Appendiceal Mucinous Adenocarcinoma: CT Findings, HAMN, Pathology, and Pseudomyxoma Peritonei

 Executive Answer 

A markedly dilated, cystic appendix with mural calcification should not be dismissed as simple appendicitis or nonspecific fluid collection. In this case, a man in his early 60s presented with acute abdominal pain, and ultrasound and contrast-enhanced CT demonstrated a large pear-shaped appendiceal lesion with a thick wall, mixed internal attenuation, and calcification. The final pathology showed mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in association with high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (HAMN), with invasion into the muscularis propria. The key radiologic lesson is simple: when an enlarged appendix becomes cystic, the radiologist must determine not only whether it is dilated, but why—and whether there is evidence of invasive disease or peritoneal spread.

Why This Case Matters

Acute abdominal pain naturally directs clinical attention toward common emergency diagnoses, particularly acute appendicitis. That diagnostic reflex is appropriate in many patients, but it can become a cognitive trap when the appendix has an unusual morphology.

A markedly enlarged appendix that appears cystic or tubular should trigger a different set of questions:

• Is this truly an inflamed appendix?
• Is the appendix unusually dilated?
• Is the content simple fluid or mucin?
• Is there mural calcification?
• Is the wall smooth, thickened, irregular, or nodular?
• Is there a solid component?
• Is the lesion ruptured?
• Is there mucinous material elsewhere in the peritoneal cavity?
• Are there peritoneal nodules, omental abnormalities, or organ-surface scalloping?
• Is there lymphadenopathy or distant disease?

This case demonstrates why the radiologist should move beyond the descriptive label “appendiceal mucocele.” The imaging appearance may suggest a mucin-filled dilated appendix, but the underlying pathology can range from non-neoplastic obstruction to low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN), high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (HAMN), and invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma.

The distinction matters because the pathology determines clinical management, staging, surgical planning, and surveillance.

Clinical Scenario

A man in his early 60s presented with acute abdominal pain.

Abdominal ultrasound demonstrated a pear-shaped mixed-echogenic structure in the right iliac fossa. There was no significant surrounding fluid collection requiring drainage.

Because ultrasound cannot reliably establish the histologic nature of an appendiceal mucinous lesion, the differential diagnosis included appendiceal mucocele, cystic neoplasm, and other cystic fluid-containing lesions.

Contrast-enhanced abdominal and pelvic CT was subsequently performed.

CT demonstrated a relatively large, elongated, pear-shaped cystic lesion in the right iliac fossa, corresponding anatomically to the appendix. The lesion had a thickened wall, mural calcification, mixed internal attenuation, and coarse calcification. There was no convincing ascites, obvious mucinous peritoneal disease, or prominent surrounding inflammatory fat stranding in the described case.

The patient underwent open appendectomy. Histopathologic examination demonstrated mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in association with HAMN.

The tumor involved the appendix extensively and measured 9 × 4 × 3.5 cm. Invasion into the muscularis propria was identified. Tumor deposits, lymphovascular invasion, and perineural invasion were not identified. The reported pathologic stage was pT2 Nx Mx.

A right hemicolectomy was subsequently performed.

The reported serum tumor markers were:

• CEA: 2.05 ng/mL
• CA 19-9: 42.86 U/mL

These values should be interpreted in the context of the complete clinical and pathologic assessment rather than as independent diagnostic tests.

Ultrasound: The First Clue May Be Morphology

The initial ultrasound finding was a pear-shaped mixed-echogenic structure in the right iliac fossa.

The important point is not simply that the lesion was cystic.

Its shape, location, and relationship to the appendix were more informative.

A tubular or pear-shaped cystic structure in the expected location of the appendix should prompt an attempt to establish appendiceal continuity. A markedly enlarged appendix with mucinous material may appear as a cystic or tubular structure rather than the familiar blind-ending, compressible appendix of routine sonographic evaluation.

In some appendiceal mucinous lesions, concentric echogenic layers can produce an “onion-skin” appearance. Calcification may also generate posterior acoustic shadowing.

