| Literature DB >> 23691331 |
Charles Balabaud1, Wesal R Al-Rabih, Pei-Jer Chen, Kimberley Evason, Linda Ferrell, Juan C Hernandez-Prera, Shiu-Feng Huang, Thomas Longerich, Young Nyun Park, Alberto Quaglia, Peter Schirmacher, Christine Sempoux, Swan N Thung, Michael Torbenson, Aileen Wee, Matthew M Yeh, Shiou-Hwei Yeh, Brigitte Le Bail, Jessica Zucman-Rossi, Paulette Bioulac-Sage.
Abstract
Focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) are benign hepatocellular tumors. The risk of bleeding and malignant transformation of HCA are strong arguments to differentiate HCA from FNH. Despite great progress that has been made in the differential radiological diagnosis of the 2 types of nodules, liver biopsy is sometimes necessary to separate the 2 entities. Identification of HCA subtypes using immunohistochemical techniques, namely, HNF1A-inactivated HCA (35-40%), inflammatory HCA (IHCA), and beta-catenin-mutated inflammatory HCA (b-IHCA) (50-55%), beta-catenin-activated HCA (5-10%), and unclassified HCA (10%) has greatly improved the diagnostic accuracy of benign hepatocellular nodules. If HCA malignant transformation occurs in all HCA subgroups, the risk is by far the highest in the β -catenin-mutated subgroups (b-HCA, b-IHCA). In the coming decade the management of HCA will be more dependent on the identification of HCA subtypes, particularly for smaller nodules (<5 cm) in terms of imaging, follow-up, and resection.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23691331 PMCID: PMC3654480 DOI: 10.1155/2013/268625
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Hepatol
Diagnosis of FNH and HCA performed in different academic centers.
| HCA | FNH | No final diagnosis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surgery | Biopsy | Surgery | Biopsy | Surgery | Biopsy | |
| French (from 2008 to 2011) | ||||||
| (1) Besançon | 4 (4♀) | 10 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| (2) Bordeaux | 49 (44♀) | 16 | 27 | 29 | 0 | 2 |
| (3) Caen | 22 (20♀) | 6 | 19 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| (4) Créteil | 14 (13♀) | 19 | 19 | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| (5) Grenoble | 19 (18♀) | 18 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 1 |
| (6) Lille | 31 (26♀) | 30 | 25 | 39 | 2 | 6 |
| (7) Lyon (1) | 49 (41♀) | 13 | 17 | 16 | 4 | 7 |
| (8) Lyon (2) | 16 (13♀) | 25 | 14 | 22 | 0 | 4 |
| (9) Montpellier | 32 (31♀) | 28 | 15 | 25 | 3 | 1 |
| (10) Nice | 32 (31♀) | 28 | 3 | 25 | 3 | 1 |
| (11) Paris (St. Antoine) | 11 (9♀) | 13 | 20 | 14 | 0 | 2 |
| (12) Villejuif (Gustave Roussy) | 1 (1♀) | 3 | 5 (4♀) | 6 | 0 | 4 |
|
| ||||||
| International | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| (1) Baltimore (from 1984 to 2012) | 63 (61♀) | 6 | 79 | 54 | 4 | 8 |
| (2) Brussels | 37 (33♀): 21 IHCA, 10 H-HCA, 1 with IHCA + H-HCA, 3 | 14 | 22 | 14 | ||
| (3) Heidelberg (2007–2011) | 11 (11♀): 9 IHCA, 1 H-HCA, 1 with IHCA + H-HCA | 34 | ||||
| (4) London Kings (1998–2011) | 35 (30♀): 18 IHCA, 7 H-HCA, 1 | |||||
| (5) NY (Mt Sinai) (2007–2011)* | 27: 9 H-HCA, 11 I-HCA, 7 UHCA | 15 | ||||
| (6) San Francisco | 12 (10♀): 2 IHCA, 3 H-HCA (1 with HCC, 1 borderline), 3 | |||||
| (7) Seattle (2008–2011) | 9 (7♀): 3 IHCA, 3 H-HCA, 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| (8) Seoul (2008–2011) | 2 (1♀): 1 | 4 (3♀) | ||||
| (9) Singapore (selected cases) | 2 (2♀): 1 | |||||
| (10) Taiwan | 12 (5♀): 3 IHCA, 2 | |||||
*See papers in this issue for additional information.
Box 1Clinical and pathological information useful to manage the patient.
Box 2Pathological record.
Figure 1Adapted from Bioulac-Sage et al., [1]. Algorithm for immunohistochemical (IHC) diagnosis of benign hepatocellular nodules: focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and hepatocellular adenoma (HCA). Glutamine synthetase (GS) is not always mandatory for the diagnosis of *FNH or **HCA in routine practice. IHC is mandatory for HCA subtyping: markers are presented in grey square with their results positive (+) or negative (−) in tumor (T) and nontumoral liver (NT). LFABP: liver fatty acid binding protein; CRP: C-reactive-protein. Final diagnosis of HCA subtypes is: HNF1a inactivated (H-HCA), inflammatory (IHCA), B-catenin activated (B-HCA), B-catenin activated inflammatory (B-IHCA), or unclassified (UHCA). a: GS negativity or positivity limited at the periphery and/or around some veins within HCA. b: serum amyloid A staining is usually less sensitive and specific than CRP. c: aberrant B-catenin nuclear staining. #: needs molecular biology confirmation. d: can be difficult to differentiate from FNH.
Box 3Reasons to classify hepatocellular nodules using IHC methods.
Figure 2Practical guidelines for the identification of HCA subtypes (outside the emergency context).
Figure 3Management of HCA subtypes <5 cm.
(a) LFABP
| T | NT | |
|---|---|---|
| H-HCA | − (a) | + (b) |
|
| + | + |
| FNH | + | + |
| MNR/MNR-FNH-like (cirrhosis) | + | + |
(a) Some hepatocytes may be positive at the periphery of the nodule, as well as in between 2 coalescent nodules.
(b) When the expression is weak, reading may be difficult.
(b) CRP
| T | NT | |
|---|---|---|
| IHCA, | + (a) | − (b) |
| H-HCA, | − | − (b) |
| FNH |
| − (b) |
| MRN/MRN-HNF-like (cirrhosis) | (c) | (d) |
(a) Staining can be heterogeneous.
(b) Can be positive (in case of hemorrhage/necrosis, inflammatory syndrome; portal branch embolization, etc.).
(b') Can be positive if (b) is positive.
(c) Often positive (weak/mild).
(d) Negative to positive (weak to mild), heterogeneous from nodule to nodule.
(c) GS
| T | NT | |
|---|---|---|
| FNH | + (a) | (b) |
| MRN/MRN FNH-like (cirrhosis) | (c) | (d) |
|
| + (e) | (b) |
| H-HCA, IHCA, UHCA | − | (b) |
(a) Map-like pattern.
(b) Normal positivity around central veins (1–3 rows).
(c) From absence to positivity (limited to veins and/or border of fibrous axis).
(d) Negative, occasional faint staining.
(e) Strong and diffuse or heterogeneous.