Gallbladder Polyps-A Review

Abstract

Gallbladder polyps are being increasingly detected due to availability and widespread use of advanced imaging modalities for evaluation of abdominal lesions. Hence, physicians should know about the course of these polyps so that the patients are treated in light of the best clinical evidence. This article reviews various aspects of gallbladder polyp development and management in the light of recent literature.

INTRODUCTION

Gallbladder polyps (GBPs) are lesions that protrude from the mucosal lining of the gallbladder wall into the gallbladder interior. With the widespread use of abdominal imaging, GBPs are becoming an increasingly common incidental finding [1-4] and are reported in as many as 7% ultrasonographic images of gallbladder [2].

The differential diagnosis for the GBPs is wide and includes benign and malignant lesions. Benign polyps include pseudotumors (cholesterol polyps, inflammatory polyps, cholesterolosis and hyperplasia), epithelial tumors (adenomas) and mesenchymatous tumors (fibroma, lipoma and haemangioma), whereas malignant GBPs are generally adenocarc?nomas [3]. On one hand, the benign lesions may either need no active management or can be cured by cholecystectomy. While on the other hand prognosis of gallbladder carcinoma is poor; meaning thereby that it is important to accurately differentiate between benign polyps and malignant or premalignant polyps [3].

The present review summarizes various factors related to GBPs, including the prevalence, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnostic modalities and the current trends in management in light of the current literature.

A simple review of the evidence related to GBPs was performed after deriving references from PubMed Central, Medline, Cochrane Database, HINARI, AJOL, Scopus, Bioline International, Cogprints, Open-med, MD Links and IndMed. The search /MeSH terms included gallbladder polyps, polypoid lesions of gallbladder, multiple gall bladder polyps, gallbladder cancer, epidemiology and management of gallbladder polyps. References published in the last decade were preferred. Older references were cited only when no appropriate reference was available from the recent literature.

PREVALENCE

The prevalence of GBPs in normal adults varies from 0.3% to 9.5 % in different regions and population groups. A study from India found prevalence of 0.32 % [5] whereas studies from Europe found prevalence of around 4.5% in Denmark [6] and 1.5% in Germany [7]. In Chinese population, the overall prevalence of GBPs was 9.5% [8] in one study and 6.9% in another study [9]. In the Japanese adult population, polyps were found in 5.6% [10].

RISK FACTORS

Various factors have been postulated to be associated with the occurrence of GBPs. These factors include:

1. Age: Studies have generally reported a predilection of GBPs in the fourth and fifth decades of life although this is not generally agreed upon [6, 11]. For example, middle age was associated with GBPs in one study from Chinese population [8] while another study from the same population could not find such an association [12]. However, GBPs are reported rarely in children [13].

2. Gender: Multiple studies have found that polyps are more prevalent among males with odds ratios ranging from 1.7 to 2.3 [12-18]. Adenomatous and adenocarcinomatous polyps are however more prevalent in females [19].

3. Ethnic Background: Different population groups have widely variable prevalence of GBPs. The reported prevalence in Chinese population is 9.5%, in Indians living in India it is 0.32%, in Indians living in the United Kingdom it is 3.3%, and in German population, the prevalence is 1.5% [5, 8, 12, 17, 20]. Different factors have been pointed out for high prevalence of GBPs in particular ethnic groups. Chen Y et al [12] found glucose intolerance to be a risk factor in Chinese population but a wide range of demographic characteristics and biochemical parameters, such as age, body mass index, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, blood pressure, lipid profile, hepatitis B virus carrier, liver function, and parity, were not proven to exhibit any correlation to GBPs. Lin WR et al [8] found the Chinese males with chronic hepatitis B viral infections to have a high risk for developing GB polyps. Lee YJ et al [21] noticed a shift in risk factor for GBP over the last decade, from HBsAg positivity to lipid profile abnormalities.

4. Hereditary: There are no clearly defined genetic links proven in literature. However, few recent reports suggest the possibility of familial links in malignant GBPs. RNA-Seq, functional enrichment analysis and protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks analysis differentially expressed genes in GBP samples have suggested some putative genes that express the significant hub proteins containing S100A9 (S100 calcium binding protein A9) and CR2 (complement component receptor 2) [22].

5. Cholethiasis: There is no well-defined relationship between cholelithiasis and GBPs. In fact, studies have raised the possibility of an inverse association where presence of GBP decreases the risk of cholelithiasis [23, 24]. However, such studies may be prone to various selection biases. At least one study has reported a higher incidence of cholelithiasis in individuals with GBPs [6].

6. Metabolic Disorder:Multiple metabolic disorders have been associated with development of GBPs. These include glucose syndrome [16], low levels of high-density lipoprotein [25] and obesity [26].

7. Intestinal Polyposis: Several studies have found significant association of GBPs with intestinal polyposis syndromes such as PeutzJeghers and Gardner's Syndromes [27-29].

8. Miscellaneous Factors:Yang HL found that chronic hepatitis B confers increased risk for development of GBPs [15]. In one series, increased incidence of polyps was seen in HIV patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for study of cholestasis [30].

HISTOPATHOLOGY

On the basis of histopathology, GBPs can be categorized as benign or malignant.

Benign Polyps:

1. Cholesterol polyps: This group is the commonest variant and represents 60-90% of all the GBPs. Cholesterol polyps are often multiple and are smaller than 10 mm. These polyps are often associated with vesicular cholesterolosis which results from an abnormal accumulation of cholesterol esters and triglycerides in the macrophages in epithelial and sub-epithelial tissues of the gallbladder wall [32].