From a practical radiology perspective, the following combination deserves attention:

Right iliac fossa + pear-shaped cystic structure + appendiceal location

The presence of this pattern should move the differential away from uncomplicated appendicitis and toward an appendiceal mucinous process.

Figure 1. Abdominal ultrasound showing a pear-shaped mixed-echogenic lesion in the right iliac fossa.

The lesion has an elongated configuration and should be evaluated for continuity with the appendix.

The key diagnostic question is not simply “Is there a cystic lesion?” but rather:

“Is this cystic structure actually a markedly dilated appendix?”

CT: The Examination That Defines the Problem

CT provides a broader anatomic field of view and is particularly valuable for determining the origin of a cystic right lower quadrant lesion.

In this case, the CT morphology included:

CT finding	Radiologic significance
Markedly dilated appendix	Suggests an appendiceal structural abnormality
Pear-shaped/elongated morphology	Supports appendiceal origin
Cystic internal content	Suggests mucinous or fluid-filled distention
Thickened wall	Raises concern for a neoplastic process
Mural calcification	Important clue to appendiceal mucinous neoplasm
Coarse calcification	May reflect chronic mucinous change
Mixed internal attenuation	May reflect different mucin concentrations or internal components
Limited surrounding inflammatory change	Makes uncomplicated acute appendicitis less typical
No obvious peritoneal mucinous disease	No definite imaging evidence of pseudomyxoma peritonei in the described examination

The most useful CT pattern can be summarized as:

Dilated appendix + cystic/mucinous content + mural calcification

When these findings occur together, an appendiceal mucinous neoplasm should be actively considered.

Importantly, mural calcification is not synonymous with invasive carcinoma.

Calcification increases suspicion for an appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, but it does not independently determine whether the lesion is LAMN, HAMN, or invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma.

Mural Calcification on CT

Figure 2. Axial contrast-enhanced CT demonstrating a pear-shaped cystic appendiceal lesion with mural calcification.

The appendix is markedly expanded and contains cystic material. Calcification is visible along the lesion wall.

Radiologist's Interpretation

The combination of appendiceal dilatation, cystic content, and mural calcification is highly relevant when evaluating a suspected appendiceal mucinous neoplasm.

However, the calcification should be interpreted as one component of a larger morphologic pattern rather than as an isolated marker of malignancy.

The next question should always be:

What does the wall look like?

Coarse Calcification and Complex Internal Architecture

Figure 3. Axial contrast-enhanced CT demonstrating coarse calcification within the appendiceal lesion.

Coarse calcification may occur in chronic mucinous lesions. However, the radiologist should not stop the interpretation after identifying calcification.

The entire lesion should be evaluated for:

• irregular mural thickening,
• mural nodules,
• enhancing soft-tissue components,
• invasive extension,
• adjacent organ involvement,
• lymphadenopathy,
• rupture,
• peritoneal mucin,
• peritoneal nodules,
• omental disease, and
• scalloping of the liver or spleen surfaces.

This distinction is fundamental.

Calcification is a clue.
Wall morphology and disease distribution determine risk.

An Incidental Pancreatic Finding

The CT examination also demonstrated pancreatic duct dilatation.

The case documentation describes a normal common bile duct and no gallstones, and discusses the possibility of an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) as a separate consideration.

This finding should not automatically be interpreted as being related to the appendiceal lesion.

Figure 4. Axial Contrast-Enhanced CT Showing Pancreatic Duct Dilatation

The pancreatic duct abnormality represents a separate imaging finding requiring appropriate clinical and pancreatic evaluation.

This illustrates an important principle of abdominal imaging:

Finding the primary lesion is not the end of the examination.

Once a major abnormality is identified, the remainder of the CT study still requires systematic review.

A radiologist should avoid “satisfaction of search”—the tendency to stop searching after finding an explanation for the patient's symptoms.

Coronal CT and the Longitudinal Anatomy of the Appendix

Figure 5. Coronal contrast-enhanced CT demonstrating the elongated cystic appendiceal lesion.

