Gallbladder Cancer: Imaging Appearance and Pitfalls in Diagnosis [Formula: see text].

Gallbladder cancer is an uncommon malignancy with an overall poor prognosis. The clinical and imaging presentation of gallbladder cancer often overlaps with benign disease, making diagnosis difficult. Gallbladder cancer is most easily diagnosed on imaging when it presents as a mass replacing the gallbladder. At this stage, the prognosis is usually poor. Recognizing the features of gallbladder cancer early in the disease can enable complete resection and improve prognosis. Recognition of the patterns of wall enhancement on computed tomography can help differentiate gallbladder cancer from benign disease. Gallbladder wall thickening without pericholecystic fluid presenting in an older patient with raised alkaline phosphatase should raise concern regarding gallbladder cancer. Gallbladder polyps in high-risk individuals need close surveillance or surgery as per guidelines. Small gallbladder cancers in the neck can present as biliary dilatation or cholecystitis, and careful examination of this area is needed to assess for lesion. The imaging appearance of gallbladder cancer is reviewed and supported by local institutional data. Features that differentiate it from its common mimics enabling earlier diagnosis are described.

Evaluation of a free-breathing respiratory-triggered (Navigator) 3-D T1-weighted (T1W) gradient recalled echo sequence (LAVA) for detection of enhancement in cystic and solid renal masses.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate free-breathing Navigator-triggered 3-D T1-weighted MRI (NAV-LAVA) compared to breath-hold (BH)-LAVA among cystic and solid renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With an IRB waiver, 44 patients with 105 renal masses (71 non-enhancing cysts and 14 cystic and 20 solid renal masses) underwent MRI between 2016 and 2017 where BH-LAVA and NAV-LAVA were performed. Subtraction images were generated for BH-LAVA and NAV-LAVA using pre- and 3-min post-gadolinium-enhanced images and were evaluated by two blinded radiologists for overall image quality, image sharpness, motion artifact, and quality of subtraction (using 5-point Likert scales) and presence/absence of enhancement. Percentage signal intensity change (Δ%SI) = ([SI.post-gadolinium-SI.pre-gadolinium]/SI.pre-gadolinium)*100, was measured on BH-LAVA and NAV-LAVA. Likert scores were compared using Wilcoxon's sign-rank test and accuracy for detection of enhancement compared using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Overall image quality (p = 0.002-0.141), image sharpness (p = 0.002-0.031), and motion artifact were better (p = 0.002) comparing BH-LAVA to NAV-LAVA for both radiologists; however, quality of image subtraction did not differ between groups (p = 0.09-0.14). Sensitivity/specificity/area under ROC curve for enhancement in cystic and solid renal masses using subtraction and %SIΔ were (1) BH-LAVA: 64.7%/98.6%/0.82 (radiologist 1), 61.8%/95.8%/0.79 (radiologist 2), and 70.6%/81.7%/0.76 (%SIΔ) versus 2) NAV-LAVA: 58.8%/95.8%/0.79 (radiologist 1, p = 0.16), 58.8%/88.7%/0.73 (radiologist 2, p = 0.37), and 73.5%/76.1%/0.75 (%SIΔ, p = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: NAV-LAVA showed similar quality of subtraction and ability to detect enhancement compared to BH-LAVA in renal masses albeit with lower image quality, image sharpness, and increased motion artifact. NAV-LAVA may be considered in renal MRI for patients where BH is suboptimal. KEY POINTS: • Free-breathing Navigator (NAV) 3-D subtraction MRI is comparable to breath-hold (BH) images. • Accuracy for subjective and quantitative diagnosis of enhancement in renal masses on NAV 3-D T1W is comparable to BH MRI. • NAV 3-D T1W renal MRI is useful in patients who may not be able to adequately BH.