SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Liver MRI
  4. FLL Characterization
  5. Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
  6. Hepatocellular Adenoma
  7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  8. Cholangiocarcinoma
  9. Metastases
  10. Summary
  11. References

This article is a review of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of incidental focal liver lesions. This review provides an overview of liver MRI protocol, diffusion-weighted imaging, and contrast agents. Additionally, the most commonly encountered benign and malignant lesions are discussed with emphasis on imaging appearance and the diagnostic performance of MRI based on a review of the literature. (HEPATOLOGY 2011)

The incidence of incidentally detected focal liver lesions (FLL) parallels growth in imaging utilization. The majority of FLL arising in noncirrhotic livers are benign. Hemangiomas, focal nodular hyperplasias (FNH), and adenomas (HCA) are the most commonly encountered solid benign lesions.1-3 The most commonly encountered malignant lesions in noncirrhotic livers are metastases. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) occur in the setting of chronic liver disease.

Maximizing specificity and accuracy of cross-sectional imaging in the context of these incidental liver lesions is paramount in avoiding unnecessary biopsies, which may portend a postprocedural morbidity of 2.0% to 4.8% and mortality of 0.05%.4-6 Ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the main liver imaging modalities. A meta-analysis comparing contrast-enhanced ultrasound, CT, and MRI in evaluating incidental FLLs demonstrated similar diagnostic performance with specificities ranging from 82%-89% and no significant difference in the summary receiver operating characteristic between modalities.7 Given the lack of ionizing radiation and relative nonavailability of ultrasound contrast in the U.S., MRI is the imaging test of choice for FLL characterization, demonstrating similar if not superior performance to CT. This review focuses on the diagnostic performance of MRI in evaluating the most common FLL in noncirrhotic livers with additional discussion of HCC and ICC, which, although highly associated with chronic liver disease, are important differential considerations.

Liver MRI

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Liver MRI
  4. FLL Characterization
  5. Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
  6. Hepatocellular Adenoma
  7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  8. Cholangiocarcinoma
  9. Metastases
  10. Summary
  11. References

Basic Protocol.

A comprehensive liver protocol evaluates the parenchyma, vasculature, and biliary system. This is accomplished by way of a combination of single-shot T2-weighted fast spin-echo, gradient echo T1-weighted in- and opposed-phase, fat suppressed T2-weighted, dynamic pre- and postcontrast T1-weighted imaging and potentially subtraction of pre- from postcontrast image sets.8 High-quality images require compromise between achievable resolution and the need for breath-holding, which limits each sequence to 20 seconds or less. Breath-holding is not always possible in sick patients. As a result, modifications to the basic protocol may include the addition of free-breathing sequences, respiratory-gating, motion correction techniques (i.e., BLADE or PROPELLER or radial acquisition of k-space).

MRI quality can be variable due to differences in sequences, gradient, and magnetic field strength. In recognition of this variability, a recent publication on behalf of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), under the auspices of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), describes minimum technical specifications for liver MRI.9 Although devised for HCC imaging in cirrhosis patients, the specifications provide useful guidance for liver MRI in general with suggestions on minimum sequences, injection rates, timing of dynamic imaging, slice thickness, and imaging matrix.

Diffusion-Weighted Imaging (DWI).

DWI is a measure of the ability of water molecule protons to diffuse freely within intra- and extracellular environments. DWI of FLL therefore reflects cellular density of the lesion. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values are calculated from tridirectional gradients (b-values), providing a quantifiable variable reflecting both diffusion and perfusion within imaged tissue.10 The b-values utilized in liver imaging range from 0-800, with b0 serving as a T2-weighted sequence used for lesion conspicuity and anatomic correlation. Higher b-values reflect true impedance. Lesions with the lowest ADC value, i.e., impeding diffusion to the greatest degree, are more likely to be malignant, although there is overlap with benign lesions.11-14 Several authors have suggested ADC thresholds for differentiating malignancy from benignity, with values ranging from ≤1.2 to 1.6 (1.2 × 10−3 mm2/s to 1.6 × 10−3 mm2/s), yielding specificities from 80 to >90%.13-19 In a study of 68 patients with 192 liver lesions, representing both metastases and benign lesions, DWI combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of approximately 93%.17 Although initial studies show promise in differentiating benign from malignant lesions,18-22 these results often included cysts and hemangiomas, known to demonstrate high ADC values. Taouli et al.23 in a study of 68 patients found benign lesions, excluding cysts and hemangiomas, demonstrated intermediate ADC values, making the use of a set threshold of questionable utility. Hence, further investigation is needed to better delineate the role of DWI in characterizing FLL.

