Three cases of histologically proven hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma evaluated using a second-generation microbubble contrast medium in ultrasonography: case reports
- 166 Downloads
Abstract
Background
Hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (HEH) is rare; it is reported in < 1 person in 1,000,000 individuals. For accurate diagnosis, information regarding multiple graphic modalities in HEH is required. However, there is very little information concerning Sonazoid® contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in HEH.
Case presentation
The present report describes the histologically proven three HEH cases evaluated using Sonazoid® CEUS. Case 1 was a 33-year-old female patient with no relevant past medical history, who experienced right upper quadrant pain. Conventional abdominal US revealed multiple low echoic liver nodules with vague borderlines. In CEUS, the vascularity of the nodules was similar to that seen in the neighboring normal liver. Later in the portal venous and late phases (PVLP) and post vascular phase, washout of Sonazoid® was detected in the nodules. Case 2 was a 93-year-old female patient with a previous medical history including operations for breast cancer and ovary cancer in her 50’s. Conventional abdominal US revealed multiple low echoic nodules, some of which contained cystic lesions. In the early vascular phase of CEUS, nodules excluding the central anechoic regions were enhanced from peripheral sites. Although the enhancement inside the nodules persisted in both the PVLP and post vascular phase, anechoic areas in the center of some nodules were not enhanced at all. Case 3 was a 39-year-old male patient presented with right upper-quadrant pain, without any relevant past medical history. Conventional abdominal US revealed multiple low echoic liver nodules. In the early vascular phase of CEUS, nodules were gradually enhanced from the peripheral sites as ringed enhancement. Sonazoid®was washed out from the nodules in the PVLP and post vascular phase.
Conclusions
The most important feature was peripheral enhancement in the early vascular phase. In case 2, the enhancement of the parenchyma of liver nodules persisted even in the PVLP; indicating the lower degree of malignant potential than others. Actually, the tumors did not extend without any treatment in case 2. Since case 2 is the first case report of HEH with cystic lesions, in patients with liver nodules including cystic lesions, HEH is a potential diagnosis.
Keywords
Hepatocellular carcinoma Epithelioid Hemangioendothelioma Perfusion imaging Sonazoid®Abbreviations
- ADC
Apparent diffusion coefficient
- AFP
α-fetoprotein
- CA19–9
Carbohydrate antigen 19–9
- CD
Cluster of differentiation
- CEA
Carcinogen embryonic antigen
- CEUS
Contrast enhanced ultrasonography
- CRP
C reactive protein
- CT
Computed tomography
- DWI
Diffusion-weighted imaging
- Gd-EOB-DTPA
gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid
- HBs
Hepatitis B virus surface
- HCC
Hepatocellular carcinoma
- HCV
Hepatitis C virus
- HEH
Hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma
- MRI
Magnetic resonance imaging
- NGSP
National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program
- PIVKA-II
Protein induced by vitamin K deficiency or antagonists-II
- PVLP
Portal venous and late phases
- T2WI
T2-weighted imaging
- γ-GTP
gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase
Background
The prevalence of hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (HEH) is low; it is reported in < 1 person in 1,000,000 individuals [1]. In Japan, HEH was first reported in 1982 [2]. In a survey of 63 HEH cases in the Japanese population, the average patient age was 48 (range, 16–82) years [3]. Earnest et al. retrospectively investigated a cohort of 96 patients and reported that the prevalence of HEH peaked among patients aged 30–40 years [4]. We encountered three cases of HEH diagnosed from 2011 to 2015 at the Showa University Hospital. Graphical hallmarks of HEH in computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been reported [5]. However, there is very little information concerning Sonazoid® contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in HEH. Sonazoid® is a second-generation microbubble contrast medium used in CEUS for visualizing the vascular pattern inside liver nodules [6, 7, 8].
The advantageous features of Sonazoid® CEUS include the correct diagnosis of not only hypervascular liver nodules such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [6, 9], but also hypovascular liver nodules [10]. In this study, we introduce the hallmark features of Sonazoid® CEUS in HEH, using the Toshiba US system.
