Cholestatic jaundice

Population Covered By The Guidance

This pathway provides guidance on imaging patients with clinically and biochemically suspected cholestatic jaundice.

Lead Researcher: Gurjeet Dulku

Experts & Contributors: Ravinder Dhillon, Simon Edmunds, Richard Mendelson

Editorial Panel: Core membership
Link to Editorial Panel

Date reviewed: April 2015

Date Published: July 2015

Image 1a, 1b, and 1c (Computed Tomography): Dilated common bile duct, pancreatic duct and gallbladder. There is a mass located in the head of pancreas with involvement of the mesenteric vessels.

Pancreatic Cancer

Image 1a, 1b, and 1c (Computed Tomography): Dilated common bile duct, pancreatic duct and gallbladder. There is a mass located in the head of pancreas with involvement of the mesenteric vessels.

Pancreatic Cancer

Image 1a, 1b, and 1c (Computed Tomography): Dilated common bile duct, pancreatic duct and gallbladder. There is a mass located in the head of pancreas with involvement of the mesenteric vessels.

Pancreatic Cancer

Image 2 (ERCP):

Pancreatic Cancer

Image 3a (H&E, x2.5) and 3b (H&E, x10): Histological sections of a pancreatic adenocarcinoma showing the typical appearance of irregular malignant glands set in abundant desmoplastic stroma. Note, the residual normal pancreatic parenchyma (blue arrow). Image 3b shows the predisposition of this cancer for perineural invasion.

Pancreatic Cancer

Image 3a (H&E, x2.5) and 3b (H&E, x10): Histological sections of a pancreatic adenocarcinoma showing the typical appearance of irregular malignant glands set in abundant desmoplastic stroma. Note, the residual normal pancreatic parenchyma (blue arrow). Image 3b shows the predisposition of this cancer for perineural invasion.

Pancreatic Cancer

Image 4 (CT Cholangiogram): Beading of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts consistent with sclerosing cholangitis.

Sclerosing Cholangitis

  • Ultrasound is the first imaging modality used in the algorithm for the investigation of cholestatic jaundice
  • Further imaging depends on whether the bile ducts are dilated
    • If the bile ducts are dilated and an ultrasound fails to demonstrate a cause, further imaging depends on a provisional clinical diagnosis. Investigations may include CT scan of the abdomen, CT cholangiogram, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)
    • If the bile ducts are not dilated, hepatocellular causes of jaundice should be excluded prior to further imaging
  • endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is reserved for therapeutic indications or if there remains ongoing clinical doubt with non-diagnostic imaging studies

Date of literature search: April 2015

The search methodology is available on request. Email

References are graded from Level I to V according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Levels of Evidence. Download the document

