MR findings of focal eosinophilic liver disease using gadoxetic acid

Atypical Appearance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Its Mimickers: How to Solve Challenging Cases Using Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be diagnosed noninvasively with contrast-enhanced dynamic computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasonography on the basis of its hallmark imaging features of arterial phase hyperenhancement and washout on portal or delayed phase images. However, approximately 40% of HCCs show atypical imaging features, posing a significant diagnostic challenge for radiologists. Another challenge for radiologists in clinical practice is the presentation of many HCC mimickers such as intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, combined HCC-cholangiocarcinoma, arterioportal shunt, and hemangioma in the cirrhotic liver. The differentiation of HCCs from these mimickers on preoperative imaging studies is of critical importance. Hence, we will review the typical and atypical imaging features of HCCs and the imaging features of its common mimickers. In addition, we will discuss how to solve these challenges in practice.

Characterization of incidental liver lesions: comparison of multidetector CT versus Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging

As a result of recent developments in imaging modalities and wide spread routine medical checkups and screening, more incidental liver lesions are found frequently on US these days. When incidental liver lesions are found on US, physicians have to make a decision whether to just follow up or to undergo additional imaging studies for lesion characterization. In order to choose the next appropriate imaging modality, the diagnostic accuracy of each imaging study needs to be considered. Therefore, we tried to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced multidetector CT (MDCT) and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for characterization of incidental liver masses. We included 127 incidentally found focal liver lesions (94 benign and 33 malignant) from 80 patients (M∶F = 45∶35) without primary extrahepatic malignancy or chronic liver disease. Two radiologists independently reviewed Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI and MDCT. The proportion of confident interpretations for differentiation of benign and malignant lesions and for the specific diagnosis of diseases were compared. The proportion of confident interpretations for the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions was significantly higher with EOB-MRI(94.5%-97.6%) than with MDCT (74.0%-92.9%). In terms of specific diagnosis, sensitivity and accuracy were significantly higher with EOB-MRI than with MDCT for the diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and focal eosinophilic infiltration. The diagnoses of the remaining diseases were comparable between EOB-MRI and MDCT. Hence, our results suggested that Gd-EOB-MRI may provide a higher proportion of confident interpretations than MDCT, especially for the diagnosis of incidentally found FNH and focal eosinophilic infiltration.

Differentiating focal eosinophilic liver disease from hepatic metastases using unenhanced and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI

PURPOSE

To examine the differential features of focal eosinophilic liver disease (FELD) from liver metastases on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.

MATERIALS

Twenty patients with 41 FELD and 20 patients with 55 metastases were enrolled in this study. Liver MRI consisted of precontrast 2D T1-weighted image (T1WI) and gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3D T1WI (arterial, portal, 20 min hepatocyte-selective phases), and a postcontrast T2WI. Images were analyzed for the margin and shape of the lesions; lesion conspicuity on T1- and T2WI; signal intensity of the lesions on 3D T1WI; presence of rim enhancement and misty signs; and presence of significant smaller lesions on the unenhanced T1WI (<50%) compared to hepatocyte phase image.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis revealed the following significant parameters to favor FELD: a fuzzy margin, irregular shape, subtle signal intensity changes on T1- and T2WI, absence of target signs on the hepatocyte phase image, presence of misty signs, and size discrepancies on T1WI and hepatocyte phase images. Multivariate analysis revealed only a significantly smaller lesion size on T1WI compared to hepatocyte phase images to be predictive of FELD.

CONCLUSION

A significantly smaller lesion size on T1WI relative to hepatocyte phase image is the best predictor for identifying FELD on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.