2. Adenomyomatosis: This is a non-inflammatory lesion, occurring in the middle age and predominantly female patients, accounting for about 25% of GBPs and seen in about 8% of cholecystectomy specimens. The lesion may diffusely involve the gallbladder or involve only a particular segment. The latter variant generally affects the fundus of the gallbladder and appears as a solitary polyp and is regarded as a high-risk condition for development of gallbladder carcinoma, especially in elderly patients [33-35].

3. Inflammatory polyps: The inflammatory polyps account for about 10% of polyps. They are typically less than 10 mm [36] and result from granulation and fibrous tissue arising in response to chronic inflammation of gallbladder wall [37].

4. Adenoma: Adenomas are uncommon lesions [37] and occur primarily in women. These are found in 0.5% of cholecystectomy specimens and are associated with gallstones, chronic cholecystitis, familial adenomatous polyposis and Peutz-Jegher's syndrome. Adenomas may be sessile or pedunculated and can be classified histologically as tubular, papillary, or tubulo-papillary. The tubular adenoma is the commonest type and is covered by simple columnar epithelium and is composed of pyloric or intestinal-type glands. Papillary adenomas are less common and are composed of papillary structures lined by cuboidal or columnar cells .The term tubulo-papillary is used when the contribution of tubular glands and papillary structures each is more than 20% of the lesion. Very rarely villous adenoma may develop in gallbladder [38]. The adenomas, particularly pyloric gland adenomas, are believed to play a role in the development of gallbladder carcinogenesis [39-40].

Malignant polyps

The malignant polyps are rare and include adenocarcinoma, mucinous cystadenoma, squamous cell carcinoma and adenoacanthoma [37].

1. Adenocarc?noma: Adenocarc?noma of gallbladder, though generally considered rare, is the most common malignancy of biliary tract (accounting for 80%-95%) [41-42]. This tumor is a highly lethal disease with an overall 5-year survival of less than 5% and mean survival of than 6 months. Age, female gender, congenital biliary tract anomalies, and a genetic predisposition represent important risk factors and environmental triggers play a critical role in cancer development, best exemplified by cholelithiasis and chronic inflammation from biliary tract, and parasitic infections [43]. Histopathological analysis reveal infiltrative (diffuse thickening and induration of wall with possible fistula formation due to deep ulceration) or exophytic (irregular, cauliflower mass that grows into lumen and invades wall)

2. Cystadenocarcinomas: Cystadenocarcinomas arising from the gallbladder are extremely rare. They are unilocular or multilocular cystic neoplasm containing septations and need to be differentiated from other more common cystic lesions of the liver such as simple cysts, parasitic cysts and abscesses [44-45].

3. Squamous cell carcinoma: Squamous cell carcinoma is rare and constitutes only 0.5-3% of all malignancies of gallbladder and most of the reported cases have had a component of adenocarcinoma. Pure squamous cell carcinoma of the gallbladder grows slowly, is usually localized and rarely metastasizes. Two important causative possibilities proposed in literature include gallstones and parasitic infestation.Another important pathogenetic theory for squamous cell carcinoma is the metaplasia-dysplasia-carcinoma sequence and most of the specimen show some degrees of atypical epithelial change adjacent to the invasive tumor [46].

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

Most cases are asymptomatic and are detected incidentally by abdominal imaging for unrelated reason [37, 47-49] or else on histopathological analysis of gallbladder specimen retrieved by cholecystectomy for other indications like cholelithiasis. In symptomatic cases, the symptoms are nonspecific including vague abdominal discomfort and dyspepsia. The fragments of polyps might fall off and lead to episodes of biliary pain, nausea and vomiting [50]. Complications such as acute cholecystitis [50], mucocele, pyocele, obstructive jaundice, cholangitis and pancreatitis due to cystic/biliary duct obstruction by dislodged polyps are reported in the literature [51-52]. In rare instances, hemobilia due to polyp fragmentation may be the presenting feature [53-54].

IMAGING MODALITIES

Ultrasound (US): Abdominal ultrasound is the first line imaging modality due to its low cost, non-invasiveness, repeatability and accessibility [54-55]. The polyps appear as fixed hypo-echoic masses protruding into gallbladder lumen with or without acoustic shadow. However, this modality lacks sensitivity and is limited by operator skills and body habitus of patient [55]. Chattopadhyay et al [56] found that Abdominal US has 66.66% sensitivity and 100% specificity in the pre- operative suspicion of malignancy. Kwon et al [57] found the sensitivity to range from 36% to 90%.Three dimensional ultrasound (3DUS) is a recent advance in radio-diagnosis and studies have shown that 3DUS diagnosis correlates well with 2DUS with regard to most gallbladder problems including polyps and hence does notoffer any specific advantage [58]. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is more accurate than abdominal US in diagnosis of GBPs but its accuracy for differentiating malignant from benign lesions of less than 1.0 cm has been found to be low [59]. Besides, EUS is associated with discomfort and requires sedation during procedure. A scoring system has been developed to predict the neoplastic potential of the polyps termed as EUS scoring system [60-61]. The scoring system is based upon significant EUS variables including tumor maximum size, internal echo pattern, and hyperechoic spotting. Higher the EUS score, higher is the probability for the polyp to be of neoplastic nature. Choi WB et al [60] found that the risk of neoplastic polyp was significantly higher for polyps with a score of 6 or greater compared with those with a score of less than 6 (p < 0.01) and Sadamoto Y et al found the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of this scoring system for determining the presence of neoplasia in polyps scoring 12 or higher is 78%, 83% and 83% respectively [61].

