Hepatic Angiomyolipoma: Clinical Features and Imaging Findings of Quantitative Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Perfusion Analysis and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
angiomyolipoma
contrast-enhanced ultrasound
liver tumors
Journal
Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
ISSN: 1550-9613
Titre abrégé: J Ultrasound Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8211547
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
13
12
2019
revised:
31
03
2020
accepted:
06
04
2020
pubmed:
10
5
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
9
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate whether quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) analysis and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can differentiate hepatic angiomyolipoma (AML) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and hepatic epithelial angiomyolipoma (EAML) from nonepithelial AML. Retrospective analysis of 26 CEUS lesions pathologically confirmed as AML and 60 patients with confirmed HCC. Clinical and ultrasound (US) features of AML versus HCC and EAML versus nonepithelial AML were analyzed. Quantitative parameters, including arrival time, ascending slope, time to peak, peak intensity (PI), fall time (FT), and mean transit time (MTT), were analyzed. Diagnostic performance of MRI and CEUS was compared. Angiomyolipoma was significantly different from HCC in US findings of solitary tumor (P < .001), well-defined border (P = .025), and hyperechogenicity (P < .001). Tumor types were significantly different in US findings of centripetal filling pattern (P < .001), less hypoenhancement in the CEUS delayed phase (P = .04), high PI (P = .007) and ascending slope (P = .006), and short FT (P = .001) and MTT (P < .05). The sensitivity and specificity of quantitative parameters were 61.5% to 96.2% and 55.0% to 71.7% (area under the curve, 0.642-0.773). An early draining vein and tumor vessels, intratumor fat, absence of pseudocapsules, mild signal intensity on diffusion-weighted imaging, and hypointensity in the MRI delayed phase were helpful for differentiation of AML from HCC (P < .05). The positive predictive values of CEUS and MRI were 46.3% to 100% and 42.9% to 75%, with no significant difference (P > .05). Epithelial AML was more likely to be hypoechoic with a centripetal filling pattern than nonepithelial AML (P < .05). The MTT and FT of EAML were shorter than those of nonepithelial AML (P < .05). The PI of EAML was significantly stronger than that of nonepithelial AML (P < .01). The sensitivity and specificity of quantitative parameters were 68.7% to 100.0% and 60.0% to 100.0% (area under the curve, 0.825-0.941). Less intratumor fat was helpful for differentiation of EAML from nonepithelial AML (P < .05). The positive predictive values of CEUS and MRI were 77.8% to 100% and 85.7%, with a significant difference (P < .05). Quantitative CEUS findings could be valuable in differentiating EAML from HCC.
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2111-2122Informations de copyright
© 2020 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.
Références
Yan Z, Grenert JP, Joseph NM, et al. Hepatic angiomyolipoma: mutation analysis and immunohistochemical pitfalls in diagnosis. Histopathology 2018; 73:101-108.
Klompenhouwer AJ, Verver D, Janki S, et al. Management of hepatic angiomyolipoma: a systematic review. Liver Int 2017; 37:1272-1280.
Fukuda Y, Omiya H, Takami K, et al. Malignant hepatic epithelioid angiomyolipoma with recurrence in the lung 7 years after hepatectomy: a case report and literature review. Surg Case Rep 2016; 2:31.
Liu J, Zhang CW, Hong DF, et al. Primary hepatic epithelioid angiomyolipoma: a malignant potential tumor which should be recognized. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22:4908-4917.
Brimo F, Robinson B, Guo C, Zhou M, Latour M, Epstein JI. Renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma with atypia: a series of 40 cases with emphasis on clinicopathologic prognostic indicators of malignancy. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34:715-722.
Crocetti D, Pedullà G, Tarallo MR, et al. A rare case of malignant epithelioid angiomyolipoma in multiple locations: multifocal disease or metastases? Ann Ital Chir 2014; 85:184-188.
Tan Y, Xie X, Lin Y, Huang T, Huang G. Hepatic epithelioid angiomyolipoma: clinical features and imaging findings of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and CT. Clin Radiol 2017; 72:331.e1-339.e6.
Lee SJ, Kim SY, Kim KW, et al. Hepatic angiomyolipoma versus hepatocellular carcinoma in the noncirrhotic liver on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: a diagnostic challenge. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207:562-570.
Takayasu K, Shima Y, Muramatsu Y, et al. Imaging characteristics of large lipoma and angiomyolipoma of the liver: case reports. Cancer 1987; 59:916-921.
Yang X, Li A, Wu M. Hepatic angiomyolipoma: clinical, imaging and pathological features in 178 cases. Med Oncol 2013; 30:416.
Li R, Tang CL, Cai P, et al. Comparison of CT and contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings in hepatic angiomyolipoma with pathological correlations. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41:248-256.
Klein D, Jenett M, Gassel HJ, Sandstede J, Hahn D. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced sonography of hepatic tumors. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:1082-1091.
Pei XQ, Liu LZ, Xiong YH, et al. Quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Radiol 2013; 86:20120536.
Lu Q, Zhang XL, Han H, et al. Value of perfusion parameters for differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastasis with hypervascularity and a normal hepatic background on contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38:2601-2608.
Schaible J, Stroszczynski C, Beyer LP, Jung EM. Quantitative perfusion analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma using dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to determine tumor microvascularization. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2019; 73:95-104.
Chen MH, Yan K, Dai Y, et al. Guidelines for the application of liver ultrasound imaging (China) (2012 revised edition). Chin J Ultrasonogr 2013; 22:696-722.
Liu W, Wang J, Huang Q, Lu Q, Liang W. Comparison of MRI features of epithelioid hepatic angiomyolipoma and hepatocellular carcinoma: imaging data from two centers. Front Oncol 2018; 8:600.
Wang SY, Kuai XP, Meng XX, Jia NY, Dong H. Comparison of MRI features for the differentiation of hepatic angiomyolipoma from fat-containing hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Imaging 2014; 39:323-333.
Della Vigna P, Preda L, Monfardini L, Gorone MS, Maffini FA, Bellomi M. Growing perivascular epithelioid cell tumor of the liver studied with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:1781-1785.
Wang B, Ye Z, Chen Y, et al. Hepatic angiomyolipomas: ultrasonic characteristics of 25 patients from a single center. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015; 41:393-400.
Kim R, Lee JM, Joo I, et al. Differentiation of lipid poor angiomyolipoma from hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging. Abdom Imaging 2015; 40:531-541.
Wang CP, Li HY, Wang H, et al. Hepatic angiomyolipoma mimicking hepatocellular carcinoma: magnetic resonance imaging and clinical pathological characteristics in 9 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2014; 93:e194.
Chen W, Liu Y, Zhuang Y, Peng J, Huang F, Zhang S. Hepatic perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm: A clinical and pathological experience in diagnosis and treatment. Mol Clin Oncol 2017; 6:487-493.
Zhao Y, Ouyang H, Wang X, Ye F, Liang J. MRI manifestations of liver epithelioid and nonepithelioid angiomyolipoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 39:1502-1508.
Yuan MX, Li R, Zhang XH, et al. Factors affecting the enhancement patterns of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and their pathological correlations in patients with a single lesion. Ultraschall Med 2016; 37:609-618.
Li R, Tang CL, Yang D, et al. Primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumors: clinical characteristics and imaging features on contrast-enhanced ultrasound and computed tomography. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41:1767-1775.