      1. Balfe D, Ralls P, Bree R, DiSantis D, Glick S, Levine M, et al. Imaging strategies in the initial evaluation of the jaundiced patient. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology. 2000;215:125-33. (Guideline). View the reference
      2. Amouyal P, Amouyal G, Levy P, Tuzet S, Palazzo L, Vilgrain V, et al. Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis by endoscopic ultrasonography. Gastroenterology. 1994;106(4):1062-7. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      3. Baron RL, Stanley RJ, Lee JK, Koehler RE, Melson GL, Balfe DM, et al. A prospective comparison of the evaluation of biliary obstruction using computed tomography and ultrasonography. Radiology. 1982;145(1):91-8. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      4. Gibson RN, Yeung E, Thompson JN, Carr DH, Hemingway AP, Bradpiece HA, et al. Bile duct obstruction: radiologic evaluation of level, cause, and tumor resectability. Radiology. 1986;160(1):43-7. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      5. Friedman LS. Approach to the patient with abnormal liver biochemical and function tests. [http://www.uptodate.com/contents/approach-to-the-patient-with-abnormal-liver-biochemical-and-function-tests]. UpToDate: Wolters Kluwer; [updated 2015 January 21; cited 2015 April 7]. (Review article). View the reference
      6. Dancygier H, Nattermann C. The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in biliary tract disease: obstructive jaundice. Endoscopy. 1994;26(9):800-2. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      7. Lalani T, Couto CA, Rosen MP, Baker ME, Blake MA, Cash BD, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria jaundice. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10 (6):402-9. (Guideline). View the reference
      8. Tsukada K, Takada T, Miyazaki M, Miyakawa S, Nagino M, Kondo S, et al. Diagnosis of biliary tract and ampullary carcinomas. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2008;15(1):31-40. (Guideline). View the reference
      9. Sugiyama M, Atomi Y. Endoscopic ultrasonography for diagnosing choledocholithiasis: a prospective comparative study with ultrasonography and computed tomography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45(2):143-6. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      10. Dong B, Chen M. Improved sonographic visualization of choledocholithiasis. J Clin Ultrasound. 1987;15(3):185-90. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      11. Burtin P, Palazzo L, Canard JM, Person B, Oberti F, Boyer J. Diagnostic strategies for extrahepatic cholestasis of indefinite origin: endoscopic ultrasonography or retrograde cholangiography? Results of a prospective study. Endoscopy. 1997;29(5):349-55. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      12. Borsch G, Wegener M, Wedmann B, Kissler M, Glocke M. Clinical evaluation, ultrasound, cholescintigraphy, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in cholestasis. A prospective comparative clinical study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1988;10(2):185-90. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      13. Bilbao MK, Dotter CT, Lee TG, Katon RM. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A study of 10,000 cases. Gastroenterology. 1976;70(3):314-20. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      14. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennerty MB, Lee JG, Bjorkman DJ, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54(4):425-34. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      15. Gulliver DJ, Baker ME, Cheng CA, Meyers WC, Pappas TN. Malignant biliary obstruction: efficacy of thin-section dynamic CT in determining resectability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(3):503-7. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      16. Bipat S, Phoa SS, van Delden OM, Bossuyt PM, Gouma DJ, Lameris JS, et al. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and determining resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005;29(4):438-45. (Level I/II evidence). View the reference
      17. Diehl SJ, Lehmann KJ, Sadick M, Lachmann R, Georgi M. Pancreatic cancer: value of dual-phase helical CT in assessing resectability. Radiology. 1998;206(2):373-8. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      18. Neitlich JD, Topazian M, Smith RC, Gupta A, Burrell MI, Rosenfield AT. Detection of choledocholithiasis: comparison of unenhanced helical CT and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1997;203(3):753-7. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      19. Kim HJ, Park DI, Park JH, Cho YK, Sohn CI, Jeon WK, et al. Multidetector computed tomography cholangiography with multiplanar reformation for the assessment of patients with biliary obstruction. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22(3):400-5. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      20. Zhang ZY, Wang D, Ni JM, Yu XR, Zhang L, Wu WJ, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional negative-contrast CT cholangiopancreatography with three-dimensional MR cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of obstructive biliary diseases. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(5):830-7. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      21. Mueller PR, Harbin WP, Ferrucci JT, Jr., Wittenberg J, vanSonnenberg E. Fine-needle transhepatic cholangiography: reflections after 450 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;136(1):85-90. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      22. Varghese JC, Farrell MA, Courtney G, Osborne H, Murray FE, Lee MJ. Role of MR cholangiopancreatography in patients with failed or inadequate ERCP. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(6):1527-33. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      23. Fulcher AS, Turner MA, Capps GW, Zfass AM, Baker KM. Half-Fourier RARE MR cholangiopancreatography: experience in 300 subjects. Radiology. 1998;207(1):21-32. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      24. Soto JA, Yucel EK, Barish MA, Chuttani R, Ferrucci JT. MR cholangiopancreatography after unsuccessful or incomplete ERCP. Radiology. 1996;199(1):91-8. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      25. Ali M, Ahmed I, Akhtar W, Sattar A, Hussain M, Abbas Z. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography in evaluation of obstructive jaundice. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62(10):1053-6. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      26. Guibaud L, Bret PM, Reinhold C, Atri M, Barkun AN. Bile duct obstruction and choledocholithiasis: diagnosis with MR cholangiography. Radiology. 1995;197(1):109-15. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      27. Becker CD, Grossholz M, Becker M, Mentha G, de Peyer R, Terrier F. Choledocholithiasis and bile duct stenosis: diagnostic accuracy of MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1997;205(2):523-30. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      28. Soto JA, Barish MA, Yucel EK, Siegenberg D, Ferrucci JT, Chuttani R. Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology. 1996;110(2):589-97. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      29. Palmucci S, Mauro LA, La Scola S, Incarbone S, Bonanno G, Milone P, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of extrahepatic biliary pathology. Radiol Med. 2010;115(5):732-46. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      30. Liang C, Mao H, Wang Q, Han D, Li Yuxia L, Yue J, et al. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in malignant obstructive jaundice. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2011;61(2):383-8. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      31. Bhat M, Romagnuolo J, da Silveira E, Reinhold C, Valois E, Martel M, et al. Randomised clinical trial: MRCP-first vs. ERCP-first approach in patients with suspected biliary obstruction due to bile duct stones. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38(9):1045-53. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      32. Guarise A, Venturini S, Faccioli N, Pinali L, Morana G. Role of magnetic resonance in characterising extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. Radiol Med. 2006;111(4):526-38. (Level IV evidence). View the reference
