Iso- or hyperintensity of hepatocellular adenomas on hepatobiliary phase does not always correspond to hepatospecific contrast-agent uptake: importance for tumor subtyping
- 45 Downloads
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).
KeywordsAdenoma Liver neoplasms Contrast media Magnetic resonance imaging
β-Catenin-mutated hepatocellular adenoma
Focal nodular hyperplasia
Liver-to-lesion contrast enhancement ratio
Organic anion transporting polypeptide
Signal intensity ratio
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Maxime Ronot.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in a previous manuscript in the European Radiology focusing on a correlation between the quantitative analysis of benign hepatocellular tumor uptake on HBP imaging and the quantitative level of OATP expression .
• diagnostic or prognostic study
• multicenter study
- 5.Nault JC, Paradis V, Cherqui D, Vilgrain V, Zucman-Rossi J (2017) Molecular classification of hepatocellular adenoma in clinical practice. J Hepatol 67:1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2017.07.009
- 7.Farges O, Ferreira N, Dokmak S, Belghiti J, Bedossa P, Paradis V (2011) Changing trends in malignant transformation of hepatocellular adenoma. Gut 60:85–89. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2010.222109
- 10.Laumonier H, Bioulac-Sage P, Laurent C, Zucman-Rossi J, Balabaud C, Trillaud H (2008) Hepatocellular adenomas: magnetic resonance imaging features as a function of molecular pathological classification. Hepatology 48:808–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.22417
- 13.Kreft BP, Baba Y, Tanimoto A, Finn JP, Stark DD (1993) Orally administered manganese chloride: enhanced detection of hepatic tumors in rats. Radiology 186:543–548. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.186.2.8421762
- 14.Ni Y, Marchal G, Yu J, Mühler A, Lukito G, Baert AL (1994) Prolonged positive contrast enhancement with Gd-EOB-DTPA in experimental liver tumors: potential value in tissue characterization. J Magn Reson Imaging 4:355–363Google Scholar
- 18.Bieze M, van den Esschert JW, Nio CY et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of MRI in differentiating hepatocellular adenoma from focal nodular hyperplasia: prospective study of the additional value of gadoxetate disodium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:26–34. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7750 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Suh CH, Kim KW, Kim GY, Shin YM, Kim PN, Park SH (2015) The diagnostic value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI for the diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 25:950–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3499-9
- 28.Reizine E, Amaddeo G, Pigneur F et al (2018) Quantitative correlation between uptake of Gd-BOPTA on hepatobiliary phase and tumor molecular features in patients with benign hepatocellular lesions. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5438-7
- 30.Roux M, Pigneur F, Calderaro J et al (2015) Differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular adenoma: role of the quantitative analysis of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced hepatobiliary phase MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Brunt EM, Janney CG, Di Bisceglie AM, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Bacon BR (1999) Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a proposal for grading and staging the histological lesions. Am J Gastroenterol 94:2467–2474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01377.x
- 35.Cassidy FH, Yokoo T, Aganovic L et al (2009) Fatty liver disease: MR imaging techniques for the detection and quantification of liver steatosis. Radiographics 29:231–260. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.291075123
- 39.Thomeer MG, Gest B, van Beek H et al (2018) Quantitative analysis of hepatocellular adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia in the hepatobiliary phase: external validation of LLCER method using gadobenate dimeglumine as contrast agent. J Magn Reson Imaging 47:860–861. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Roux M, Pigneur F, Luciani A (2018) Response to “Quantitative analysis of hepatocellular adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia in the hepatobiliary phase: external validation of llcer method using gadobenate dimeglumine as contrast agent”. J Magn Reson Imaging 47:862–863. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25788 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Hata H, Inoue Y, Nakajima A, Komi S, Miyatake H (2017) Influence of the magnetic field strength on image contrast in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging: comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T. Magn Reson Med Sci 16:109–114. https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2015-0158
- 42.Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ (2005) Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 40:715–724Google Scholar