Coronal reconstruction is particularly helpful when a lesion is elongated.

It allows the radiologist to assess:

• the total longitudinal extent of the lesion,
• the relationship to the cecum,
• the ileocecal region,
• pelvic extension,
• adjacent bowel,
• mesentery,
• and other nearby structures.

In an enlarged appendiceal lesion, axial images alone may underestimate the longitudinal configuration.

Multiplanar CT reconstruction therefore contributes not only to diagnosis but also to surgical planning.

Sagittal CT and Surgical Anatomy

Figure 6. Sagittal contrast-enhanced CT demonstrating the appendiceal mass.

Sagittal imaging helps establish the anterior-posterior location of the lesion and its relationship to adjacent bowel and pelvic structures.

The practical principle is:

Do not describe the lesion merely as a cyst. Establish its organ of origin.

For a suspected appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, identifying appendiceal origin, cecal relationship, extension, and potential rupture is more clinically useful than simply reporting lesion size.

What Is an Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm?

Appendiceal mucinous neoplasms represent a spectrum of epithelial lesions characterized by mucin production and expansion of the appendiceal lumen.

The terminology is important because different pathologic entities have different biological implications.

LAMN

Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) is characterized by low-grade cytologic atypia and characteristic appendiceal mucinous growth.

HAMN

High-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (HAMN) demonstrates high-grade cytologic atypia but is distinguished pathologically from invasive adenocarcinoma when infiltrative invasion is absent.

Mucinous Adenocarcinoma

Mucinous adenocarcinoma is an invasive malignant epithelial neoplasm.

Therefore:

HAMN and mucinous adenocarcinoma are not interchangeable diagnoses.

That distinction is central to this case because the final pathology demonstrated mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in association with HAMN, rather than isolated HAMN.

The pathology also documented invasion into the muscularis propria.

Why Can Mucin Accumulate in the Appendix?

The basic pathophysiology is relatively intuitive.

Mucin-producing epithelial cells generate mucin within the appendiceal lumen. As mucin accumulates and outflow becomes impaired, the appendix progressively dilates.

The result may appear on imaging as a cystic or tubular structure.

With chronic distention and mucinous disease, calcification may develop.

The major clinical concern is rupture.

If the appendiceal wall ruptures, mucin can escape into the peritoneal cavity. When the extruded material contains neoplastic epithelial cells, mucinous peritoneal dissemination can develop and may eventually produce pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP).

This is why the CT examination must extend beyond the appendix itself.

The Peritoneum Is the Second Diagnosis You Must Look For

When an appendiceal mucinous neoplasm is suspected, the radiologist should deliberately inspect the entire peritoneal cavity.

Look for:

• mucinous ascites,
• peritoneal nodules,
• omental involvement,
• scalloping of the liver surface,
• scalloping of the splenic surface,
• pelvic mucinous deposits,
• calcified peritoneal deposits,
• and displacement or compression of bowel loops.

The absence of these findings in this case is important because there was no clear imaging evidence of peritoneal disease in the described examination.

But the absence of visible peritoneal disease does not eliminate the importance of the underlying pathology.

The imaging question is:

Is there radiologically evident peritoneal dissemination?

The pathologic question is:

What is the biological nature and depth of invasion of the primary tumor?

These are related, but they are not the same question.

Why HAMN and Mucinous Adenocarcinoma Must Be Distinguished

A major source of diagnostic confusion is the tendency to group all mucinous appendiceal lesions together.

That approach is inadequate.

The distinction between LAMN, HAMN, and invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma depends on pathologic features, particularly the presence or absence of infiltrative invasion.

In this case, the tumor invaded the muscularis propria.

The final diagnosis was therefore not simply a cystic appendiceal neoplasm.

It was:

Mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in association with high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm.

This is precisely why radiology should be viewed as a risk-stratification tool rather than as a substitute for pathology.

Differential Diagnosis of a Cystic Right Lower Quadrant Lesion

A large cystic lesion in the right iliac fossa has a broad differential diagnosis.