Contrast Agents.

Intravenous MR contrast agents can be divided into extracellular (ECA) and hepatocyte-specific agents (HSA). ECA equilibrate with the extracellular fluid space after intravenous injection and are excreted by glomerular filtration, similar to CT agents. This permits multiphase dynamic postcontrast imaging during late arterial, portal venous, and equilibrium phases, allowing assessment of enhancement kinetics, a reflection of both vascularity and permeability.

HSA have dual elimination, with a portion of the dose distributed extracellularly and eliminated by the kidneys; the remainder is taken up by hepatocytes and excreted into the bile. The two HSAs available in the U.S. are Eovist (gadoxetate disodium, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, marketed as Primovist outside the U.S.) and Multihance (gadobenate dimeglumine, Bracco). To date, no large studies compare diagnostic accuracy of the two HSAs for FLL characterization. With Eovist, 50% of the dose is taken up by hepatocytes and eliminated by way of biliary excretion, compared to 3%-5% with MultiHance. This results in greater hepatobiliary phase parenchymal enhancement with Eovist. Hepatobiliary phase images are acquired 20-40 minutes after Eovist injection, compared to 1-2 hours after Multihance injection.

HSAs possess some properties of ECA, yielding dynamic postcontrast imaging with the added benefit of hepatobiliary phase imaging. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose of Eovist is 0.025 mmol/kg, which is one-fourth that of other approved agents. Although Eovist has greater T1 relaxivity, this reduced dose may lead to less robust arterial enhancement, prompting some radiologists to double the dose or acquire multiple arterial phases.24, 25 Additionally, hepatocyte uptake may begin as early as the portal venous phase, potentially confounding evaluation of enhancement kinetics. Given these issues, in our practice Eovist is the contrast of choice when evaluating suspected FNH and staging metastatic disease. However, for routine problem-solving MRI and in patients with suspected HCC, Eovist is reserved for special cases.

FLL Characterization

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Liver MRI
  4. FLL Characterization
  5. Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
  6. Hepatocellular Adenoma
  7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  8. Cholangiocarcinoma
  9. Metastases
  10. Summary
  11. References

Hemangiomas.

Hepatic hemangiomas are the most common benign FLL, with an incidence of 2%-20%.1-5 Classic MRI features include round or lobular margins, marked T2 hyperintensity (referred to as light-bulb bright), and characteristic enhancement pattern.26-30 Three distinct patterns of enhancement have been described on ECA-enhanced MRI, with reported specificities of 100% and diagnostic accuracies of 95%.31 Smaller lesions (<1.5 cm) may demonstrate uniform arterial enhancement, referred to as flash-filling. Larger, cavernous hemangiomas demonstrate either nodular peripheral interrupted enhancement coalescing centripetally to uniform enhancement (Fig. 1) or nodular peripheral interrupted enhancement that coalesces centripetally but with persistent central hypointensity.26 Giant hemangiomas may have regions of fibrosis and/or thrombosis, resulting in a central scar with strands of T2 hypointensity.26

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Hemangiomas. Image set 1. (A-C) Classic hemangioma T2 “light bulb” bright hepatic lesion (A), which displays classic interrupted peripheral enhancement that fills in from arterial to equilibrium phases (B,C) on this ECA-enhanced MRI. Image set 2. (D-F) Giant hemangioma T2 “light bulb” bright hepatic lesions (D), which display classic interrupted peripheral enhancement that incompletely coalesces with persistent areas of hypointensity on this ECA-enhanced MRI (E,F).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Caution should be exercised in differentiating hemangiomas from hypervascular metastases, such as neuroendocrine tumors, which can be markedly T2-hyperintense and arterially enhanced.32-35 Small flash-filling hemangiomas may require MR follow-up, as differentiation from metastases can be difficult. Metastases may demonstrate a continuous targetoid rim of enhancement compared to the discontinuous rim displayed by hemangiomas. With metastases, the arterial enhancing rim may washout, or become hypointense relative to the liver during the portal venous phase.

With HSA, hemangiomas demonstrate expected enhancement during the dynamic phase images and are hypointense during the hepatocyte phase, mirroring the signal intensity of the portal veins. This imaging appearance has been referred to as “pseudo-washout.”30, 36, 37 This hypointensity during the hepatobiliary phase is expected given the lack of hepatocytes within the lesion. Although the imaging appearance on T2-weighted and dynamic postcontrast sequences should allow for accurate diagnosis, HSA may not be the best option for suspected hemangiomas.