Contrast enhanced ultrasonography have been found to be an effective adjunct in the diagnosis of GBPs and differentiation of malignant from benign polyps [52]. In a series from USA, galactose-based contrast agent was used for evaluation of GBPs and the technique was found to be 100% sensitive and 77% specific in differentiating malignant from benign lesions [62].

Harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography (H-EUS):Harmonic imaging is a new grey scale imaging technique that works on the principle of harmonics [63]. Harmonics are the frequencies occurring at multiples of the fundamental transmitted sonographic frequency. In conventional US, the same frequency spectrum that is transmitted by the transducer into the patient are subsequently received to produce an image. In H-EUS, higher harmonic frequencies generated by propagation of the ultrasound beam through tissue are used to produce the sonographic image. Harmonic imaging offers better quality of images due to several potential advantages, including improved lateral resolution, reduced side-lobe artefacts, reduced noise and clutter, reduced slice thickness, and increased contrast resolution due to improved signal-to noise ratio [64]. The contrast-enhanced version of this modality termed as contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) uses additional techniques such as quantitative perfusion analysis for objective assessment ofimages and has the potential to improve the preoperative diagnostic accuracy. In a series by Imazu H et al [65], the overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for diagnosing malignant GB polyp of H-EUS and CH-EUS were 83.3 versus 89.6, 65 versus 98% (p < 0.001) and 73.1 versus 94.4% (p < 0.001).

CT Scan:Abdominal CT scan is often incapable of detecting polyps smaller than 10 mm; larger polyps appear as soft tissue density projections into the lumen of the bladder, and demonstrate enhancement similar to that of the rest of the gallbladder. More intense enhancement should be viewed with suspicion, as it is more commonly associated with malignant lesions [66-67]. Jang JY et al [68] found the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for malignant polyp was 72% and 44.4% respectively for conventional CT scan. Recently, multi-detector CT (MDCT) [69] , and advanced versions of two -phase spiral / helical CT have been found to be effective in evaluation of smaller sized GBPs and in differentiation of benign from malignant lesions by precise characterization of gallbladder wall thickening [70]. In the series by Kim SJ et al [69], MDCT was found to provide 83.9% accuracy in the diagnosis of the local extent of gallbladder carcinomas.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI):Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has not been widely used to evaluate gallbladder diseases, due to the disadvantages of poor spatial and contrast resolution. However, dynamic MRI with a spoiled gradient pulse sequence (SPGR) has been found to be useful in differentiating benign from malignant lesions as malignant lesions demonstrate early and prolonged enhancements, while benign lesions show early enhancement with subsequent washout [71-72]. Similarly several recent studies have reported the effectiveness of diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in the gallbladder studies, and have found that malignant tumors may show high signal intensity on DWI, reflecting their high cellularity and/or their long relaxation time [73]. Eaton JE et al [74] found that the sensitivity and specificity of MRI for a gallbladder lesion of 0.8 cm size and for the presence of gallbladder neoplasia was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77% -100%) and 70% (95% CI, 35%-93%), respectively.

Positron emission tomography (PET):Studies have shown fluorine -18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-Positron emission tomography (PET) to distinguish between benign and malignant gallbladder wall thickening [75]. Delayed 18F-FDG PET may be more helpful than early 18F-FDG PET for detecting malignant changes in polyps because of increased uptake and increased lesion-to-background contrast. However, the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET may decrease significantly with increasing levels of C-reactive protein [76].

DETERMINATION OF MALIGNANT POTENTIAL

The most important prognostic factor in the management of GBPs is the determination of the malignant potential of these polyps as prognosis of gallbladder cancer is poor with a 5-year survival rate of approximately 10%. Numerous studies have attempted to define characteristics, listed below, that increase the likelihood that a given gallbladder polyp is malignant.

Polyp size greater than 10 mm: Most case series in the literature have postulated that the likelihood of malignant transformation in GBP increases as the size increases, especially if size is greater than 10 mm [77-79]. Pedersen et al [80] did not detect malignant change in any of the 203 GBPs that were less then 6mm in size. Nonetheless, there are some case series that support a more aggressive approach towards smaller polyps after detecting cancer in smaller polyps. Kubota K et al. [81] discovered 13% of gallbladder carcinomas in polyps smaller than 10 mm. Shinkai et al. [82] also found that 6% of the cancers in his series of 74 polyps were detected in lesions that were smaller than 5mm in diameter. Park et al. [83] found that polyps greater than 10 mm had a 24.2 times higher risk of malignancy than polyps smaller than 10 mm although malignant potential was also detected in smaller polyps.

Solitary lesions: Sarkut P et al. [78] after analysis of records of cholecystectomies conducted for 99 GBPs found histopathologically confirmed adenocarc?noma in 21 lesions that were solitary. Similarly, Shinkai et al. [82] in their series of 74 GBPs found that neoplastic polyps tended to be solitary (number of polyps when histopathological diagnosis was adenoma, n = 1.40 ± 0.89 and when diagnosis was cancer, n = 1.16 ± 0.40). However, when there were fewer than 3 lesions, the incidence of neoplasm was 37% among polyps 5 to 10 mm in diameter.