A bolus of Sonazoid® suspension was intravenously injected, and in 15–30 s, the early vascular phase of the hepatic artery was visualized. Thereafter, from 30 s to 2 min after injecting, the information regarding hepatic tissue perfusion, namely the portal venous and late phases (PVLP), was recorded. Lastly in 10 min after injection, the post vascular phase was defined as the parenchymal finding.
The pathologic diagnosis involving hematoxylin and eosin-stained tumor sections and immunohistochemical staining was performed by experienced pathologists. This study was approved by a suitably constituted Ethics Committee of our institution (approval number is 1551128) and it complied with the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. The patients’ written informed consent was obtained for the publication.
Case presentation
a Conventional abdominal ultrasonography (US) in case 1 showed multiple low echoic liver nodules (arrow) with a vague margin, and nodules located in the peripheral sites tended to coalesce with each other. The vascular pattern inside the nodules was not precisely visible in the arterial dominant phase of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) (b). c The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping in case1 is shown. d In the diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) at a b score of 1000 (sec/mm2), the peripheral area of the nodules in case1 showed a much higher intensity than its central lesion. e SonazoidⓇ contrast enhanced US (CEUS) in case1 showed the vascularity (arrow) in the early vascular phase, but the vascular pattern is not specified. f Later in the portal venous and late phases (PVLP) and post vascular phase, they were defective. g Defect re-perfusion imaging clearly showed that the nodules were gradually enhanced from the peripheral sites as ringed enhancement. h Photomicrograph of a histological section of a hepatic specimen obtained via percutaneous liver needle biopsy in case 1 (200× with hematoxylin and eosin stain) is shown. i A high number of epithelioid tumor cells with spindle-shaped nuclei, form intracellular vascular lumina (arrow) (800× with hematoxylin and eosin stain). In immunostaining (200×), the sample was positive for cluster of differentiation (CD) 31 (j) and CD34 (k)
a The CT scan in case 2 showed multiple hypodense liver nodules, including cystic lesions, and enhancement inside the tumors started in peripheral lesions in the arterial dominant phase. b In the DWI, at a b score of 1000 (sec/mm2) the peripheral area of the nodules showed a much higher intensity than its central lesion. c ADC mapping is shown. d In the conventional abdominal US of case2, there are multiple low echoic nodules, some of which contained cystic lesions. Color flow signals were found in color Doppler imaging. In CEUS, the enhancement inside the nodules was found in both (e) the PVLP and (f) post vascular phase, whereas anechoic areas in the inner portion were not enhanced. g Photomicrograph of a histological section of a hepatic specimen obtained via percutaneous liver needle biopsy in case 2 (200× with hematoxylin and eosin stain) is shown. h A high number of epithelioid tumor cells with spindle-shaped nuclei, form intracellular vascular lumina (arrow) (800× with hematoxylin and eosin stain). In immunostaining (200×), the sample was positive for cluster of differentiation (CD) 31 (i) and CD34 (j)
a In the conventional abdominal US in case 3, there were multiple low echoic liver nodules, predominantly seen in the right lobe (arrow). b In the DWI at a b score of 1000 (sec/mm2), the peripheral site of the nodules showed a much higher intensity than its central lesion. c ADC mapping is shown. d The early vascular phase of CEUS in case3 showed that the tumors were gradually enhanced from the peripheral sites. e In the PVLP and post vascular phase, they were defective. f Photomicrograph of a histological section of a hepatic specimen obtained via percutaneous liver needle biopsy in case 3 (200× with hematoxylin and eosin stain) is shown. g A high number of epithelioid tumor cells with spindle-shaped nuclei, form intracellular vascular lumina (arrow) (800× with hematoxylin and eosin stain). In immunostaining (200×), the sample was positive for cluster of differentiation (CD) 31 (h) and CD34 (i)
The clinical course of each case is shown. Abbreviations are written below
In all three cases, we performed Sonazoid® CEUS before percutaneous liver needle biopsy was performed. In the early vascular phase of case 1, the vascularity of the nodules was similar to that seen in the neighboring normal liver, but the vascular pattern was not specified (Fig. 1e). Later in the PVLP and post vascular phase, washout of Sonazoid® was detected in the nodules (Fig. 1f). Use of the defect re-perfusion imaging method involving repeat injection of Sonazoid® clearly showed that nodules were gradually enhanced from the peripheral sites as ringed enhancement (Fig. 1g). In the early vascular phase of case 2, nodules excluding the central anechoic regions were enhanced from peripheral sites. Although the enhancement inside the nodules persisted in both the PVLP (Fig. 2e) and post vascular phase (Fig. 2f), anechoic areas in the center of some nodules were not enhanced at all. In the early vascular phase of case 3, nodules were gradually enhanced from the peripheral sites as ringed enhancement (Fig. 3d). Sonazoid®was washed out from the nodules in the PVLP and post vascular phase (Fig. 3e).