Focal Nodular Hyperplasia

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Liver MRI
  4. FLL Characterization
  5. Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
  6. Hepatocellular Adenoma
  7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  8. Cholangiocarcinoma
  9. Metastases
  10. Summary
  11. References

FNH, common in asymptomatic patients, pathologically consists of nonneoplastic hepatocytes in a disorganized array surrounding a central scar with anomalous vessels. As FNH are composed of hepatocytes, they are relatively stealthy (barely discernable from normal parenchyma) on noncontrast images and show a characteristic enhancement pattern.38-43 A typical enhancement pattern with ECA is early nodular arterial enhancement, which equilibrates, or becomes isointense, with the background liver on portal venous phase images (Fig. 2). Some lesions contain a T2 hyperintense central scar. The scar may be hypointense during the arterial phase and show delayed enhancement with ECA.

thumbnail image

Figure 2. Focal nodular hyperplasia. Image set 1. (A-C) Typical FNH. Large arterially enhancing (A), lobulated mass (arrows) with central scar becomes isointense to the liver during portal venous phase (B) and retains contrast on the hepatobiliary phase sequence (C). Image set 2. (D-F) Typical FNH in two different patients. Delayed enhancement of the central scar on ECA-enhanced MRI (arrowheads) is shown in (D,E) (arterial and equilibrium phases). In a second patient typical peripheral and confluent retention of contrast within two hepatic FNH (arrows) is shown on the hepatobiliary phase image on Multihance MRI (F).

Download figure to PowerPoint

HSA-enhanced MRI is the study of choice for FNH. On hepatobiliary phase images, FNH are iso- or hyperintense to the background liver, reflecting uptake of contrast by lesional hepatocytes. A multicenter study of 550 consecutive patients with FLL characterized on Multihance MRI demonstrated that 95% (289/302) of FNHs were iso- or hyperintense on hepatobiliary phase images.43 In the same study, the overall diagnostic performance of hepatobiliary MRI in differentiating benign from malignant lesions demonstrated sensitivity of 96.6%, specificity 87.6%, and positive predictive value of 85%.43 Zech et al.39 demonstrated hepatobiliary MRI with Eovist yielded confident diagnosis of FNH in 88% of patients. Graziolo et al.44 in a study of Multihance MRI in differentiating HCA from FNH found 97% sensitivity and 100% specificity in diagnosing FNH.

Although HSA yields reliable results in diagnosing FNH, some caution may be warranted. As experience with Eovist accumulates, there are several reports of paradoxical hepatobiliary phase enhancement in a minority of HCC and HCA. Although HCC typically arises in underlying cirrhosis, this is a potential pitfall of hepatobiliary imaging. It is hypothesized that some HCCs overexpress the cellular receptor, OATP1B3, which facilitates uptake of Eovist.45-51 Additionally, extracellular pooling of contrast within tumors may explain hyperintensity on hepatobiliary phase images, potentially seen with Eovist or Multihance in the setting of fibrotic or necrotic metastases.

Hepatocellular Adenoma

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Liver MRI
  4. FLL Characterization
  5. Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
  6. Hepatocellular Adenoma
  7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  8. Cholangiocarcinoma
  9. Metastases
  10. Summary
  11. References

HCA is an uncommon benign lesion linked to exogenous hormone exposure. Recent advances have facilitated identification of three distinct subtypes of HCA with different biological behavior and potentially different imaging features (Figs. 3, 4).52-56 These subtypes include: hepatocyte nuclear factor-1 alpha (HNF-1 alpha)-mutated, beta-catenin, and inflammatory HCA.

thumbnail image

Figure 3. Hepatic adenomas. Image set 1. (A-C) Hemorrhagic adenoma. T2 inversion recovery, in- and opposed-phase images show a heterogeneous hemorrhagic mass containing fat. The presence of hemorrhage is indicated by the region of T2 hypointensity (A) and T1 hyperintensity (B). The loss of signal on the opposed-phase image (C) indicates presence of fat within the lesion. This lesion was pathologically proven to be an adenoma. Image set 2. (D,E) Steatotic adenoma (HNF-1 alpha). In- and opposed-phase images nicely show drop in signal of this fat containing adenoma.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 4. Inflammatory adenoma. Image set 1. (H-L) Inflammatory adenoma. Coronal T2 HASTE, transaxial precontrast, arterial, portal venous, and 1-hour delayed Multihance hepatocyte phase images show a large T2 hyperintense/T1 mildly hypointense, arterial enhancing lesion which remains mildly hyperintense to the remainder of the liver during portal venous phase imaging. This lesion did not retain contrast on the Multihance delayed image (L). Biopsy of the mass was consistent with an inflammatory adenoma, previously called telangiectatic variant of FNH.