Age of the patient: In most studies, the risk of malignancy in GBP was greater in the patients older than 50 years than younger patients [48, 77-79]. Park et al. [84] considered age above 57 years as a risk factor whereas in series of Kwon et al. [57] and Tezki C et al. [85], the age of 60 years was found to be a significant risk factor for malignancy.

Growth in size over time: The increase in size of the GBPs during follow-up has been considered as a risk factor [80, 86]. Nevertheless, the precise definition of increase in size has not been clearly established in the literature. Cairns et al. [87] after studying the risks and cost-effectiveness of surveillance followed by cholecystectomy for gallbladder polyps concluded that increase in size during surveillance predicted neoplastic potential. In their series, they found that only 6.6% of polyps exhibited an increase in size over time and the polyps that subsequently progressed in size had a significantly greater diameter at first presentation than those polyps that remained static (7 mm vs 5 mm, respectively). Shin et al. [86] reported the rapid growth rate of greater than 0.6 mm/month to be a risk factor.

Concurrent cholelithiasis: Cholelithiasis associated with GBP has been mentioned as a risk factor by some workers [48, 80, 85]. But in many other studies, no definite relationship was found between the malignant potential of GBPs and concurrent cholelithiasis. Kwon et al. [57] studied 291 patients who underwent cholecystectomy with confirmation of GBP on histopathological analysis of the specimen; benign GBPs were found in 256 patients (88.0%) and malignant GBPs in 35 patients (12.0%) and no statistically significant difference was found when polyps were related to concurrent cholelithiasis (21.5% in benign [55/256]; 17.1% in malignant [6/35], P=0.554).

Adenomatous nature: Adenomatous nature of the GBPs has been inconsistently linked to cancer development in many studies. Kozuku et al. [88] found the adenomatous residue in 15 (19.0%) out of 79 cases of invasive carcinoma and suggested that the transition of benign adenoma into carcinoma was histologically traceable. Lee et al. [89] noticed malignant transformation in 23.5% of adenomas and inferred that the adenoma is a precancerous lesion and the adenoma-carcinoma sequence is one of the pathways for gallbladder cancer carcinogenesis. However, Roa et al. [90] foundno adenomatous residue in specimen of 196 early-stage gallbladder carcinomas, arguing against an adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Furthermore, molecular studies have shown that the genetic mutations frequently seen in GB cancer are absent in adenomas [91].

Sessile morphology: Sessile morphology of polyps is a factor that has been shown to increase the probability of malignancy [18,92]. One of the possible explanations for frequent sessile morphology in malignant GBPs is that most gallbladder cancers arise in situ from flat, dysplastic epithelium, present in sessile lesions [84].

Indian ethnic origin: Aldouri AQ et al. [20] found the Indian ethnic origin of the patient to be an independent risk factor for neoplastic transformation irrespective of size of GBP.

MANAGEMENT

After the review of current literature, the recommendations for management of gallbladder polyps can be summarized as following:

Symptomatic: In symptomatic GBPs, cholecystectomy is recommended and laparoscopic approach is routinely adopted [93-94]. However, when there is a preoperative suspicion for malignancy, the general recommendations are to use an open approach [95]. The surgical approach remains controversial and more studies are needed to examine the pros and cons of each approach to facilitate evidence-based standardization [79].

Asymptomatic but size greater than 10 mm: Cholecystectomy is indicated in patients with large gallbladder polyps size over 10 mm, irrespective of symptomatology. The approach is laparoscopic if no other risk factors are present otherwise open cholecystectomy is preferred [79, 95-96].

Asymptomatic but size between 6 and 10 mm: Cholecystectomy is recommended if lesions are associated with risk factors of malignancy such as age greater than 50 years [18] or high scores with EUS [54]. In the absence of risk factors and when EUS scores are low, regular follow-up is needed [18]. However, clear guidelines on a screening interval are not available, even though screening by ultrasound at intervals of every 6-12 months has been recommended [18]. Guruswamy et al. [97] has recommended a needfor randomized clinical trials with low bias -risk to address the question of whether cholecystectomy is indicated in gallbladder polyps smaller than 10 mm.

Asymptomatic but size less than 6 mm :Multiple case-series have proven that no treatment or active follow-up is required [70]. However, if the lesions are sessile or the patient is above 50 years, some investigators recommend laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to higher risk of malignancy or regular follow up by ultrasonography at least every six months [18].

If after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, histopathological examination shows the presence of malignancy, than the procedure is considered curative for cancers confined to the gallbladder mucosa (T1a), while cancers that invade the muscularis (T1b) have higher probability of lymph node metastases or lymphatic invasion due to which many workers recommend laparotomy , re-exploration and hepatoduodenal lymph node dissection [98-99]. However, an initial open versus laparoscopic approach has not been found to influence long term survival of the patient [100-101]. Inadvertent opening of cancerous gallbladders during laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been documented to increase the likelihood of recurrence and port site metastases [102].

CONCLUSION

GBPs are being increasingly diagnosed due to wide availability and use of imaging modalities for the work-up of various symptoms. GBPs remain a concern for both healthcare providers as well as patients due to the risk of malignancy requiring a comprehensive understanding of natural course of gallbladder polyp and risk factors of malignancy by the treating physician. The imaging GBP should evaluate its size, shape and number so that the malignancy risks can be estimated. Most polyps are small, benign and remain static for a long period. When the polyps are symptomatic, cholecystectomy should be offered as treatment. GBPs smaller than 10 mm detected in patients younger than 50 years have a minimal probability of malignancy. Such patients may be reassured and can be safely offered follow-up. The presence of multiple lesions in a young patient suggests benign nature. In patients with polyps larger than 10 mm, cholecystectomy is recommended. Laparoscopic approach is recommended for cholecystectomy unless there are factors suggestive of malignancy are present.In patients with smaller polyps but with suspicious characteristics (like sessile nature) seen on ultrasound particularly when the patient is older than 50 years, surgery should be recommended even though the probability of malignancy remains low.