Discussion and conclusions
HEH has a moderate level of malignancy; therefore, it might result in a relatively poor prognosis if not correctly diagnosed at the right time [11]. However, the correct diagnosis of HEH generally takes from 3 months to 2 years after being symptomatic [12]. Therefore, the collection of useful information for HEH in various modalities is required. HEH is categorized as follows: 1) the single nodular type; 2) the multifocal nodular type; and 3) the diffuse type [13]. Cases 1 and 3 matched to the features of type 2). However, case 2, which contained cystic lesions that were anechoic (Fig. 2d), could not be categorized into any of the groups mentioned above. In previous studies, numerous HEH cases with moderately hypoechoic lesions in the center of nodules have been reported. They are generally thought to be necrosis or focal hemorrhages [14, 15], but are never anechoic. As a tumor progresses, it could possess necrotic tissues inside it; the borderline between the tumor cells and necrotic tissues is often vague. However, in case 2, the cystic lesion was clearly delineated from the tumor parenchyma using CEUS as well as using CECT (Fig. 2a, e). As far as we have investigated, there has been only one case report with multiple small liver cysts of fluid density in CT; however, other clinical or radiographic features related to that case were not introduced at all [12]. Therefore, case 2 is the first report of HEH including cystic lesions to fully introduce its clinical or radiographic findings. Cases similar to case 2 need to be reported in order to collect sufficient new information to categorize this type of HEH correctly. Recently, Dong et al. reported that the features of CEUS using SonoVue® enhancement in HEH involve a rim-like or heterogeneous hyperenhancement in the arterial phase and hypoenhancement in the PVLP [13].
Although there is very little information concerning Sonazoid® CEUS in HEH, the hallmark features of Sonazoid® CEUS concerning HEH could be the gradual enhancement from the peripheral sites in the vascular phase in these three cases. This pattern resembles that in hemangioma, which has already been reported as peripheral nodular enhancement with gradual centripetal filling [16]. However, there were no other cases in which liver needle biopsy was performed with a suspected diagnosis of HEH in my affiliation.
On an ADC map, hypointense signals in the peripheral lesions of nodules and hyperintense signals in the central lesions were found in all three cases. Other groups have previously reported that CEUS can differentiate between benign and malignant liver lesions by analyzing the portal venous phase [17, 18]. In Sonazoid® CEUS, although the feature of hypoenhancement in PVLP and the defect in the post vascular phase was detected in cases 1 and 3, in case 2 the enhancing effect persisted in the parenchyma even in the post vascular phase. This result is different from the previous reports concerning CEUS in HEH [13]. In our clinical experiences of three cases, hypoenhancement in PVLP and defects in the post vascular phase using CEUS, which could be clinically significant findings of malignancy, was seen in case 1 and case 3. Actually, the hepatic tumors have not enlarged at all in case 2 even if the patient did not take any medical treatment, which was concurrent with the lower malignant potential predicted using the findings from CEUS. However, the lost follow-up of the case1 is a limitation of this case report. In addition, the golden standard to investigate the contribution of some graphical findings to right diagnosis is describing a ROC curve. But it is impossible here because of its small number of case reports.
Although an accurate diagnosis of HEH takes considerable time, HEH is one of the important differential diagnoses for liver tumors, especially in patients without medical histories including chronic liver diseases or proceeding primary cancers.