Download figure to PowerPoint

The majority of HCA are HNF-1 alpha and inflammatory subtypes. Inflammatory HCA has been described as T2 hyperintense with arterial hyperenhancement that persists on portal venous phase (Fig. 4). HNF-1 alpha HCA may show nonpersistent arterial enhancement and intralesional lipid, the presence of which can be diagnosed on in- and opposed-phase imaging. HNF-1 alpha are also called steatotic HCA due to diffuse lipid content. Inflammatory HCA may contain lipid; however, they potentially have only a small component or demonstrate heterogeneous signal loss on opposed-phase images compared to diffuse signal loss described with steatotic HCA (Fig. 3).56 Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of MRI in subtyping HCA show high specificity in identifying steatotic and inflammatory subtypes, with specificities ranging from 88%-100%.56, 57 Further investigation is needed to validate the MR criteria for HCA subtyping, especially in defining the imaging features of beta-catenin lesions, which portend the highest potential risk of malignant transformation.54, 55

Hepatobiliary phase imaging may distinguish HCA from FNH, a common differential in young asymptomatic women. Unlike FNH, HCA with rare exceptions do not retain contrast on hepatobiliary phase images.46

Hepatocellular Carcinoma

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Liver MRI
  4. FLL Characterization
  5. Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
  6. Hepatocellular Adenoma
  7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  8. Cholangiocarcinoma
  9. Metastases
  10. Summary
  11. References

HCC occurs almost exclusively in the setting of chronic liver disease.58 The classic HCC appearance on ECA-enhanced MRI, described in the setting of cirrhosis, is tumoral arterial enhancement, subsequent “washout” during portal venous or equilibrium phases, and delayed enhancing pseudocapsule (Fig. 5).59, 60 It is believed that loss of portal venous blood supply, occurring by way of a multistep carcinogenesis pathway, may explain the imaging appearance of “washout.”61 The presence of “washout” and delayed enhancing pseudocapsule are highly specific features of HCC when using ECA.60, 62, 63 Caution should be exercised in describing a pseudocapsule in the setting of prior hepatic-directed treatment, as granulation tissue can form a ring of peripheral enhancement in this scenario. In the setting of cirrhosis/fibrosis, lacy parenchymal enhancement surrounding a regenerative nodule may mimic the appearance of a pseudocapsule and/or potentially confound assessment of “washout.” Other supportive findings of HCC include vascular invasion, restricted diffusion, and T2 hyperintensity.

thumbnail image

Figure 5. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Image set 1. (A-C) Typical features of hepatocellular carcinoma in two patients. Images (A,B) (arterial and equllibrium phase ECA-enhanced MRI) show nicely arterial enhancement and washout with pseudocapsule. Image (C) (portal venous phase) from a second patient shows a large lesion that demonstrates washout and pseudocapsule on ECA-enhanced MRI. Image set 2. (D-F) Typical features of hepatocellular carcinoma in a single patient. Coronal postcontrast T1-weighted image shows a large mass in the inferior right lobe with scalloping of the portal vein (D), neovascularity on arteriogram DSA coronal image (E), and restricted diffusion on the ADC map MR image (F) demonstrated by the dark central region of the tumor.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Initial Eovist studies demonstrate a possible role in differentiating arterial pseudolesions from small HCC.64-71 However, Eovist remains controversial, with reports of paradoxical enhancement of HCC, nonretention by dysplastic nodules or fibrosis, and the potential diagnostic dilemma of small lesions (<1-2 cm) only seen on hepatobiliary phase images.45-51, 72

Arterial enhancement, although nonspecific, is an essential diagnostic feature of HCC and currently the only criterion required by UNOS in cirrhosis patients.73 With rising incidence and growing demand for liver transplantation, the AASLD/UNOS/OPTN and, separately, the American College of Radiology have proposed revised guidelines to improve the specificity of HCC diagnosis to best allocate the limited supply of organs.9, 73, 74 The revised guidelines rely on multiple features (i.e., arterial enhancement and washout or growth) with more stringent requirements for smaller 1-2 cm lesions. Neither system recognizes <1 cm nodules as HCC or describes a role for HSA. In an effort to validate the OPTN criteria, ACRIN 6690, a multicenter center study of MRI versus CT is currently enrolling subjects in the U.S.

The tradeoff of higher specificity at the expense of sensitivity is unavoidable, especially when dealing with HCC <2 cm and hypovascular HCC, the latter accounting for up to 5%-10% of cases.75-77 Consequently, if the new guidelines are adopted there is risk of increased biopsy-related morbidity and the potential for more advanced stage HCC prior to initiation of treatment. This potential downside may be balanced in effect by more appropriate organ allocation. However, additional large-scale investigation is needed to validate these new guidelines and determine potential impact.