REFERENCES

1. Lee KF, Wong J, Li JC, Lai PB. Polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. Am J Surg. 2004; 188(2):186-90.

2. Mellnick VM, Menias CO, Sandrasegaran K, Hara AK, Kielar AZ, Brunt EM, et al. Polypoid lesions of the gallbladder: disease spectrum with pathologic correlation. 2015; 35(2):387-99.

3. Matos AS, Baptista HN, Pinheiro C, Martinho F. Gallbladder polyps: how should they be treated and when? Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2010; 56(3):318-21.

4. Puneet, Ragini R, Gupta SK, Singh S, Shukla VK. Management of polypoidal lesions of gallbladder in laparoscopic era. Trop Gastroenterol. 2005; 26(4):205-10.

5. Pandey M, Khatri AK, Sood BP, Shukla RC, Shukla VK. Cholecystosonographic evaluation of the prevalence of gallbladder diseases. A university hospital experience. Clin Imaging. 1996; 20(4):269-72.

6. Jorgensen T, Jensen KH. Polyps in the gallbladder. A prevalence study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1990; 25(3):281-6.

7. Kratzer W, Schmid A, Akinli AS, Thiel R, Mason RA, Schuler A, et al. Gallbladder polyps: prevalence and risk factors. Ultraschall Med. 2011; 32 Suppl 1:S68-73.

8. Lin WR, Lin DY, Tai DI, Hsieh SY, Lin CY, Sheen IS, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for gallbladder polyps detected by ultrasonography among healthy Chinese: analysis of 34 669 cases. J GastroenterolHepatol. 2008; 23(6):965-9.

9. Xu Q, Tao LY, Wu Q, Gao F, Zhang FL, Yuan L, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for biliary stones and gallbladder polyps in a large Chinese population. HPB (Oxford). 2012; 14(6):373-81.

10. Okamoto M, Okamoto H, Kitahara F, Kobayashi K, Karikome K, Miura K, et al .Ultrasonographic evidence of association of polyps and stones with gallbladder cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999; 94(2):446-50.

11. Segawa K, Arisawa T, Niwa Y, Suzuki T, Tsukamoto Y, Goto H, et al. Prevalence of gallbladder polyps among apparently healthy Japanese: ultrasonographic study. Am J Gastroenterol.1992; 87:630-3.

12. Chen CY, Lu CL, Chang FY, Lee SD. Risk factors for gallbladder polyps in the Chinese population. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997; 92(11):2066-8.

13. Stringer MD, Ceylan H, Ward K, Wyatt JI. Gallbladder polyps in children-classification and management. J Pediatr Surg. 2003; 38(11):1680-4.

14. Collett JA, Allan RB, Chisholm RJ, Wilson IR, Burt MJ, Chapman BA. Gallbladder polyps: prospective study. J Ultrasound Med. 1998; 17(4):207-11.

15. Yang HL, Kong L, Hou LL, Shen HF, Wang Y, Gu XG, et al. Analysis of risk factors for polypoid lesions of gallbladder among health examinees. World J Gastroenterol. 2012; 18(23):3015-9.

16. Lim S H, Kim D H, Park M J, Kim Y S, Kim C H, Yim J Y et al.. Is metabolic syndrome one of the risk factors for gallbladder polyps found by ultrasonography during health screening? Gut Liver. 2007; 1(2): 138-44.

17. Heyder N, Gunter E, Giedl J, Obenauf A, Hahn EG. Polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1990; 115(7):243-7.

18. Pejic MA, Milic DJ. Surgical treatment of polypoid lesions of gallbladder. SrpArhCelokLek. 2003; 131(7-8):319-24.

19. Farinon AM, Pacella A, Cetta F, Sianesi M. Adenomatous polyps of the gallbladder adenomas of the gallbladder. HPB Surg. 1991; 3(4):251-8.

20. Aldouri AQ, Malik HZ, Waytt J, Khan S, Ranganathan K, et al. The risk of gallbladder cancer from polyps in a large multiethnic series. Eur J SurgOncol. 2009; 35(1):48-51.

21. Lee YJ, Park KS, Cho KB, Kim ES, Jang BK, Chung WJ, et al. Shifting prevalence of gallbladder polyps in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29(9):1247-52.

22. Li Q, Ge X, Xu X, Zhong Y, Qie Z. Comparison of the gene expression profiles between gallstones and gallbladder polyps. Int J ClinExpPathol. 2014; 7(11):8016-23.

23. Wolpers C. Gallbladder polyps and gallbladder stones. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1989; 114(49):1905-12.

24. Jensen KH, Jorgensen T. Incidence of gallstones in a Danish population. 1991; 100(3):790-94.

25. Canturk Z, Senturk O, Canturk NZ, Anik YA. Prevalence and risk factors for gall bladder polyps. East Afr Med J. 2007; 84(7):336-41.

26. Lee S B, Son Y N, Kim C O, Kang H C, Choi C H. Association of gallbladder polyp size with obesity and with malignant potential. Gastrointest Cancer 2010; (Supplement 1): S34-S35.