Diagnosis	Imaging clue	Important distinction
Acute appendicitis	Enlarged thick-walled appendix with surrounding inflammatory change	Prominent fat stranding and inflammatory findings favor acute appendicitis
Simple appendiceal mucinous retention	Appendiceal dilatation	Usually lacks concerning neoplastic wall morphology
LAMN	Cystic appendiceal expansion, mucin, possible calcification	Low-grade pathologic classification
HAMN	Mucinous appendiceal lesion with high-grade cytology	Must be distinguished pathologically from invasive adenocarcinoma
Mucinous adenocarcinoma	Cystic lesion with irregularity, nodularity, invasion or other high-risk features	Final diagnosis requires pathology
Abscess	Thick wall and surrounding inflammatory change	Infection and fat stranding are important clues
Mesenteric cyst	Cystic mesenteric lesion	Usually lacks direct appendiceal continuity
Appendiceal neuroendocrine tumor	Often a small solid lesion	Different morphology from a large cystic mucinous lesion
Adnexal lesion	Pelvic cystic mass	Relevant mainly in female patients
Intussusception-related lesion	Target or bowel-within-bowel appearance	May be secondary to an underlying tumor

No single CT feature reliably separates every mucinous appendiceal neoplasm from every other entity.

The correct approach is pattern recognition followed by structured risk assessment.

What Should the Radiologist Evaluate on CT?

A practical CT checklist is:

1. Appendix size

Is the appendix substantially enlarged?

A markedly enlarged appendix should raise suspicion for a mucinous neoplasm, particularly when the morphology is cystic.

2. Internal content

Is the lumen filled with simple fluid, heterogeneous material, or material compatible with mucin?

3. Wall morphology

Is the wall:

• thin,
• thickened,
• smooth,
• irregular,
• nodular,
• or associated with an enhancing solid component?

4. Calcification

Is there:

• mural calcification,
• curvilinear calcification,
• focal coarse calcification,
• or more extensive calcification?

5. Surrounding inflammation

Is there:

• fat stranding,
• fluid,
• abscess formation,
• or extraluminal gas?

6. Evidence of rupture

Is there discontinuity of the appendiceal wall or extraluminal mucin?

7. Peritoneal disease

Look carefully for:

• mucinous ascites,
• peritoneal nodules,
• omental disease,
• organ-surface scalloping,
• and calcified peritoneal deposits.

8. Lymph nodes and distant disease

Assess regional lymph nodes and the liver and other relevant structures for metastatic disease.

9. Surgical anatomy

Document the relationship of the lesion to:

• the cecum,
• terminal ileum,
• ileocecal valve,
• mesentery,
• pelvic structures,
• and adjacent organs.

This final step converts a diagnostic CT into a useful preoperative map.

Tumor Markers: Helpful, But Not Decisive

The case reported:

CEA = 2.05 ng/mL

CA 19-9 = 42.86 U/mL

Tumor markers such as CEA, CA 19-9, and CA-125 may be considered in the evaluation and follow-up of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms.

However, they should never be interpreted in isolation.

A normal tumor marker does not exclude appendiceal malignancy, and an elevated marker does not independently establish the diagnosis.

The imaging, pathology, operative findings, and disease distribution must be integrated.

Pathology: The Detail That Changes the Clinical Meaning

The final pathologic findings in this case were:

• Diagnosis: mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in association with HAMN
• Tumor location: throughout the appendix
• Tumor size: 9 × 4 × 3.5 cm
• Invasion: muscularis propria
• Tumor deposits: not identified
• Lymphovascular invasion: not identified
• Perineural invasion: not identified
• Regional lymph nodes submitted: none
• Pathologic stage: pT2 Nx Mx
• Subsequent surgery: right hemicolectomy

One detail deserves particular emphasis:

Nx is not N0.

Nx means that the regional lymph-node status could not be adequately assessed pathologically.

A radiology or pathology report should not silently convert Nx into “no nodal metastasis.”

