Advertisement

Doughnut-like hyperintense nodules on hepatobiliary phase without arterial-phase hyperenhancement in cirrhotic liver: imaging and clinicopathological features

  • Kazuto KozakaEmail author
  • Satoshi Kobayashi
  • Norihide Yoneda
  • Azusa Kitao
  • Kotaro Yoshida
  • Dai Inoue
  • Takahiro Ogi
  • Wataru Koda
  • Yasunori Sato
  • Toshifumi Gabata
  • Osamu Matsui
Gastrointestinal
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the imaging and clinicopathological features of MRI doughnut-like nodules (HBP-doughnut nodules), hyperintense at the hepatobiliary phase (HBP) after injection of gadoxetic acid (EOB) and without arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE) in cirrhotic liver.

Methods

The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study and informed consent was waived. We enrolled 309 consecutive patients with liver cirrhosis who were examined by EOB-MRI, dynamic CT, and angiography-assisted CT between 2008 and 2012 and searched for HBP-doughnut nodules. We evaluated imaging characteristics including haemodynamics and signal intensity of MRI, pathological findings, and frequency of malignant transformation.

Results

One hundred and one HBP-doughnut nodules without APHE were identified in 18 patients (6%), including seven of 59 (12%) patients with hepatitis-B-virus-related, nine of 230 (3.9%) with hepatitis-C-virus-related, and two of 33 (6.1%) with alcoholic cirrhosis. All nodules showed enhancement peaks in the portal phase, the same or increased intranodular portal supply on CT during arterial portography, and the same or decreased intranodular arterial supply on CT during hepatic arteriography. On T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted images, 37 (36%) and 24 (24%) nodules, respectively, showed hyperintensity predominantly in the central area. Three nodules were diagnosed by fine needle biopsy as non-neoplastic hepatic nodules. Ninety-three of 101 (92%) nodules in 16 patients were followed up during an observation period of 1163 ± 902 days (range 57–2920 days), and none showed malignant transformation.

Conclusion

HBP-doughnut nodules without APHE in cirrhotic liver were not infrequent. None became malignant. We propose calling them ‘multiacinar cirrhotic nodules’ based on the classification by an International Working Party.

Key Points

• HBP-doughnut nodules without APHE were seen in 6% of patients with liver cirrhosis.

• The enhancement peak of HBP-doughnut nodules without APHE was in the portal phase, which reflected the fact that they were supplied predominantly by the portal vein, based on angiography-assisted CT findings.

• None of the HBP-doughnut nodules without APHE in cirrhotic liver became malignant, and in conjunction with limited pathological features, they may be corresponding to multiacinar cirrhotic nodules in the International Working Party classification.

Keywords

Diagnosis Magnetic resonance imaging Gadolinium Multidetector computed tomography 

Abbreviations

APHE

Arterial-phase hyperenhancement

CTAP

CT during arterial portography

CTHA

CT during hepatic arteriography

DWI

Diffusion-weighted images

EOB

Gadoxetic acid

FNH

Focal nodular hyperplasia

HBP

Hepatobiliary phase

HBV

Hepatitis B virus

HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma

HCV

Hepatitis C virus

IPH

Idiopathic portal hypertension

LRN

Large regenerative nodule

NRH

Nodular regenerative hyperplasia

OATP

Organic anion transporter polypeptide

RN

Regenerative nodule

T1WI

T1-weighted images

T2WI

T2-weighted images

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Cathel Kerr, Ph.D., and Libby Cone, M.D., M.A., from Edanz Group (www.edanzediting.com/ac) for editing drafts of this manuscript.

