Iso- or hyperintensity of hepatocellular adenomas on hepatobiliary phase does not always correspond to hepatospecific contrast-agent uptake: importance for tumor subtyping.
Adenoma
Contrast media
Liver neoplasms
Magnetic resonance imaging
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
08
11
2018
accepted:
08
03
2019
revised:
21
02
2019
pubmed:
3
4
2019
medline:
27
8
2019
entrez:
3
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study was conducted in order to evaluate if iso- or hyperintensity of HCAs on HBP is systematically related to a high uptake of hepatospecific contrast agent, using a quantitative approach. This bicentric retrospective study included all patients with histologically confirmed and subtyped HCA from 2009 to 2017 who underwent MRI with HBP after Gd-BOPTA injection and who showed iso- or hyperintensity on HBP. The signal intensity of tumors on pre- and postcontrast images and the presence of hepatic steatosis were noted. Contrast uptake on HBP was quantified using the liver-to-lesion contrast enhancement ratio (LLCER) and compared between HCA subtypes (Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Categorical variables were compared using chi-square tests. Twenty-four HCAs showed iso- or hyperintensity on HBP, specifically 17 inflammatory (IHCAs) and 7 β-catenin HCAs (BHCAs). Eighteen HCAs (75%) (17 IHCAs and 1 BHCAs) had a LLCER < 0% (median - 13.6%, group 1), of which 94% were hyperintense on precontrast T1-W images, with background hepatic steatosis. Six HCAs (25%) had LLCER ≥ 0% (median 2.9%, group 2), and all were BHCAs. A LLCER ≥ 1.6% was associated with the diagnosis of BHCA with a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 100%. In conclusion, iso- or hyperintensity of hepatocellular adenomas on HBP does not necessarily correspond to an increased hepatospecific contrast-agent uptake. In IHCA, tumor hyperintensity on precontrast images and the underlying steatosis likely explain such iso- or hyperintensity, which do show reduced HBP contrast-agent uptake. On the other hand, marked contrast uptake can be observed, especially in BHCA. • Iso- or hyperintensity on HBP does not necessarily reflect a high uptake of hepatospecific contrast agent. • Discrepancies between qualitative signal intensity and quantitative hepatospecific contrast uptake can be explained in IHCA by a combination of tumor hyperintensity on precontrast images and underlying hepatic steatosis. • In BHCA, iso- or hyperintensity on HBP does actually correspond to a greater contrast uptake than that of the liver, demonstrated by an increased lesion-to-liver contrast enhancement ratio (LLCER).
Identifiants
pubmed: 30937584
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06150-7
pii: 10.1007/s00330-019-06150-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Gadolinium DTPA
K2I13DR72L
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Pagination
3791-3801Références
Gut. 2011 Jan;60(1):85-9
pubmed: 21148580
Radiology. 2005 Jul;236(1):166-77
pubmed: 15955857
Radiology. 2006 Nov;241(2):433-40
pubmed: 16966481
Eur Radiol. 2015 Apr;25(4):950-60
pubmed: 25537979
Invest Radiol. 2005 Nov;40(11):715-24
pubmed: 16230904
J Hepatol. 2014 Nov;61(5):1080-7
pubmed: 24946283
Radiology. 2012 Feb;262(2):520-9
pubmed: 22282184
Hepatology. 2011 Apr;53(4):1182-91
pubmed: 21480324
Top Magn Reson Imaging. 1998 Jun;9(3):183-95
pubmed: 9621406
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1999 Apr 21;257(3):746-52
pubmed: 10208854
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Mar;47(3):860-861
pubmed: 28589549
Hepatology. 2006 Mar;43(3):515-24
pubmed: 16496320
J Hepatol. 2016 Aug;65(2):386-98
pubmed: 27085809
Radiology. 2011 Oct;261(1):172-81
pubmed: 21875850
Gastroenterology. 2017 Mar;152(4):880-894.e6
pubmed: 27939373
Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2014 Dec;38(6):681-8
pubmed: 24636468
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jul;199(1):26-34
pubmed: 22733890
Eur Radiol. 2018 Oct;28(10):4243-4253
pubmed: 29721686
Jpn J Radiol. 2012 Nov;30(9):777-82
pubmed: 22911100
Radiographics. 2009 Jan-Feb;29(1):231-60
pubmed: 19168847
Eur Radiol. 2016 Apr;26(4):921-31
pubmed: 26194455
N Engl J Med. 1976 Feb 26;294(9):470-2
pubmed: 173996
Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Apr;47:103-110
pubmed: 29221964
J Hepatol. 2017 Nov;67(5):1074-1083
pubmed: 28733222
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Nov;42(5):1249-58
pubmed: 25851028
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Mar;47(3):862-863
pubmed: 28580722
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Dec;11(12):737-49
pubmed: 25178878
Radiology. 1993 Feb;186(2):543-8
pubmed: 8421762
Gastroenterology. 2013 May;144(5):888-902
pubmed: 23485860
Hepatology. 2009 Aug;50(2):481-9
pubmed: 19585623
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Oct;203(4):W408-14
pubmed: 25055198
Magn Reson Med Sci. 2017 Apr 10;16(2):109-114
pubmed: 27151747
Radiology. 2016 Apr;279(1):118-27
pubmed: 26505921
Gastroenterology. 2009 Nov;137(5):1698-705
pubmed: 19664629
Ann Pathol. 2011 Nov;31(5 Suppl):S27-31
pubmed: 22054452
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1994 May-Jun;4(3):355-63
pubmed: 8061434
Am J Gastroenterol. 1999 Sep;94(9):2467-74
pubmed: 10484010
Hepatology. 2008 Sep;48(3):808-18
pubmed: 18688875
Eur Radiol. 2016 Mar;26(3):674-82
pubmed: 26070500
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014 May-Jun;20(3):193-9
pubmed: 24509184
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 May;39(5):1259-64
pubmed: 23897798
Radiographics. 2016 Nov-Dec;36(7):2010-2027
pubmed: 27740898
Radiology. 2015 Oct;277(1):104-13
pubmed: 25985059