Cholangiocarcinoma

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Liver MRI
  4. FLL Characterization
  5. Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
  6. Hepatocellular Adenoma
  7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  8. Cholangiocarcinoma
  9. Metastases
  10. Summary
  11. References

ICC represents 10% of primary hepatic malignant tumors and tends to arise in the background of chronic liver disease such as cholangitis, hepatitis, nonalcoholic chronic liver disease, and obesity.3, 78 The MR appearance of ICC consists of irregular T1 hypointense, T2 hyperintense heterogeneous mass with early rim enhancement followed by progressive centripetal heterogeneous enhancement of the remainder of the lesion with ECA.79, 80 The initial peripheral rim enhancement of ICC is usually continuous and should not be mistaken for interrupted peripheral enhancement of hemangiomas. The rim of arterial enhancement in ICC may show peripheral washout, a feature that is never seen with hemangiomas. The more specific features of cholangiocarcinoma, although not frequently present, include T2 hypointense scar (potentially reflecting central fibrosis), capsular retraction, and peripheral biliary dilation (Fig. 6).79-84 Although delayed enhancement is the most commonly described pattern for ICC, this overlaps in appearance with metastatic disease and hence biopsy is often warranted.

thumbnail image

Figure 6. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Image set 1 (A-C) Classic enhancement pattern for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma on ECA-enhanced MRI. Precontrast (A), arterial (B), and 5-minute delayed phase (C) images show the typical arterial enhancing rim and delayed central enhancement with washout of the rim in a lesion showing the typical enhancement pattern of cholangiocarcinoma. Image set 2. (D-F) Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in two different patients. Precontrast (D) and portal venous phase (E) on ECA-enhanced MRI in a patient show typical enhancement and peripheral biliary dilation, which is classic for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Image (F) (equilibrium phase on ECA-enhanced MRI) in a different patient shows nicely capsular retraction, which is another typical finding in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Metastases

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Liver MRI
  4. FLL Characterization
  5. Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
  6. Hepatocellular Adenoma
  7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  8. Cholangiocarcinoma
  9. Metastases
  10. Summary
  11. References

Hepatic metastases have variable appearances depending on the primary tumor and are characterized as hypervascular or hypovascular, enhancing more or less than surrounding parenchyma (Fig. 7). Hypervascular metastases are seen with neuroendocrine tumors, renal cell carcinoma, thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and sarcoma. Metastases from other primaries tend to be hypovascular. Internal hemorrhage may occur with metastases from renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, and lung cancer, often demonstrating T1 hyperintensity (Fig. 8). Hepatobiliary imaging with Eovist and DWI can be useful for detection of small hepatic metastases, demonstrating improved sensitivity over traditional MRI and CT.17-22, 85, 86

thumbnail image

Figure 7. Metastases. Image set 1. (A-E) Hepatic metastasis (breast cancer). T1-weighted precontrast, arterial and equilibrium phase postcontrast, and T2-weighted images (A-D) demonstrate continuous rim of enhancement with progressive filling in a T2-hyperintense lesion. The continuous rim of enhancement is most consistent with metastases, as was the case in this woman with breast cancer. This lesion demonstrated atypical features on the 1-hour delayed image with Multihance (E). The central retention of contrast was felt to be consistent with a fibrous component to the metastasis, not to be confused with a hepatocyte containing lesion such as a focal nodular hyperplasia.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 8. Metastases, continued. Image set 1. (F-I) Hepatic metastasis (carcinoid). Diffusion-weighted image (F), T1 precontrast (G), arterial (H), and equilibrium phase (I) images from an ECA-enhanced MRI show typical features of a hypervascular carcinoid tumor metastasis. Note the washout on equilibrium phase image due to the vascular nature of the lesion. Image set 2. (J-K) Hepatic metastasis (ocular melanoma). T2 inversion recovery and T1 precontrast images show a T2 hypointense, T1 hyperintense metastatic lesion. The atypical signal characteristics in this case are due to melanin content of the lesion.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Liver MRI
  4. FLL Characterization
  5. Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
  6. Hepatocellular Adenoma
  7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  8. Cholangiocarcinoma
  9. Metastases
  10. Summary
  11. References

