Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Imaging characteristics of two subtypes of congenital hemangiomas: rapidly involuting congenital hemangiomas and non-involuting congenital hemangiomas

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Common infantile hemangiomas (COMMON) occur in approximately 10% of infants by the age of 1 year, with a female predominance. Some hemangiomas can be fully developed at birth and are thus called congenital hemangiomas (CH). Within this population, two courses have been identified: rapidly involuting CH (RICH) and non-involuting CH (NICH). Little has been reported on the clinical prognosis and imaging features of these entities. Objective: To describe the imaging characteristics of two subtypes of CH, i.e. RICH and NICH, and to compare them with COMMON. Materials and methods: We retrospectively gathered data on 26 children presenting with CH, i.e. lesions fully developed at birth. These lesions were divided into two groups according to the clinical course: suspected RICH (n=8) and suspected NICH (n=18). We used US, CT or MRI and angiography to identify the gross anatomy and structure and the vascularization. Imaging findings were compared with the clinical course and pathology results, when available. The imaging findings in these patients were compared retrospectively with those in 26 patients with COMMON randomly chosen from the database of our multidisciplinary clinic. Results: When compared with COMMON imaging characteristics, NICH and RICH had distinctive features on US such as being heterogeneous (72% of NICH and 62.5% of RICH vs 42.3% of COMMON), visible vessels (72% of NICH and 62.5% of RICH vs 15.4% of COMMON), calcifications (17% of NICH and 37.5% of RICH vs no case of COMMON). On CT and/or MRI, we compared imaging features such as well-defined limits (67% of NICH and 60% of RICH vs 100% of COMMON), and fat stranding (29.4% of NICH and RICH vs 7.7% of COMMON). Conclusion: Distinctive imaging characteristics are observed in cases of CH with US findings of visible vessels and calcifications statistically significant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berenguer B, Mulliken JB, Enjolras O, et al (2003) Rapidly involuting congenital hemangioma: clinical and histopathologic features. Pediatr Dev Pathol 6:495–510

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Enjolras O (2003) Congenital hemangiomas. Ann Dermatol Venereol 130:367–371

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boon LM, Enjolras O, Mulliken JB (1996) Congenital hemangioma: evidence of accelerated involution. J Pediatr 128:329–335

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Enjolras O, Mulliken JB, Boon LM, et al (2001) Noninvoluting congenital hemangioma: a rare cutaneous vascular anomaly. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1647–1654

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. North PE, Waner M, James CA, et al (2001) Congenital nonprogressive hemangioma: a distinct clinicopathologic entity unlike infantile hemangioma. Arch Dermatol 137:1607–1620

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mulliken JB, Enjolras O (2004) Congenital hemangiomas and infantile hemangioma: missing links. J Am Acad Dermatol 50:875–882

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dubois J, Patriquin HB, Garel L, et al (1998) Soft-tissue hemangiomas in infants and children: diagnosis using Doppler sonography. AJR 171:247–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dubois J, Garel L, Grignon A, et al (1998) Imaging of hemangiomas and vascular malformations in children. Acad Radiol 5:390–400

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dubois J, Garel L, David M, et al (2002) Vascular soft-tissue tumors in infancy: distinguishing features on Doppler sonography. AJR 178:1541–1545

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rogers M, Lam A, Fischer G (2002) Sonographic findings in a series of rapidly involuting congenital hemangiomas (RICH). Pediatr Dermatol 19:5–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Konez O, Burrows PE, Mulliken JB, et al (2003) Angiographic features of rapidly involuting congenital hemangioma (RICH). Pediatr Radiol 33:15–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. North PE, Waner M, Mizeracki A, et al (2001) A unique microvascular phenotype shared by juvenile hemangiomas and human placenta. Arch Dermatol 137:559–570

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. North PE, Waner M, Mizeracki A, et al (2000) GLUT1: a newly discovered immunohistochemical marker for juvenile hemangiomas. Hum Pathol 31:11–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josée Dubois.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gorincour, G., Kokta, V., Rypens, F. et al. Imaging characteristics of two subtypes of congenital hemangiomas: rapidly involuting congenital hemangiomas and non-involuting congenital hemangiomas. Pediatr Radiol 35, 1178–1185 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-005-1557-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-005-1557-9

Keywords

Navigation