This distinction is small on paper but important in clinical staging.

Treatment: Why Appendectomy May Not Be the End of the Story

Management depends on the exact pathologic classification, depth of invasion, margin status, lymph-node evaluation, tumor grade, rupture, peritoneal disease, and other risk factors.

In this case, appendectomy was performed initially. After mucinous adenocarcinoma associated with HAMN was identified, right hemicolectomy was subsequently performed.

For patients with peritoneal involvement, management can become substantially more complex.

Depending on the pathology and extent of disease, multidisciplinary evaluation may consider:

• cytoreductive surgery (CRS),
• intraperitoneal chemotherapy,
• hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC),
• systemic treatment when appropriate,
• and structured surveillance.

The decision is not determined by the word “mucinous” alone.

Prognostic Factors

Prognosis is influenced by multiple factors rather than by the diagnosis label alone.

Important considerations include:

• invasive histology,
• tumor grade,
• T stage,
• lymph-node status,
• peritoneal disease,
• cellular mucin,
• tumor rupture,
• signet-ring cell component,
• completeness of cytoreduction when relevant,
• and margin status.

The present case had no reported tumor deposits, lymphovascular invasion, or perineural invasion. However, the lymph-node status was reported as Nx rather than N0.

That distinction should remain visible in the interpretation of the case.

Why This Finding Can Be Missed

The most important diagnostic risk in this case is not simply a failure to recognize calcification.

It is anchoring on the initial clinical presentation.

Acute abdominal pain may lead to an expectation of acute appendicitis.

Once a radiologist sees a right lower quadrant lesion, there may also be a tendency to describe it as a “mucocele” and move on.

A more robust workflow is:

Clinical symptom → anatomy → morphology → disease spectrum → complications → staging

The key cognitive checkpoint is:

“If this is an enlarged appendix, why is it enlarged?”

That question changes the interpretation from description to diagnosis.

AI Perspective: Where Medical Imaging AI Could Help

This case also illustrates a realistic role for AI in radiology.

An AI system could potentially support:

• identification of an abnormally enlarged appendix,
• detection of unusual cystic morphology,
• recognition of mural calcification,
• automated measurements,
• comparison with prior examinations,
• identification of possible peritoneal abnormalities,
• and structured reporting prompts.

In an enterprise imaging environment, a conceptual workflow could be:

DICOM → PACS → AI orchestration → AI inference → PACS visualization → Radiologist → RIS/EHR

The objective should not be to have AI “diagnose” mucinous adenocarcinoma independently.

A more realistic role is second-reader support.

AI may help bring an unusual appendiceal morphology to the radiologist's attention, particularly in high-volume emergency CT workflows.

Where AI Can Fail

The same case demonstrates why AI should not replace radiologic judgment.

Potential failure modes include:

• false-negative detection,
• false-positive alerts,
• poor image quality,
• unusual anatomy,
• domain shift,
• dataset bias,
• incorrect localization,
• unexpected pathology,
• automation bias,
• and alert fatigue.

A model trained primarily to detect acute appendicitis may not perform equally well when confronted with a rare mucinous neoplasm.

The system may recognize “appendix abnormality” without correctly understanding the biological significance.

Therefore, the radiologist must verify:

Where is the lesion?
What is its morphology?
What is the wall doing?
Is there peritoneal disease?
Does the clinical context fit?

AI can redistribute attention.

It does not eliminate diagnostic responsibility.

Imaging Physics: Why CT Is Particularly Useful for This Problem

CT is well suited to this type of lesion because it combines high spatial resolution with a large field of view.

In a mucinous appendiceal lesion, CT can simultaneously demonstrate:

• fluid or low-attenuation content,
• soft-tissue wall morphology,
• calcification,
• adjacent inflammatory change,
• extraluminal material,
• bowel relationships,
• lymph nodes,
• and peritoneal abnormalities.

Calcification is particularly conspicuous on CT because calcium produces high X-ray attenuation.

Multiplanar reconstruction further improves understanding of the lesion's longitudinal anatomy.