MRI is a highly specific and accurate modality for FLL characterization. An experienced MR radiologist is essential to maintain high-quality liver MR protocols, determine appropriate indications for hepatocyte versus extracellular contrast agents, and guide management. Although many hepatic lesions have characteristic imaging features, consideration of the clinical context, in particular the presence or absence of underlying liver disease when considering HCC or ICC, is essential to confidently diagnose and direct management in these patients.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Liver MRI
  4. FLL Characterization
  5. Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
  6. Hepatocellular Adenoma
  7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  8. Cholangiocarcinoma
  9. Metastases
  10. Summary
  11. References
  • 1
    Karhunen PJ. Benign hepatic tumours and tumour like conditions in men. J Clin Pathol 1986; 39: 183-188.
  • 2
    Ishak KG, Rabin L. Benign tumors of the liver. Med Clin North Am 1975; 59: 995.
  • 3
    Craig J, Peters R, Edmondson H. Tumors of the liver and intrahepatic bile ducts. In: Hartman H, Sobin L, editors. Atlas of Tumor Pathology. Second series, fascicle 26. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 1989.
  • 4
    Padia SA, Baker ME, Schaeffer CJ, Remer EM, Obuchowski NA, Winans C, et al. Safety and efficacy of sonographic-guided random real-time core needle biopsy of the liver. J Clin Ultrasound 2009; 37: 138-143.
  • 5
    Appelbaum L, Kane RA, Kruskal JB, Romero J, Sosna J. Focal hepatic lesions: US-guided biopsy-lessons from review of cytologic and pathologic examination results. Radiology 2009; 250: 453-458.
  • 6
    Whitmire LF, Galambos JT, Phillips VM, Sewell CW, Erwin BC, Torres WE, et al. Imaging-guided percutaneous hepatic biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and safety. J Clin Gastroenterol 1985; 7: 511-515.
  • 7
    Xie L, Guang Y, Ding H, Cai A, Huang Y. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for focal liver lesions: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011; 37: 854-861.
  • 8
    Wile GE, Leyendecker J. Magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: sequence optimization and artifacts. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2010; 18: 525-547.
  • 9
    Pomfret E, Washburn K, Wald C, Nalesnik M, Douglas D, Russo M, et al. Report of a national conference on liver allocation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States. Liver Transpl 2010; 16: 262-278.
  • 10
    Yamada I, Aung W, Himeno Y, Nakagawa T, Shibuya H. Diffusion coefficients in abdominal organs and hepatic lesions: evaluation with intravoxel incoherent motion echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology 1999; 210: 617-623.
  • 11
    Kele PG, van der Jagt EJ. Diffusion weighted imaging in the liver. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 1567-1576.
  • 12
    Sandrasegaran K, Akisik FM, Lin C, Tahir B, Rajan J, Aisen AM. The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in characterizing focal liver masses. Acad Radiol 2009; 16: 1208-1214.
  • 13
    Miller FH, Hammond N, Siddiqi AJ, Schroff S, Khatri G, Wang Y, et al. Utility of diffusion-weighted MRI in distinguishing benign and malignant hepatic lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 32: 138-147.
  • 14
    Holzapfel K, Bruegel M, Eiber M, Rummeny E, Gaa J. Detection and characterization of focal liver lesions using respiratory-triggered diffusion weighted MR imaging (DWI). Magnetom Flash 2008/2 Siemens.
  • 15
    Soyer P, Corno L, Boudiaf M, Aout M, Sirol M, Place V, et al. Differentiation between cavernous hemangiomas and untreated malignant neoplasms of the liver with free-breathing diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with T2-weighted fast spin-echo MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 2010 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 16
    Kim T, Murakami T, Takahashi S, Hori M, Tsuda K, Nakamura H. Diffusion-weighted single-shot echo planar MR imaging for liver disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173: 393-398.
  • 17
    Kenis C, Deckers F, De Foer B, Van Mieghem F, Van Laere S, Pouillon M. Diagnosis of liver metastases: can diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) be used as a standalone sequence? Eur J Radiol 2011 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 18
    Taouli B, Sandberg A, Stemmer A, Parikh T, Wong S, Xu J, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: comparison of navigator triggered and breathhold acquisitions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30: 561-568.
  • 19
    Bruegel M, Holzapfel K, Gaa J, Woertler K, Waldt S, Kiefer B, et al. Characterization of focal liver lesions by ADC measurements using a respiratory triggered diffusion-weighted single-shot echo-planar MR imaging technique. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 477-485.