27. Wada K, Tanaka M, Yamaguchi K, Wada K. Carcinoma and polyps of the gallbladder associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Dig Dis Sci. 1987; 32(8):943-6.

28. Foster DR, Foster DB. Gall-bladder polyps in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Postgrad Med J. 1980; 56(655):373-6.

29. Brevet M, Brehant O, Dumont F, Regimbeau JM, Dupas JL, Chatelain D. Adenomatous polyposis of the gallbladder and Gardner's syndrome. A rare association. GastroenterolClin Biol. 2007; 31(4):425-7.

30. Teare J P, Daly CA, Rodgers C, Padley S P, Coker RJ, Main J, et al. Pancreatic abnormalities and AIDS related sclerosing cholangitis. Genitourin Med. 1997; 73(4): 271-3.

31. Schramm C, Lohse AW. Gallbladder polyps in primary sclerosing cholangitis: indication for early intervention. 2012; 56(1):396

32. Sandri L, Colecchia A, Larocca A, Vestito A, Capodicasa S, Azzaroli F, et al. Gallbladder cholesterol polyps and Minerva GastroenterolDietol. 2003; 49(3):217-24.

33. Krska Z, Schmidt D, Vitkova I, Horejs J, Hoskovec D. Gall bladder adenomyomatosis. 2011; 90(10):558-60.

34. Nabatame N, Shirai Y, Nishimura A, Yokoyama N, Wakai T, Hatakeyama K. High risk of gallbladder carcinoma in elderly patients with segmental adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder. J ExpClin Cancer Res. 2004; 23(4):593-598.

35. Kai K, Ide T, Masuda M, Kitahara K, Miyoshi A, Miyazaki K, Noshiro H, Tokunaga O. Clinicopathologic features of advanced gallbladder cancer associated with adenomyomatosis. Virchows Arch. 2011; 459(6):573-580.

36. Gallahan WC, Conway JD. Diagnosis and management of gallbladder polyps. GastroenterolClin North Am. 2010; 39:359-67.

37. Andren-Sandberg A. Diagnosis and management of gallbladder polyps. N Am J Med Sci. 2012; 4(5): 203-11.

38. Jin W, Zhang C, Liu J, Zhao Z. Large villous adenoma of gallbladder: A case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2012; 4(2):175-7.

39. Adsay V, Jang KT, Roa JC, Dursun N, Ohike N, Bagci P, et al.. Intracholecystic papillary-tubular neoplasms (ICPN) of the gallbladder (neoplastic polyps, adenomas, and papillary neoplasms that are ?1.0 cm): clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical analysis of 123 cases. Am J SurgPathol. 2012; 36(9):1279-1301.

40. Albores-Saavedra J, Chable-Montero F, Gonzalez-Romo MA, Ramirez Jaramillo M, Henson DE. Adenomas of the gallbladder. Morphologic features, expression of gastric and intestinal mucins, and incidence of high-grade dysplasia/carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2012; 43(9):1506-13.

41. Dwivedi AN, Jain S, Dixit R. Gall bladder carcinoma: Aggressive malignancy with protean loco-regional and distant spread. World J Clin Cases. 2015; 3(3):231-44.

42. Rakic M, Patrlj L, Kopljar M, Klicek R, Kolovrat M, Loncar B, et al. Gallbladder cancer. Hepatobiliary SurgNutr. 2014; 3(5):221-6.

43. Hundal R, Shaffer EA. Gallbladder cancer: epidemiology and outcome. ClinEpidemiol. 2014; 6:99-109.

44. Waldmann J, Zielke A, Moll R, Schweinsberg TS, Rothmund M, Langer P. Cystadenocarcinoma of the gallbladder. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2006; 13(6):594-9.

45. Sistla S C, Sankar G, Basu D, Venkatesan B. Biliary cystadenocarcinoma of the gall bladder: a case report.J Med Case Reports. 2009; 3: 75.

46. Hosseinzadeh M, Shokripur M, Salahi H. Primary pure squamous cell carcinoma of gallbladder presenting as acute cholecystitis. Iran J Med Sci. 2012; 37(4): 271-273.

47. Meyers RP, Shaffer EA, Beck PL. Gallbladder polyps: epidemiology, natural history and management. Can J Gastroenterol. 2002; 16(3):187-94.

48. Bang S. Natural course and treatment strategy of gallbladder polyp. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2009; 53(6):336-40.

49. Tomic DV, Markovic AR, Alempijevic TM, Davidovic DB, Prsic DR, Vuckovic MS. Ultrasound diagnosis of gallbladder polyps. 2011; 58(4):31-5.

50. Yoshida H, Onda M, Tajiri T, Mamada Y, Taniai N, Mizuguchi Y, et al. Acute cholecystitis caused by a cholesterol polyp. J Nippon Med Sch. 2001; 68(3):259-61.

51. ParrillaParicio P, Garcia Olmo D, Pellicer Franco E, Prieto Gonzalez A, Carrasco Gonzalez L, Bermejo Lopez J. Gallbladder cholesterolosis: an aetiological factor in acute pancreatitis of uncertain origin. Br J Surg. 1990; 77(7):735-6.

52. Owen CC, Bilhartz LE. Gallbladder polyps, cholesterolosis, adenomyomatosis, and acute acalculous cholecystitis. SeminGastrointest Dis. 2003; 14(4):178-88.

53. Juul Nielsen LB, Schultz NA, Hasselby JP, Wettergren A. Benign gallbladder polyp is a rare cause of haemobilia. UgeskrLaeger. 2013; 175(37):2117-8.