In conclusion, to make an accurate diagnosis, the most important feature of these three cases could be peripheral enhancement using Sonazoid® CEUS in the early vascular phase; this highlights the need to suspect HEH, even when the liver nodules contain cystic anechoic lesions. The features of CEUS in PVLP might predict its malignant potential.
Notes
Acknowledgements
We thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.
Authors’ contributions
JA, YS, YO, IS, YN, EH, AK, RO, SU, MM, MU, HD, MS, TW, JE, TI, TK, and HY examined the patients, JA, JM, and TG discussed in graphic analysis, JA, KS, SM, GT, MT, investigated the specimens via liver needle biopsies, and JA wrote the paper. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
J.A is supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (19 K16723), Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (19fk0210052s0201), and the Showa University Research Grant for Young Researches. These were utilized for English language editing.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by a suitably constituted Ethics Committee of our institution (approval number is 1551128). Not applicable for consent to participate.
Consent for publication
Written informed consent was obtained from the patients for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor of this journal.
Competing interests
The authors have disclosed that they have no significant relationships with, or financial interest in, any commercial companies pertaining to this article.
Supplementary material
References
- 1.Mehrabi A, Kashfi A, Fonouni H, et al. Primary malignant hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma: a comprehensive review of the literature with emphasis on the surgical therapy. Cancer. 2006;107:2108–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Nakatani Y, Aoki I, Nisugi K, et al. Immunohistochemical and ultrastructural study of early lesions of intravascular bronchioloalveolar tumor with liver involvement. Acta Pathol Jpn. 1985;35:1453–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Mori R, Miura M, Takahashi T, et al. A Case of Epithelioid Hemangioendothelioma of the Liver with Difficulty in Preoperative Diagnosis. Jpn J Gastroenterol Surg. 2004;37:539–44 (abstract in English).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Earnest F 4th, Johnson CD. Case 96: hepatic Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma. Radiology. 2006;240:295–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kim EH, Rha SE, Lee YJ, et al. CT and MR imaging findings of hepatic epithelioid hemangioendotheliomas: emphasis on single nodular type. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:500–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Moriyasu F, Itoh K. Efficacy of perflubutane microbubble-enhanced ultrasound in the characterization and detection of focal liver lesions: phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Kudo M. Diagnostic imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: recent progress. Oncology. 2011;81:73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Kudo M. The 2008 Okuda lecture: management of hepatocellular carcinoma: from surveillance to molecular targeted therapy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25:439–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Alaboudy A, Inoue T, Hatanaka K, et al. Usefulness of combination of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using Sonazoid®-enhanced ultrasound, gadolinium diethylene-triamine-pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Oncology. 2011;81:66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Hayashi H, Nishigaki Y, Tomita E, et al. Usefulness of early vascular phase images from contrast-enhanced ultrasonography using Sonazoid for the diagnosis of hypovascular hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Res. 2016;46:497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Weiss SW, Enzinger FM. Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, avascular tumor often mistaken for a carcinoma. Cancer. 1982;50:970–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Makhlouf HR, Ishak KG, Goodman ZD, et al. Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma of the liver: a clinicopathologic study of 137cases. Cancer. 1999;85:562–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Dong Y, Wang W-P, Cantisani V, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of histologically proven hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:4741–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Miller WJ, Dodd GD 3rd, Federle MP, et al. Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma of the liver: imaging findings with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;59:53–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Van Beers B, Roche A, Mathieu D, et al. Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma of the liver: MR and CT findings. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1992;16:420–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Dietrich CF, Mertens JC, Braden B, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of histologically proven liver Hemangiomas. Hepatology. 2007;45:1139–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.von Herbay A, Vogt C, Haussinger D, et al. Late-phase pulse-inversion sonography using the contrast agent levovist: differentiation between benign and malignant focal lesions of the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1273–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Trojan J, et al. Improved characterisation of histologically proven liver tumours by contrast enhanced ultrasonography during the portal venous and specific late phase of SHU508A. Gut. 2004;53:401–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.