This is one reason axial, coronal, and sagittal images should be reviewed together when an enlarged appendiceal mass is suspected.

A Practical Diagnostic Algorithm

A useful workflow is:

The key is that the algorithm does not stop at “appendiceal mucocele.”

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall 1: Calling every cystic appendix “appendicitis”

A markedly dilated cystic appendix without the expected inflammatory pattern deserves a broader differential.

Pitfall 2: Treating calcification as proof of cancer

Calcification is an important clue but is not by itself proof of invasive adenocarcinoma.

Pitfall 3: Ignoring the wall

Wall irregularity and nodularity may be more informative for risk assessment than calcification alone.

Pitfall 4: Looking only at the appendix

The peritoneal cavity must be reviewed for mucinous dissemination.

Pitfall 5: Stopping after finding the main lesion

The pancreatic duct abnormality in this case illustrates why the entire examination must be reviewed.

Pitfall 6: Treating HAMN and adenocarcinoma as synonyms

They are pathologically distinct entities.

Pitfall 7: Interpreting Nx as N0

Nx means that nodal status could not be adequately assessed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the key CT finding of an appendiceal mucinous neoplasm?

The key pattern is a markedly dilated, cystic or mucin-filled appendix, particularly when mural calcification is present. Wall irregularity, nodularity, solid components, rupture, and peritoneal disease increase the need for careful assessment.

Does mural calcification mean appendiceal cancer?

No. Mural calcification is an important imaging clue for appendiceal mucinous neoplasia, but it does not independently establish invasive adenocarcinoma.

How are LAMN, HAMN, and mucinous adenocarcinoma different?

LAMN is a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. HAMN has high-grade cytologic atypia but is distinguished from invasive adenocarcinoma when infiltrative invasion is absent. Mucinous adenocarcinoma demonstrates invasive malignant growth.

Why is pseudomyxoma peritonei important?

If an appendiceal mucinous lesion ruptures and mucin containing neoplastic cells spreads throughout the peritoneal cavity, progressive peritoneal mucinous disease can develop. CT should therefore evaluate the entire peritoneal cavity, not only the appendix.

Is CT better than ultrasound for evaluating these lesions?

Ultrasound can identify a cystic or tubular right lower quadrant lesion and may provide the first clue. CT offers a broader field of view and is particularly useful for assessing calcification, wall morphology, surrounding structures, rupture, and peritoneal disease.

Is MRI required for every appendiceal mucinous lesion?

Not necessarily. The appropriate imaging strategy depends on the clinical context and the specific diagnostic question. CT is highly informative for the anatomy and calcification described in this case.

Can normal tumor markers exclude appendiceal cancer?

No. Tumor markers are adjunctive information and should be integrated with imaging, pathology, operative findings, and clinical context.

Why is Nx important?

Nx indicates that regional lymph-node status could not be adequately assessed. It should not be interpreted as equivalent to pathologic N0.

What is the most important imaging question after finding an appendiceal mucinous lesion?

After establishing the appendiceal origin, the critical next question is whether there is evidence of rupture or peritoneal dissemination.

Radiology Pearls

Pearl 1: A cystic right lower quadrant lesion may actually be a markedly dilated appendix.

Pearl 2: Think beyond “mucocele.” Determine the underlying pathologic spectrum.

Pearl 3: Dilated appendix + cystic content + mural calcification is a high-value imaging pattern.

Pearl 4: Calcification raises suspicion for mucinous neoplasia but does not independently prove malignancy.

Pearl 5: Wall irregularity, mural nodularity, solid components, and invasion deserve particular attention.

Pearl 6: Always evaluate for rupture and peritoneal disease.

Pearl 7: Coronal and sagittal reconstructions are important when the appendiceal lesion is elongated.

Pearl 8: A separate abnormality elsewhere in the abdomen should not be ignored after the primary lesion is found.

Pearl 9: HAMN and mucinous adenocarcinoma are pathologically distinct.

Pearl 10: Do not report or interpret Nx as N0.