Funding

This study has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Toshifumi Gabata, M.D., Ph.D.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Japan.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6329_MOESM1_ESM.docx (86 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 86 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Tanimoto A, Kuwatsuru R, Kadoya M et al (1999) Evaluation of gadobenate dimeglumine in hepatocellular carcinoma: results from phase II and phase III clinical trials in Japan. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sou H et al (2009) Liver parenchymal enhancement of hepatocyte-phase images in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging: which biological markers of the liver function affect the enhancement? J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1042–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodwin MD, Dobson JE, Sirlin CB, Lim BG, Stella DL (2011) Diagnostic challenges and pitfalls in MR imaging with hepatocyte-specific contrast agents. Radiographics 31:1547–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suh YJ, Kim MJ, Choi JY, Park YN, Park MS, Kim KW (2011) Differentiation of hepatic hyperintense lesions seen on gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatobiliary phase MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W44–W52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fujiwara H, Sekine S, Onaya H, Shimada K, Mikata R, Arai Y (2011) Ring-like enhancement of focal nodular hyperplasia with hepatobiliary-phase Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: radiological-pathological correlation. Jpn J Radiol 29:739–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kobayashi S, Matsui O, Gabata T et al (2012) Intranodular signal intensity analysis of hypovascular high-risk borderline lesions of HCC that illustrate multi-step hepatocarcinogenesis within the nodule on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol 81:3839–3845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kitao A, Matsui O, Yoneda N et al (2011) The uptake transporter OATP8 expression decreases during multistep hepatocarcinogenesis: correlation with gadoxetic acid enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 21:2056–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yoneda N, Matsui O, Kitao A et al (2012) Beta-catenin-activated hepatocellular adenoma showing hyperintensity on hepatobiliary-phase gadoxetic-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and overexpression of OATP8. Jpn J Radiol 30:777–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fukusato T, Soejima Y, Kondo F et al (2015) Preserved or enhanced OATP1B3 expression in hepatocellular adenoma subtypes with nuclear accumulation of β-catenin. Hepatol Res 45:E32–E42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gentilucci UV, Gallo P, Perrone G et al (2011) Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension with large regenerative nodules: a diagnostic challenge. World J Gastroenterol 17:2580–2584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayano S, Naganuma A, Okano Y et al (2016) A case of idiopathic portal hypertension associated with nodular regenerative hyperplasia-like nodule of the liver and mixed connective tissue disease. Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi 113:828–836Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sugimori K, Numata K, Okada M et al (2017) Central vascular structures as a characteristic finding of regenerative nodules using hepatobiliary phase gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid-enhanced MRI and arterial dominant phase contrast-enhanced US. J Med Ultrason (2001) 44:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Di Martino M, Anzidei M, Zaccagna F et al (2016) Qualitative analysis of small (</=2 cm) regenerative nodules, dysplastic nodules and well-differentiated HCCs with gadoxetic acid MRI. BMC Med Imaging 16:62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Working Party (1995) Terminology of nodular hepatocellular lesions. Hepatology 22:983–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kitao A, Zen Y, Matsui O, Gabata T, Nakanuma Y (2009) Hepatocarcinogenesis: multistep changes of drainage vessels at CT during arterial portography and hepatic arteriography-radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 252:605–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mohajer K, Frydrychowicz A, Robbins JB, Loeffler AG, Reed TD, Reeder SB (2012) characterisation of hepatic adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia with gadoxetic acid. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:686–696Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Consensus Group for Hepatocellular Neoplasia (2009) Pathologic diagnosis of early hepatocellular carcinoma: a report of the international consensus group for hepatocellular neoplasia. Hepatology 49:658–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferrell LD, Kakar S, Terracciano LM, Wee A (2017) Chap 13. Tumours and tumour-like lesions of the liver, 7 edn. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Watanabe A, Ramalho M, AlObaidy M, Kim HJ, Velloni FG, Semelka RC (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging of the cirrhotic liver: an update. World J Hepatol 7:468–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krinsky GA, Lee VS (2000) MR imaging of cirrhotic nodules. Abdom Imaging 25:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hanna RF, Aguirre DA, Kased N, Emery SC, Peterson MR, Sirlin CB (2008) Cirrhosis-associated hepatocellular nodules: correlation of histopathologic and MR imaging features. Radiographics 28:747–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shimamatsu K, Kage M, Nakashima O, Kojiro M (1994) Pathomorphological study of HCV antibody-positive liver cirrhosis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 9:624–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Husainy MA, Sayyed F, Peddu P (2017) Typical and atypical benign liver lesions: a review. Clin Imaging 44:79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yamamoto T, Sugimoto H, Takahashi N, Isobe Y (2006) Hepatic hyperplastic nodules showing stains by portal blood flow: hemodynamics revealed by CTAP and CTHA. Abdom Imaging 31:65–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yoneda N, Matsui O, Kitao A et al (2016) Benign hepatocellular nodules: hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging based on molecular background. Radiographics 36:2010–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wanless IR, Solt LC, Kortan P, Deck JH, Gardiner GW, Prokipchuk EJ (1981) Nodular regenerative hyperplasia of the liver associated with macroglobulinemia. A clue to the pathogenesis. Am J Med 70:1203–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yoneda N, Matsui O, Kitao A et al (2012) Hepatocyte transporter expression in FNH and FNH-like nodule: correlation with signal intensity on gadoxetic acid enhanced magnetic resonance images. Jpn J Radiol 30:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kitao A, Matsui O, Yoneda N et al (2015) Hepatocellular carcinoma with β-catenin mutation: imaging and pathologic characteristics. Radiology:141315Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kitao A, Matsui O, Yoneda N et al (2012) Hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation between biologic features and signal intensity on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images. Radiology 265:780–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kitao A, Zen Y, Matsui O et al (2010) Hepatocellular carcinoma: signal intensity at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging--correlation with molecular transporters and histopathologic features. Radiology 256:817–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kitao A, Matsui O, Yoneda N et al (2018) Differentiation between hepatocellular carcinoma showing hyperintensity on the hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI and focal nodular hyperplasia by CT and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Galia M, Taibbi A, Marin D et al (2014) Focal lesions in cirrhotic liver: what else beyond hepatocellular carcinoma? Diagn Interv Radiol 20:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Newerla C, Schaeffer F, Terracciano L, Hohmann J (2012) Multiple FNH-like lesions in a patient with chronic Budd-Chiari syndrome: Gd-EOB-enhanced MRI and BR1 CEUS findings. Case Rep Radiol 2012:685486Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazuto Kozaka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Satoshi Kobayashi
    • 2
  • Norihide Yoneda
    • 1
  • Azusa Kitao
    • 1
  • Kotaro Yoshida
    • 1
  • Dai Inoue
    • 1
  • Takahiro Ogi
    • 1
  • Wataru Koda
    • 1
  • Yasunori Sato
    • 3
  • Toshifumi Gabata
    • 1
  • Osamu Matsui
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyKanazawa University Graduate School of Medical SciencesKanazawaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Radiological Technology, School of Health Sciences, College of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health SciencesKanazawa UniversityKanazawaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Human PathologyKanazawa University Graduate School of Medical SciencesKanazawaJapan

Personalised recommendations