      33. Katabathina VS, Dasyam AK, Dasyam N, Hosseinzadeh K. Adult bile duct strictures: role of MR imaging and MR cholangiopancreatography in characterization. Radiographics. 2014;34(3):565-86. (Review article). View the reference
      34. Weiss CR, Georgiades C, Hofmann LV, Schulick R, Choti M, Thuluvath P, et al. Intrabiliary MR imaging: assessment of biliary obstruction with use of an intraluminal MR receiver coil. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(5):845-53. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      35. Reiner CS, Merkle EM, Bashir MR, Walle NL, Nazeer HK, Gupta RT. MRI assessment of biliary ductal obstruction: is there added value of T1-weighted gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced MR cholangiography? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(1):W49-56. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      36. Saluja SS, Sharma R, Pal S, Sahni P, Chattopadhyay TK. Differentiation between benign and malignant hilar obstructions using laboratory and radiological investigations: a prospective study. HPB (Oxford). 2007;9(5):373-82. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      37. Kim JY, Lee JM, Han JK, Kim SH, Lee JY, Choi JY, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI combined with MR cholangiopancreatography for the evaluation of patients with biliary strictures: differentiation of malignant from benign bile duct strictures. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(2):304-12. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      38. Rosch T, Braig C, Gain T, Feuerbach S, Siewert JR, Schusdziarra V, et al. Staging of pancreatic and ampullary carcinoma by endoscopic ultrasonography. Comparison with conventional sonography, computed tomography, and angiography. Gastroenterology. 1992;102(1):188-99. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      39. Tio TL, Sie LH, Kallimanis G, Luiken GJ, Kimmings AN, Huibregtse K, et al. Staging of ampullary and pancreatic carcinoma: comparison between endosonography and surgery. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44(6):706-13. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      40. Ang TL, Teo EK, Fock KM. Endosonography vs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-based strategies in the evaluation of suspected common bile duct stones in patients with normal transabdominal imaging. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26(8):1163-70. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      41. Tozzi di Angelo I, Prochazka V, Holinka M, Zapletalova J. Endosonography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in diagnosing extrahepatic biliary obstruction. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2011;155(4):339-46. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      42. Napoleon B. Diagnosis of biliary lesions: role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of cholestasis. Endoscopy. 1998;30: (S1):A116-9.
      43. Lee YT, Chan FK, Leung WK, Chan HL, Wu JC, Yung MY, et al. Comparison of EUS and ERCP in the investigation with suspected biliary obstruction caused by choledocholithiasis: a randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67(4):660-8. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      44. Rosch T, Hofrichter K, Frimberger E, Meining A, Born P, Weigert N, et al. ERCP or EUS for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures? A prospective comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60(3):390-6. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      45. Prat F, Amouyal G, Amouyal P, Pelletier G, Fritsch J, Choury AD, et al. Prospective controlled study of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspected common-bileduct lithiasis. Lancet. 1996;347(8994):75-9. (Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      46. Amouyal P, Amouyal G, Mompoint D, Gayet B, Palazzo L, Ponsot P, et al. Endosonography: Promising method for diagnosis of extrahepatic cholestasis. Lancet.334(8673):1195-8. Level II/III evidence). View the reference
      47. Petrov MS, Savides TJ. Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasonography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis. Br J Surg. 2009;96(9):967-74. (Level I evidence). View the reference
      48. Ross WA, Wasan SM, Evans DB, Wolff RA, Trapani LV, Staerkel GA, et al. Combined EUS with FNA and ERCP for the evaluation of patients with obstructive jaundice from presumed pancreatic malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68(3):461-6. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      49. Chu YL, Wang XF, Gao XZ, Qiao XL, Liu F, Yu SY, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography in tandem with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the management of suspected distal obstructive jaundice. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25(4):455-9. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      50. Agarwal B, Krishna NB, Labundy JL, Safdar R, Akduman EI. EUS and / or EUS-guided FNA in patients with CT and/or magnetic resonance imaging findings of enlarged pancreatic head or dilated pancreatic duct with or without a dilated common bile duct. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68(2):237 -42. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      51. Krishna NB, LaBundy JL, Saripalli S, Safdar R, Agarwal B. Diagnostic value of EUS-FNA in patients suspected of having pancreatic cancer with a focal lesion on CT scan/MRI but without obstructive jaundice. Pancreas. 2009;38(6):625-30. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      52. Horwhat JD, Gerke H, Acosta RD, Pavey DA, Jowell PS. Focal or diffuse "fullness" of the pancreas on CT. Usually benign, but EUS plus/minus FNA is warranted to identify malignancy. JOP. 2009;10(1):37-42. (Level III evidence). View the reference
      53. Weilert F, Bhat YM, Binmoeller KF, Kane S, Jaffee IM, Shaw RE, et al. EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP-based tissue sampling in suspected malignant biliary obstruction: results of a prospective, single-blind, comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(1):97-104. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      54. Ledro-Cano D. Suspected choledocholithiasis: endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography? A systematic review. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;19(11):1007-11. (Level I evidence). View the reference
      55. Alibrahim E, Gibson RN, Vincent J, Speer T, Collier N, Jardine C. Spiral computed tomography-intravenous cholangiography with three- dimensional reconstructions for imaging the biliary tree. Australas Radiol. 2006;50(2):136-42. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      56. Gibson RN, Vincent JM, Speer T, Collier NA, Noack K. Accuracy of computed tomographic intravenous cholangiography (CT-IVC) with iotroxate in the detection of choledocholithiasis. European Radiology. 2005;15(8):1634-42. (Level II evidence). View the reference
      57. Cabada Giadas T, Sarria Octavio de Toledo L, Martinez-Berganza Asensio MT, Cozcolluela Cabrejas R, Alberdi Ibanez I, Alvarez Lopez A, et al. Helical CT cholangiography in the evaluation of the biliary tract: application to the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Abdom Imaging. 2002;27 (1):61-70. (Level II evidence). View the reference

