| Literature DB >> 29299708 |
Tatsunori Miyata1, Toru Beppu1,2, Kunitaka Kuramoto1,2, Shigeki Nakagawa1, Katsunori Imai1, Daisuke Hashimoto1, Tomohiro Namimoto3, Yo-Ichi Yamashita1, Akira Chikamoto1, Yasuyuki Yamashita3, Hideo Baba4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A hepatic sclerosed hemangioma (HSH) is a very rare benign liver tumor. The correct preoperative diagnosis of HSH is very difficult because its features of imaging are similar to those of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or colorectal liver metastasis. CASEEntities:
Keywords: Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion-weighted sequences of magnetic resonance imaging; Sclerosed hemangioma
Year: 2018 PMID: 29299708 PMCID: PMC5752647 DOI: 10.1186/s40792-017-0414-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Case Rep ISSN: 2198-7793
Characteristics of five patients with hepatic sclerosed hemangioma
| Case | Age | Gender | Etiology | CA19-9 (U/ml) | CEA (ng/ml) | Comorbidity | Location | Size (mm) | Preoperative diagnosis | Operation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | 79 | M | None | 8.5 | 1.0 | None | S5/6 | 43 | ICC | Anatomical resection |
| Case 2 | 34 | F | None | 16 | 1.1 | None | Whole right lobe | 148 | Hemangioma | Extended hemi-right hepatectomy |
| Case 3 | 70 | M | HBV | 6.4 | 2.5 | Colon cancer | S6 | 15 | CRLM | Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy |
| Case 4 | 63 | M | HBV | 12.7 | 1.7 | HCC (S4) | S7 | 6 | Sclerosed hemangioma | Partial hepatectomy |
| Case 5 | 54 | M | None | 9.1 | 1.4 | None | S8 | 27 | Sclerosed hemangioma | Partial hepatectomy |
HBV hepatic B virus, CA19-9 carbohydrate antigen 19-9, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, ICC intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, CRLM colorectal liver metastasis
Computed tomography (CT) features of five patients with hepatic sclerosed hemangioma
| Dynamic CT | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Simultaneous hemangioma | Capsular retraction | Arterioportal shunt | Plain CT | Arterial phase | Portal phase | Venous phase |
| Case 1 | + | − | + | Low | Ring enhancement | Progressive centripetal fill-in | Progressive centripetal fill-in |
| Case 2 | − | − | − | Low | Peripheral nodular enhancement | Progressive centripetal fill-in | Progressive centripetal fill-in |
| Case 3 | + | + | − | Low | Ring enhancement | Low | Low |
| Case 4 | − | + | + | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Case 5 | + | + | + | Low | Peripheral nodular enhancement | Progressive centripetal fill-in | Low |
Fig. 1The tumor showed ring enhancement in the arterial phase and low-density mass in the portal phase (a) in a CT image. MRI showed that HSH is a hypointense mass on a fat-suppressed T1-weighted image and a hyperintense mass on a T2-weighted MRI scan (b). The ADCmean value of the mass was 2.10 × 10−3 mm2/s on DW-MRI (c). A whitish tumor was shown on the liver surface and capsular retraction was identified (d). Histologically, there were many small vessels with fibrous replacement and hyalinization (e)
Fig. 2The tumor was seen as a mass with peripheral nodular enhancement in the arterial phase and progressive centripetal fill-in in the portal phase of CT imaging (a). MRI showed that HSH was a hypointense mass on a fat-suppressed T1-weighted image and a mass with peripheral nodular enhancement in the early phase. In the late phase, the tumor was an iso-hypointense mass and filling defect in the hepatocyte phase of dynamic MRI. We considered the part with the contrast effect in CT or MRI as non-degenerative site (arrow) and the other part as degenerative site (arrow head). (b). The ADCmean value of the mass was 2.09 × 10−3 mm2/s on DW-MRI (c). The whitish part was shown within the hemangioma-like tumor on the liver surface and capsular retraction was identified (d). Histologically, there were many small vessels with fibrous replacement and hyalinization. The scale bar shows 1.0 mm (e)
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of five patients with hepatic sclerosed hemangioma
| Case | Border | Fatty tissue | T1-weighted T2-weighted | Dynamic MRI findings | ADC mean (×10–3 mm2/s) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fat-suppressed T1-weighted | Early phase | Late phase | Hepatocyte phase | Degenerative area | Non-degenerative area | ||||
| Case 1 | Lobulated shape | – | Hypo | Hypo | Ring enhancement | Progressive centripetal fill-in | Defect | 1.65 | 1.80 |
| 1.56 | 1.61 | ||||||||
| 1.75 | 2.00 | ||||||||
| Case 2 | Lobulated shape | – | Hypo | Hypo | Peripheral nodular enhancement | Progressive centripetal fill-in | Defect | 1.87 | 1.80 |
| 1.80 | 1.86 | ||||||||
| 1.93 | 1.72 | ||||||||
| Case 3 | Lobulated shape | – | Hypo | Hypo | Ring enhancement | Progressive centripetal fill-in | Defect | 2.07 | – |
| 2.16 | |||||||||
| 2.09 | |||||||||
| Case 4 | Lobulated shape | – | Hypo | Hypo | Ring enhancement | Hypo | Defect | 2.00 | – |
| 1.93 | |||||||||
| 1.96 | |||||||||
| Case 5* | Lobulated shape | – | Hypo | Hypo | Peripheral nodular enhancement | Iso-hypo | Defect | 1.94 | 2.23 |
| 1.95 | 2.12 | ||||||||
| 1.90 | 2.38 | ||||||||
ADC apparent diffusion coefficient, Hypo hypo intensity, Hyper hyper intensity
*The results were obtained using 1.5-tesla MRI
Fig. 3The average values of ADCmean were almost the same between the degenerate (1.90 ± 0.17 × 10−3 mm2/s) and the non-degenerate areas (1.95 ± 0.26 × 10−3 mm2/s) (t test, p = 0.615). ※Two cases were very small tumors; therefore, we could not determine the ADCmean value in the non-degenerative area
Fig. 4The average values of ADCmean in six ICCs (18 area) and four CRLMs (12 area) were significantly different between the degenerate and the non-degenerate areas (t test, p < 0.0001). Asterisk denotes p < 0.0001