The Take-Home Message

The most important lesson from this case is not the size of the lesion.

It is the recognition of an abnormal appendix that no longer behaves like an ordinary appendix.

When a patient with acute abdominal pain has a large pear-shaped or tubular cystic lesion in the right iliac fossa, particularly when mural or coarse calcification is present, the radiologist should actively consider an appendiceal mucinous neoplasm.

The diagnostic pathway should then move beyond morphology:

Is the appendix enlarged?

Is it filled with mucin?

Is the wall abnormal?

Is there calcification?

Is there a mural nodule or solid component?

Has the lesion ruptured?

Is there peritoneal disease?

What is the relationship to the cecum and adjacent structures?

And finally:

What does the pathology show?

In this case, that final question revealed mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in association with HAMN, with invasion into the muscularis propria.

The central radiologic lesson is therefore straightforward:

When a cystic appendix looks unusual, do not stop at “mucocele.” Find the origin, characterize the wall, search the peritoneum, understand the anatomy, and communicate the level of concern clearly.

Continue Learning

If you want to understand the imaging distinction between inflammatory and neoplastic appendiceal disease:

[INTERNAL LINK] Acute Appendicitis vs Appendiceal Tumor: CT Imaging Differences

If you want to understand cystic abdominal masses:

[INTERNAL LINK] How to Evaluate Cystic Abdominal Masses on CT

If you want to understand peritoneal dissemination:

[INTERNAL LINK] CT Findings of Peritoneal Metastatic Disease

If you want to understand right-sided colonic disease:

[INTERNAL LINK] Right Colon Lesions and Lymph Node Evaluation on CT

Medical Disclaimer

This article is intended for medical education and professional information. It does not replace individualized diagnosis, treatment planning, or consultation with a qualified healthcare professional. Base clinical decisions on the complete clinical, imaging, pathologic, and multidisciplinary context.

References

1. Godfrey EL, Mahoney F, Bansal VV, et al. Consensus guideline for the management of patients with appendiceal tumors, part 1: Appendiceal tumors without peritoneal involvement. Cancer. 2025. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.35867.
2. Godfrey EL, Mahoney F, Bansal VV, et al. Consensus guideline for the management of patients with appendiceal tumors, part 2: Appendiceal tumors with peritoneal involvement. Cancer. 2025. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.35874.
3. Jorgenson LC, Wang SS, Grotz TE, et al. Mucinous Appendiceal Neoplasms and Pseudomyxoma Peritonei: Imaging Features and Current Therapies. RadioGraphics. 2025;45. DOI: 10.1148/rg.240131.
4. Leonards LM, Pahwa A, Patel MK, et al. Neoplasms of the Appendix: Pictorial Review with Clinical and Pathologic Correlation. RadioGraphics. 2017;37(4):1059–1083. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2017160150.
5. Tirumani SH, Fraser-Hill M, Auer R, et al. Mucinous neoplasms of the appendix: a current comprehensive clinicopathologic and imaging review. Cancer Imaging. 2013;13:14–25. DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0003.
6. Van Hooser A, Williams TR, Myers DT. Mucinous appendiceal neoplasms: pathologic classification, clinical implications, imaging spectrum and mimics. Abdominal Radiology. 2018;43(11):2913–2922. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-018-1561-9.
7. Kang DW, Kim BH, Kim JM, et al. Standardization of the pathologic diagnosis of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms. Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine. 2021;55(4):247–264. DOI: 10.4132/jptm.2021.05.28.
8. Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Staging and Disease Monitoring of Colon Cancer and Appendiceal Cancer. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2025;22(11S)–S637. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2025.08.036.
9. Seldomridge AN, White MG, Scally C, et al. Clinicopathologic and Molecular Characteristics of High-Grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasms. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2026. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-025-18672-0.
10. Pattalachinti VK, et al. Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma Cytoreduction Outcomes and Perioperative Serum Tumor Marker Levels. JAMA Network Open. 2026. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.10569.

Edited by ScholarGen MediAI Team