Further Reading

      1. T Hyodo, S Kumano, F Kushihata, M Okada, M Hirata, T Tsuda, et al. CT and MR cholangiography: advantages and pitfalls in perioperative evaluation of biliary tree. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1015):887–96. (Review article). View the reference

Pathway User Guide

Yellow Boxes Denotes extra information. Some contain single or multiple white sub-boxes, click a white box to reveal detailed information in a pop-up.

White Boxes: Denotes standard pathway steps. (If inside a yellow box, they open a specific pop-up).

Zoom & Pan Controls: Use + / − or the slider to zoom. Reset returns to default. Tick Panning to drag the diagram when zoomed.

Blue “View Full Screen” Button: Opens the whole diagram in a large, full-screen pop-up window. Use Close to exit.

The relative radiation level (RRL) of each imaging investigation is displayed in the pop up box.

SYMBOL RRL EFFECTIVE DOSE RANGE
No radiation None 0
Minimal radiation Minimal < 1 millisieverts
Low radiation Low 1-5 mSv
Medium radiation Medium 5-10 mSv
High radiation High >10 mSv

Disclaimer

Status Of Recommendations Each pathway is designed to assist clinicians in situations when faced with a large array of possible diagnostic tests and examinations. However, it is recognised that diagnostic practice may differ from a particular pathway depending on local availability of equipment and expertise, as well as the experience of individual clinicians. Therefore each pathway is neither a rigid set of rules, nor a substitute for clinical assessment, and individual patient circumstances should always be considered.

Report an Issue

Spotted an error or outdated info? Click to tell us.

Liver and Biliary