The lack of organized evidence and expert opinions regarding patient selection, pre-procedure preparation, procedural methods, swift post-treatment evaluation, and follow-up has resulted in clinicians following varied practices. Therefore, an expert consensus-based practical recommendation for local ablation was developed by a group of experts in radiology and hepatology from the Research Committee of the Korean Liver Cancer Association in collaboration with the Korean Society of Image-guided Tumor Ablation to provide useful information and guidance for performing local ablation and for the pre- and post-treatment management of patients.

Local ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma, a non-surgical option that directly targets and destroys tumor cells, has advanced significantly since the 1990s. Therapies with different energy sources, such as radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation, employ different mechanisms to induce tumor necrosis. The precision, safety, and effectiveness of these therapies have increased with advances in guiding technologies and device improvements.Consequently, local ablation has become the first-line treatment for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. The lack of organized evidence and expert opinions regarding patient selection, preprocedure preparation, procedural methods, swift post-treatment evaluation, and follow-up has resulted in clinicians following varied practices. Therefore, an expert consensus-based practical recommendation for local ablation was developed by a group of experts in radiology and hepatology from the Research Committee of the Korean Liver Cancer Association in collaboration with the Korean Society of Image-Guided Tumor Ablation to provide useful information and guidance for performing local ablation and for the pre- and post-treatment management of patients.

Objective: To investigate the association among the electrode placement method, electrode type, and local tumor progression (LTP) following percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) and to assess the risk factors for LTP. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, we enrolled 211 patients, including 150 males and 61 females, who had undergone ultrasound-guided RFA for a single HCC < 3 cm. Patients were divided into four combination groups of the electrode type and placement method: 1) tumor-puncturing with an internally cooled tip (ICT), 2) tumor-puncturing with an internally cooled wet tip (ICWT), 3) no-touch with ICT, and 4) no-touch with ICWT. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk factors for LTP. The major RFA-related complications were assessed. Results: Overall, 83, 34, 80, and 14 patients were included in the ICT, ICWT, no-touch with ICT, and no-touch with ICWT groups, respectively. The cumulative LTP rates differed significantly among the four groups. Compared to tumor puncturing with ICT, tumor puncturing with ICWT was associated with a lower LTP risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0–0.88, P = 0.034). However, the cumulative LTP rate did not differ significantly between tumorpuncturing with ICT and no-touch RFA with ICT (aHR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.03–1.62, P = 0.188) or ICWT (aHR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0–2.28, P = 0.294). An insufficient ablative margin was a risk factor for LTP (aHR = 6.13, 95% CI = 1.41–22.49, P = 0.019). The major complication rates were 1.2%, 0%, 2.5%, and 21.4% in the ICT, ICWT, no-touch with ICT, and no-touch with ICWT groups, respectively. Conclusion ICWT was associated with a lower LTP rate compared to ICT when performing tumor-puncturing RFA. An insufficient ablation margin was a risk factor for LTP.