54. Kar M, Bhattacharyya U, Laha RN, Saha I, MukhopadhyayM.Haemobilia due to a large gall bladder polyp. J Indian Med Assoc. 2003; 101(9):554-5.

55. Damore LJ, Cook CH, Fernandez KL, Cunningham J, Ellison EC, Melvin WS. Ultrasonography incorrectly diagnoses gallbladder polyps. SurgLaparoscEndoscPercutan Tech. 2001; 11(2):88-91.

56. Chattopadhyay D, Lochan R, Balupuri S, Gopinath BR, Wynne KS. Outcome of gall bladder polypoidal lesions detected by transabdominal ultrasound scanning: a nine year experience. World JGastroenterol. 2005; 11(14):2171-3.

57. Kwon W, Jang JY, Lee SE, Hwang DW, Kim SW. Clinicopathologic features of polypoid lesions of the gallbladder and risk factors of gallbladder cancer. J Korean Med Sci. 2009; 24:481-7.

58. Stenberg B, Elliott S. Diagnosis of gallbladder problems using three-dimensional ultrasound. EurRadiol. 2010; 20(4):908-14.

59. Cheon YK, Cho WY, Lee TH, Cho YD, Moon JH, Lee JS, Shim CS. Endoscopic ultrasonography does not differentiate neoplastic from non-neoplastic small gallbladder polyps. World J Gastroenterol. 2009; 15(19): 2361- 6.

60. Choi WB, Lee SK, Kim MH, Seo DW, Kim HJ, Kim DI, et al. A new strategy to predict the neoplastic polyps of the gallbladder based on a scoring system using EUS. GastroinestEndsc. 2000; 52:372-9.

61. Sadamoto Y, Oda S, Tanaka M, Harada N, Kubo H, Eguchi T, et al. A useful approach to the differential diagnosis of small polypoid lesions of the gallbladder, utilizing an endoscopic ultrasound scoring system. Endoscopy. 2002; 34(12):959-65.

62. Inui K, Yoshino J, Miyoshi H. Diagnosis of gallbladder tumours. Intern Med. 2011; 50:1133-6.

63. Pas?awski M, Krupski W, Z?omaniec J. The value of ultrasound harmonic imaging in the diagnostics of gall bladder cholesterol polyps. Ann UnivMariae Curie Sklodowska Med. 2004; 59:293-7.

64. Hattori M, Inui K, Yoshino J, Miyoshi H, Okushima K, Nakamura Y, et al.. Usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of polypoid gallbladder lesions. Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi. 2007; 104(6):790-8.

65. Imazu H, Mori N, Kanazawa K, Chiba M, Toyoizumi H, Torisu Y, et al. Contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of gallbladder wall thickening. Dig Dis Sci. 2014; 59(8):1909-16.

66. Furukawa H, Kosuge T, Shimada K, Yamamoto J, Kanai Y, Mukai K, et al. Small polypoid lesions of the gallbladder: differential diagnosis and surgical indications by helical computed tomography. Arch Surg. 1998; 133(7):735-9.

67. Ching BH, Yeh BM, Westphalen AC, Joe BN, Qayyum A, Coakley FV. CT differentiation of adenomyomatosis and gallbladder cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189:62-6.

68. Jang JY, Kim SW, Lee SE, Hwang DW, Kim EJ, Lee JY, et al. Differential diagnostic and staging accuracies of high resolution ultrasonography, endoscopic ultrasonography, and multidetector computed tomography for gallbladder polypoid lesions and gallbladder cancer. Ann Surg. 2009; 250(6):943-9.

69. Kim SJ, Lee JM, Lee JY, et al.. Analysis of enhancement pattern of flat gallbladder wall thickening on MDCT to differentiate gallbladder cancer from cholecystitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191:765-71.

70. Yun EJ, Cho SG, Park S, Park SW, Kim WH, Kim HJ, et al. Gallbladder carcinoma and chronic cholecystitis: differentiation with two-phase spiral CT. Abdom Imaging. 2004; 29:102-8.

71. Takashima T, Nakazawa S, Yoshino J, Inui K, Kanemaki N, Wakabayashi T, et al. Diagnosis of the wall-thickened lesions of the gallbladder with dynamic MRI. Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi. 1998; 95(5):424-31.

72. Yoshimitsu K, Honda H, Kaneko K, Kuroiwa T, Irie H, Ueki T, et al. Dynamic MRI of the gallbladder lesions: differentiation of benign from malignant. J MagnReson Imaging. 1997; 7(4):6b96-701.

73. Irie H, Kamochi N, Nojiri J, Egashira Y, Sasaguri K, Kudo S. High b-value diffusion-weighted MRI in differentiation between benign and malignant polypoid gallbladder lesions. ActaRadiol. 2011; 52(3):236-40.

74. Eaton JE, Thackeray EW, Lindor KD. Likelihood of malignancy in gallbladder polyps and outcomes following cholecystectomy in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107:431-9.

75. Oe A, Kawabe J, Torii K, Kawamura E, Higashiyama S, Kotani J, et al.. Distinguishing benign from malignant gallbladder wall thickening using FDG-PET. Ann Nucl Med. 2006; 20(10):699-703.

76. Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Fukunaga K, Kimura N, Miki A, Sasakawa Y et al.. Dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of gallbladder carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2006; 47(4):633-8.

77. Konstantinidis IT, Bajpai S, Kambadakone AR, Tanabe KK, Berger DL, Zheng H, et al.. Gallbladder lesions identified on ultrasound. Lessons from the last 10 years. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012; 16(3):549-53.