  • 20
    Bruegel M, Gaa J, Waldt S, Woertler K, Holzapfel K, Kiefer B, et al. Diagnosis of hepatic metastasis: comparison of respiration-triggered diffusion-weighted echo-planar MRI and five T2-weighted turbo spin-echo sequences. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191: 1421-1429.
  • 21
    Parikh T, Drew SJ, Lee VS, Wong S, Hecht EM, Babb JS, et al. Focal liver lesion detection and characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with standard breath-hold T2-weighted imaging. Radiology 2008; 246: 812-822.
  • 22
    Holzapfel K, Eiber MJ, Fingerle AA, Bruegel M, Rummeny EJ, Gaa J. Detection, classification, and characterization of focal liver lesions: value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging and the combination of both methods. Abdom Imaging 2011 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 23
    Taouli B, Vilgrain V, Dumont E, Daire JL, Fan B, Menu Y. Evaluation of liver diffusion isotropy and characterization of focal hepatic lesions with two single-shot echo-planar MR imaging sequences: prospective study in 66 patients. Radiology 2003; 226: 71-78.
  • 24
    Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sano K, Sou H, Onohara K, Muhi A, et al. Double-dose gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in patients with chronic liver disease. Invest Radiol 2011; 46: 141-145.
  • 25
    Zech CJ, Vos B, Nordell A, Urich M, Blomqvist L, Breuer J, Reiser MF, et al. Vascular enhancement in early dynamic liver MR imaging in an animal model: comparison of two injection regimen and two different doses of Gd-EOB-DTPA (Gadoxetic acid) with standard Gd-DTPA. Invest Radiol 2009; 44: 305-310.
  • 26
    Semelka RC, Brown ED, Ascher SM, Patt RH, Bagley AS, Li W, et al. Hepatic hemangiomas: a multi-institutional study of appearance on T2-weighted and serial gadolinium-enhanced gradient-echo MR images. Radiology 1994; 192: 401-406.
  • 27
    Semelka RC, Sofka CM. Hepatic hemangiomas. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1997: 5: 241-253.
  • 28
    Mitsudo K, Watanabe Y, Saga T, Dohke M, Sato N, Minami K, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Shigeyasu%20M%22%5BAuthor%5Det al. Nonenhanced hepatic cavernous hemangioma with multiple calcifications: CT and pathologic correlation. Abdom Imaging 1995; 20: 459-461.
  • 29
    Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Daldrup HE, Hesse T, Balzer T, Tombach B, et al. Enhancement characteristics of liver metastases, hepatocellular carcinomas, and hemangiomas with Gd-EOB-DTPA: preliminary results with dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 275-280.
  • 30
    Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Sirlin CB, Merkle EM. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part I, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the non-cirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 13-28.
  • 31
    Quillin SP, Atilla S, Brown JJ, Borrello JA, Yu CY, Pilgram TK. Characterization of focal hepatic masses by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: findings in 311 lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 15: 275-285.
  • 32
    Kim T, Federle MP, Baron RL, Peterson MS, Kawamori Y. Discrimination of small hepatic hemangiomas from hypervascular malignant tumors smaller than 3 cm with three-phase helical CT. Radiology 2001; 219: 699-706.
  • 33
    Leslie DF, Johnson CD, Johnson CM, Ilstrup DM, Harmsen WS. Distinction between cavernous hemangiomas of the liver and hepatic metastases on CT: value of contrast enhancement patterns. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 625-629.
  • 34
    Li KC, Glazer GM, Quint LE, Francis IR, Aisen AM, Ensminger WD, et al. Distinction of hepatic cavernous hemangioma from hepatic metastases with MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 169: 409-415.
  • 35
    Whitney WS. Dynamic breath-hold multiplanar spoiled gradient-recalled MR-imaging with gadolinium enhancement for differentiating hepatic hemangiomas from malignancies at 1.5-T. Radiology 1993; 189: 863-870.
  • 36
    Doo KW, Lee CH, Choi JW, Kim KA, Park CM. “Pseudo Washout” sign in high-flow hepatic hemangioma on gadoxetic acid contrast-enhanced MRI mimicking hypervascular tumor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: W490-W496.
  • 37
    Tamada T, Ito K, Yamamoto A, Sone T, Kanki A, Tanaka F, Higashi H. Hepatic hemangiomas: evaluation of enhancement patterns at dynamic MRI with gadoxetate disodium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 824-830.
  • 38
    Hussain SM, Terkivatan T, Zondervan PE, Langouw E, de Rave S, Ifzermans FNM, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia: findings at state-of-the-art MR imaging, US, CT, and pathologic analysis. Radiographics 2004; 24: 3-19.
  • 39
