Article Text

PDF

PTH-105 How Ominous Is The “double-duct” Sign ?: A Single Centre Experience
  1. T Gardner,
  2. K Padala,
  3. R Sinha,
  4. J Greenaway,
  5. D Joy
  1. South Tees NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK

Abstract

Introduction “Double-duct” sign on ERCP (Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatogram) is considered suggestive of pancreatic or biliary malignancy. This sign is frequently encountered in radiological imaging. We wish to investigate the prognostic value of the “double-duct” sign in patients who undergo Magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography (MRCP), attempting to define the associated features which would predict underlying malignant disease.1,2

Methods A retrospective analysis of all the patients who underwent MRCP over a two year period; January 2011 to December 2012 was undertaken. All the radiological reports showing both a dilated common bile duct (CBD) and pancreatic duct (PD) or the “double-duct” sign were included. These were all interpreted and reported by specialist gastrointestinal radiologists. The demographics, liver biochemistry, final diagnosis and outcome for all patients with the “double-duct” sign were accessed using the radiology PACS® system, biochemical results WebICE®, hospital letters and case notes. Follow up information was available for a mean of 24months (range 12–36 months).

Results 1,367 patients underwent MRCP examination over two year period. 46 patients (3.5% incidence) had “double-duct” sign (Table 1) with a mean age of 69.5 years. The ratio of male to female patients was (M:F) 12:11. The commonest cause of “double-duct” sign was choledocholithiasis (29.4%) followed by malignancy (26%). Patients with jaundice in the context of “double-duct” sign had a higher incidence of malignancy (48%). Nearly half of the patients, (21/46; 46%) with “double-duct” sign were anicteric. None of the anicteric patients were found to have malignancy. Of the anicteric patients, 29% (6/21) had completely normal liver test and the remaining 71% (15/21) had some abnormality of the liver enzymes (raised GGT and/or Alkaline phosphatase). Three patients in the anicteric group had benign tumours (2 cases of benign IPMN and 1 case of benign ampullary tumour). The benign nature was confirmed on clinical and radiological follow-up. No surgical intervention was deemed appropriate for any of these patients. All three remained anicteric over the period of follow-up (13 months; unrelated death, 18 and 36 months respectively). Our results show that “double duct” sign in the absence of jaundice makes a malignant aetiology unlikely.

Abstract PTH-105 Table 1

Patients with double-duct signs

Conclusion In patients with cross-sectional imaging evidence of “double-duct” sign, the absence of jaundice makes a malignant aetiology unlikely. Conversely, in jaundiced patients a malignant cause is much more likely. Figures from larger series are needed to support this conclusion.

References 1 Baillie J, et al. Biliary imaging: a review. Gastroenterology 2003; 125 (5):1565

2 Ahualli J. The double duct sign. Radiology2007;244 (1):314–5

Disclosure of Interest None Declared.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.