Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 82–90 | Cite as

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of pediatric focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma: interobserver reliability

  • Cheng FangEmail author
  • Silvia Bernardo
  • Maria E. Sellars
  • Annamaria Deganello
  • Paul S. Sidhu
Original Article



Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma are rare liver tumors in which specific features on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (US) have been reported but are little known in children.


To assess the interobserver agreement in diagnosing and differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma in children using established adult contrast-enhanced US characteristics.

Materials and methods

Thirty children with a definite or probable diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia or hepatic adenoma on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/histology who underwent contrast-enhanced US studies were included. Typical and additional contrast-enhanced US features of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma were included. The lesions were classified as definite/probable focal nodular hyperplasia, definite/probably hepatic adenoma or unclassified. The interobserver kappa of contrast-enhanced US characteristics was calculated.


Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma in children demonstrate contrast-enhanced US characteristics similar to those in adults. Among the nine lesions with confirmed histological diagnosis, correct diagnosis was made in 7 (77.8%) based on contrast-enhanced US criteria. Two lesions were unclassified by both observers due to a mixed arterial filling pattern. Interobserver kappa for contrast-enhanced US diagnosis was 0.64 (P<0.0001).


There is a good interobserver kappa for separating focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatic adenoma in children using established adult contrast-enhanced US features.


Children Contrast-enhanced ultrasound Focal nodular hyperplasia Hepatocellular adenoma Interobserver agreement Liver Ultrasonography 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Chiorean L, Cui XW, Tannapfel A et al (2015) Benign liver tumors in pediatric patients - review with emphasis on imaging features. World J Gastroenterol 21:8541–8561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) (2016) EASL clinical practice guidelines on the management of benign liver tumours. J Hepatol 65:386–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scheimann AO, Barrios JM, Al-Tawil YS et al (2000) Percutaneous liver biopsy in children: impact of ultrasonography and spring-loaded biopsy needles. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 31:536–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tselikas L, Pigneur F, Roux M et al (2017) Impact of hepatobiliary phase liver MRI versus contrast-enhanced ultrasound after an inconclusive extracellular gadolinium-based contrast-enhanced MRI for the diagnosis of benign hepatocellular tumors. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:825–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolbe AB, Podberesky DJ, Zhang B, Towbin AJ (2015) The impact of hepatocyte phase imaging from infancy to young adulthood in patients with a known or suspected liver lesion. Pediatr Radiol 45:354–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shelmerdine SC, Roebuck DJ, Towbin AJ, McHugh K (2016) MRI of paediatric liver tumours: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging 16:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Piscaglia F, Bolondi L, Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (SIUMB) Study Group on Ultrasound Contrast Agents (2006) The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol 32:1369–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Deganello A et al (2017) Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in paediatric practice: an EFSUMB position statement. Ultraschall Med 38:33–43Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yusuf GT, Sellars ME, Deganello A et al (2017) Retrospective analysis of the safety and cost implications of pediatric contrast-enhanced ultrasound at a single center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI et al (2013) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver - update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 39:187–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dietrich CF (2012) Liver tumor characterization--comments and illustrations regarding guidelines. Ultraschall Med 33:S22–S30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ungermann L, Eliás P, Zizka J et al (2007) Focal nodular hyperplasia: spoke-wheel arterial pattern and other signs on dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Eur J Radiol 63:290–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roche V, Pigneur F, Tselikas L et al (2015) Differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular adenomas with low-mechanical-index contrast-enhanced sonography (CEUS): effect of size on diagnostic confidence. Eur Radiol 25:186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacob J, Deganello A, Sellars ME et al (2013) Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) characterization of grey-scale sonographic indeterminate focal liver lesions in pediatric practice. Ultraschall Med 34:529–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pschierer K, Grothues D, Rennert J et al (2015) Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in children with benign and malignant liver lesions and portal vein anomalies. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 61:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration website (2018) Approved drug product list Accessed 14 Feb 2018
  17. 17.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quaia E, Calliada F, Bertolotto M et al (2004) Characterization of focal liver lesions with contrast-specific US modes and a sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubble contrast agent: diagnostic performance and confidence. Radiology 232:420–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedrich-Rust M, Klopffleisch T, Nierhoff J et al (2013) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the differentiation of benign and malignant focal liver lesions: a meta-analysis. Liver Int 33:739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Strobel D, Seitz K, Blank W et al (2009) Tumor-specific vascularization pattern of liver metastasis, hepatocellular carcinoma, hemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia in the differential diagnosis of 1,349 liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Ultraschall Med 30:376–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cha DI, Yoo S-Y, Kim JH et al (2014) Clinical and imaging features of focal nodular hyperplasia in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:960–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Towbin AJ, Luo GG, Yin H, Mo JQ (2011) Focal nodular hyperplasia in children, adolescents, and young adults. Pediatr Radiol 41:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bouyn CI-D, Leclere J, Raimondo G et al (2003) Hepatic focal nodular hyperplasia in children previously treated for a solid tumor. Incidence, risk factors, and outcome. Cancer 97:3107–3113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kong WT, Wang WP, Huang BJ et al (2015) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in combination with color Doppler ultrasound can improve the diagnostic performance of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma. Ultrasound Med Biol 41:944–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim TK, Jang HJ, Burns PN et al (2008) Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma: differentiation with low-mechanical-index contrast-enhanced sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bertin C, Egels S, Wagner M et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of focal nodular hyperplasia: a matter of size. Eur Radiol 24:2561–2571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bartolotta TV, Taibbi A, Matranga D et al (2010) Hepatic focal nodular hyperplasia: contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings with emphasis on lesion size, depth and liver echogenicity. Eur Radiol 20:2248–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taimr P, Bröker MEE, Dwarkasing RS et al (2017) A model-based prediction of the probability of hepatocellular adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia based on characteristics on contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 43:2144–2150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dietrich CF, Schuessler G, Trojan J et al (2005) Differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Br J Radiol 78:704–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tamrazi A, Vasanawala SS (2011) Functional hepatobiliary MR imaging in children. Pediatr Radiol 41:1250–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geller J, Kasahara M, Martinez M et al (2016) Safety and efficacy of gadoxetate disodium–enhanced liver MRI in pediatric patients aged >2 months to <18 years—results of a retrospective, multicenter study. Magn Reson Insights 9:21–28Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyKings College HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Experimental Medicine, Policlinico Umberto ISapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations