Comparison of the Enhancement Pattern of Hepatic Hemangioma on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Performed With Gd-EOB-DTPA Versus Gd-BOPTA

Evaluation of qualitative and quantitative imaging features of hepatic hemangiomas with and without pseudo-washout sign on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: a descriptive and comparative study

BACKGROUND

Hepatic hemangiomas are the most common benign liver tumors. It is important to know the imaging features of hemangiomas on gadoxetic acid (GA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

PURPOSE

To evaluate the qualitative and quantitative imaging features of hemangiomas on GA-enhanced MRI, and to compare imaging features of hemangiomas with and without pseudo-washout sign (PWS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively included 93 cases of hemangioma that underwent GA-enhanced MRI. The presence of an enhancement pattern in the arterial phase (AP) and PWSs in the transitional phase (TP) were evaluated. Signal-to-norm ratios (SINorm) of hemangiomas, liver parenchyma, and portal vein (PV) as well as contrast-to-norm ratio (CNorm) were assessed. Additionally, hemangiomas with and without PWSs were defined as two separate subgroups, and imaging features were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 93 cases of hemangiomas, 49 (52.6%) had PWSs in the TP. The mean SINorms of hemangiomas showed the highest value in the AP (P < 0.05). The mean CNorms showed positive values in the AP, and gradually decreased (P < 0.05). Hemangiomas with PWSs were significantly rapidly enhanced and smaller in size (P < 0.05), and the mean SINorms was lower in the TP (P = 0.023). While the mean CNorms showed a significant difference in the AP between subgroups (P < 0.001), the enhancement pattern was equal to that of the PV.

CONCLUSION

When evaluating GA-enhanced MRI, radiologists should utilize quantitative measures in addition to qualitative assessment and should be aware that SI matching with PV in all phases can be a distinguishing finding in the diagnosis of hemangioma.

Liver metastases: The role of magnetic resonance imaging

The liver is one of the organs most commonly involved in metastatic disease, especially due to its unique vascularization. It's well known that liver metastases represent the most common hepatic malignant tumors. From a practical point of view, it's of utmost importance to evaluate the presence of liver metastases when staging oncologic patients, to select the best treatment possible, and finally to predict the overall prognosis. In the past few years, imaging techniques have gained a central role in identifying liver metastases, thanks to ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All these techniques, especially CT and MRI, can be considered the non-invasive reference standard techniques for the assessment of liver involvement by metastases. On the other hand, the liver can be affected by different focal lesions, sometimes benign, and sometimes malignant. On these bases, radiologists should face the differential diagnosis between benign and secondary lesions to correctly allocate patients to the best management. Considering the above-mentioned principles, it's extremely important to underline and refresh the broad spectrum of liver metastases features that can occur in everyday clinical practice. This review aims to summarize the most common imaging features of liver metastases, with a special focus on typical and atypical appearance, by using MRI.

Real-world data on the clinicopathological traits and outcomes of hospitalized liver hemangioma patients: a multicenter study

Background

There is currently a lack of consensus regarding the clinical features, diagnosis, treatment indications and options, and risk assessment of hepatic hemangioma patients.

Methods

This was a multicenter, real-world study that analyzed a large number of hepatic hemangioma cases in China and included patient data on epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment methods, and outcomes.

Results

A total of 5,143 patients hospitalized for hepatic hemangioma were included, of whom 34.42% were male and 65.58% were female. The age distribution was concentrated between 30 and 60 years old, accounting for 87.41% of the patients. Among the hepatic hemangioma patients, 60.8% had only one tumor, with the most common pathological type being cavernous hemangioma (96.07% of cases). The treatment motivations and indications included anxiety, obvious clinical symptoms, rapid tumor growth, unclear diagnoses and acute emergencies. Overall, 41.4% of the patients were treated for psychological reasons, while 30.59% were treated because they presented obvious (primarily nonspecific) clinical symptoms. Hepatic resection was the main therapeutic method and was based on various indications. There were a small number of patients with Kasabach-Merritt syndrome, according to its generally recognized definition.

Conclusions

Most patients in this study who were hospitalized for hepatic hemangioma did not meet the indications for requiring treatment. Surveillance is the recommended course of action for definitively diagnosed hepatic hemangioma, and a new classification system is needed to standardize the diagnosis of this condition.