78. Sarkut P, Kilicturgay S, Ozer A, Ozturk E, Yilmazlar T. Gallbladder polyps: factors affecting surgical decision. World J Gastroenterol. 2013; 19(28):4526-30.

79. Morera-Ocon FJ, Ballestin-Vicente J, Calatayud-Blas AM, de Tursi-Rispoli LC, Bernal-Sprekelsen JC. Surgical indications in gallbladder polyps. Cir Esp. 2013; 91(5):324-30.

80. Pedersen MR, Dam C, Rafaelsen SR. Ultrasound follow-up for gallbladder polyps less than 6 mm may not be necessary. Dan Med J. 2012; 59(10):A4503.

81. Kubota K, Bandai Y, Noie T, Ishizaki Y, Teruya M, Makuuchi M. How should polypoid lesions of the gallbladder be treated in the era of laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Surgery. 1995; 117:481-7.

82. Shinkai H, Kimura W, Muto T. Surgical indications for small polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. Am J Surg. 1998; 175:114-7.

83. Park JY, Hong SP, Kim YJ, Kim HJ, Kim HM, Cho JH, et al. Long-term follow up of gallbladder polyps. J GastroenterolHepatol. 2009; 24(2):219-22.

84. Park JK, Yoon YB, Kim YT, Ryu JK, Yoon WJ, Lee SH, et al, Park MJ. Management strategies for gallbladder polyps: is it possible to predict malignant gallbladder polyps? Gut and Liver. 2008; 2:88-94.

85. Terzi C, Sokmen S, Seckin S, Albayrak L, Ugurul M. Polypoid lesions of the gallbladder: report of 100 cases with special reference to operative indications. 2000; 127: 622-7

86. Shin SR, Lee JK, Lee KH, Lee KT, Rhee JC, Jang KT, et al. Can the growth rate of a gallbladder polyp predict a neoplastic polyp? J ClinGastroenterol. 2009; 43(9):865-8.

87. Cairns V, Neal CP, Dennison AR, Garcea G. Risk and cost-effectiveness of surveillance followed by cholecystectomy for gallbladder polyps. Arch Surg. 2012; 147(12):1078-83.

88. Kozuka S, Tsubone N, Yasui A, Hachisuka K. Relation of adenoma to carcinoma in the gallbladder. 1982; 50(10):2226-34.

89. Lee SH, Lee DS, You IY, Jeon WJ, Park SM, Youn SJ, et al. Histopathologic analysis of adenoma and adenoma-related lesions of the gallbladder. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2010; 55(2):119-26.

90. Roa I, de Aretxabala X, Araya JC, Villaseca M, Roa J, Guzman P. Incipient gallbladder carcinoma: clinical and pathological study and prognosis in 196 cases. Rev Med Chil 2001; 129(10):1113-20.

91. Wistuba II, Miquel JF, Gazdar AF, Albores-Saavedra J. Gallbladder adenomas have molecular abnormalities different from those present in gallbladder carcinomas. Hum Pathol 1999; 30(1):21-5.

92. Ishikawa O, Ohhigashi H, Imaoka S, Nakaizumi A, Kitamura T, Sasaki Y, et al. The difference in malignancy between pedunculated and sessile polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. Am J Gastroenterol. 1989; 84(11):1386-90.

93. Yeh CN, Jan YY, Chao TC, Chen MF. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for polypoid lesions of the gallbladder: a clinicopathologic study. SurgLaparoscEndoscPercutan Tech. 2001; 11(3):176-81.

94. Li XY, Zheng CJ, Chen J, Zhang JX. Diagnosis and treatment of polypoid lesion of the gallbladder. Zhongguo Yi XueKeXue Yuan XueBao. 2003; 25(6):689-93.

95. Kubota K, Bandai Y, Otomo Y, Ito A, Watanabe M, Toyoda H, Idezuki Y. Role of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in treating gallbladder polyps. 1994; 8(1):42-6.

96. Park HY, Oh SH, Lee KH, Lee JK, Lee KT. Is cholecystectomy a reasonable treatment option for simple gallbladder polyps larger than 10 mm? World J Gastroenterol. 2015; 21(14):4248-54.

97. Gurusamy KS, Abu-Amara M, Farouk M, Davidson BR. Cholecystectomy for gallbladder polyp. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; (1):CD007052.

98. Kang CM, Lee WJ, Choi GH, Kim JY, Kim KS, Choi JS, et al. Does "clinical" R0 have validity in the choice of simple cholecystectomy for gallbladder carcinoma? J GastrointestSurg 2007; 11:1309-16.

99. Kang CM, Choi GH, Park SH, Kim KS, Choi JS, Lee WJ, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy only could be an appropriate treatment for selected clinical R0 gallbladder carcinoma. SurgEndosc 2007; 21:1582-7.

100. Chan KM, Yeh TS, Jan YY, Chen MF. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for early gallbladder carcinoma: long-term outcome in comparison with conventional open cholecystectomy. SurgEndosc 2006; 20:1867-71.

101. Cucinotta E, Lorenzini C, Melita G, Iapichino G, Curro G. Incidental gall bladder carcinoma: does the surgical approach influence the outcome? ANZ J Surg 2005; 75:795-8.

102. Kwon AH, Imamura A, Kitade H, Kamiyama Y. Unsuspected gallbladder cancer diagnosed during or after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J SurgOncol 2008; 97:241-5.