    Zech CJ, Grazioli L, Breuer J, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. Diagnostic performance and description of morphological features of focal nodular hyperplasia in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging: results of a multicenter trial. Investig Radiol 2008; 43: 504-511.
  • 40
    Marin D, Brancatelli G, Federle MP, Lagalla R, Catalano C, Passariello R, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia: typical and atypical MRI findings with emphasis on the use of contrast media. Clin Radiol 2008; 63: 577-585.
  • 41
    Morana G, Grazioli L, Schneider G, Testoni M, Menni K, Chiesa A, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Procacci%20C%22%5BAuthor%5Det al. Hypervascular hepatic lesions: dynamic and late enhancement pattern with Gd-BOPTA. Acad Radiol 2002; 9: S476-S479.
  • 42
    Grazioli L, Morana G, Federle MP, Brancatelli G, Testoni M, Kirchin MA, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia: morphologic and functional information from MR imaging with gadobenate dimeglumine. Radiology 2001; 221: 731-739.
  • 43
    Morana G, Grazioli L, Kirchin MA, Bondioni MP, Faccioli N, Guarise A, et al. Solid hypervascular liver lesions: accurate identification of true benign lesions on enhanced dynamic and hepatobiliary phase magnetic resonance imaging after gadobenate dimeglumine administration. Invest Radiol 2011; 46: 225-239.
  • 44
    Graziolo, L, Morana G, Kirchin MA, Schneider G. Accurate differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatic adenoma at gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging: prospective study. Radiology 2005; 236: 166-177.
  • 45
    Park Y, Kim SH, Kim SH, Jeon YH, Lee J, Kim MJ, et al. Gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI versus gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA)-enhanced MRI for preoperatively detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: an initial experience. Korean J Radiol 2010; 11: 433-440
  • 46
    Huppertz A, Haraida S, Kraus A, Zech CJ, Scheidler J, Breuer J, et al. Enhancement of focal liver lesions at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: correlation with histopathologic findings and spiral CT. Initial observations. Radiology 2005; 234: 468-478.
  • 47
    Ni Y, Marchal G, Yu J, Muhler A, Lukito G, Baert AL. Prolonged positive contrast enhancement with Gd-EOB-DTPA in experimental liver tumors: potential value in tissue characterization. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 4: 355-363.
  • 48
    Ni Y, Marchal G. Enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for tissue characterization of liver abnormalities with hepatobiliary contrast agents: an overview of preclinical animal experiments. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 9: 183-195.
  • 49
    Fujita M, Yamamoto R, Fritz-Zieroth B, Yamanaka T, Takahashi M, Miyazawa T, et al. Contrast enhancement with Gd-EOB-DTPA in MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in mice: a comparison with superparamagnetic iron oxide. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996; 6: 472-477.
  • 50
    Fujita M, Yamamoto R, Takahashi M, Tsuji T, Yamanaka T, Miyazawa T, et al. Paradoxic uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA by hepatocellular carcinoma in mice: quantitative image analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7: 768-770.
  • 51
    Narita M, Hatano E, Arizono S, Miyagawa-Hayashino A, Isoda H, Kitamura K, et al. Expression of OATP1B3 determines uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA in hepatocellular carcinomas. J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 793-798.
  • 52
    Bioulac-Sage P, Laumonier H, Couchy G, Le Bail B, Sa Cunha A, Rullier A, et al. Hepatocellular adenoma management and phenotypic classification: the Bordeaux experience. HEPATOLOGY 2009; 50: 481-489.
  • 53
    Bioulac-Sage P, Rebouissou S, Thomas C, Blanc J, Saric J, Sa Cunha A, et al. Hepatocellular adenoma subtype classification on using molecular markers and immunohistochemistry. HEPATOLOGY 2007; 46: 740-748.
  • 54
    Zucman-Rossi J, Jeannot E, Nhieu JT, Scoazec JY, Guettier C, Rebouissou S, et al. Genotype-phenotype correlation in hepatocellular adenoma: new classification and relationship with HCC. HEPATOLOGY 2006; 43: 515-524.
  • 55
    Van der Borght S, Libbrecht L, Katoonizadeh A, Aerts R, Nevens F, Verslype C, et al. Nuclear beta-catenin staining and absence of steatosis are indicators of hepatocellular adenomas with an increased risk of malignancy. Histopathology 2007; 51: 855-856.
  • 56
    Laumonier H, Bioulac-Sage P, Laurent C, Zucman-Rossi J, Balabaud C, Trillaud H. Hepatocellular adenomas: magnetic resonance imaging features as a function of molecular pathological classification. HEPATOLOGY 2008; 48: 808-818.
  • 57
    Ronot M, Bahrami S, Calderaro J, Valla D, Bedossa P, Belghti J, et al. Hepatocellular adenomas: accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and liver biopsy in subtype classification. HEPATOLOGY 2011; 53: 1182-1191.
  • 58
    Llovet JM, Burroughs A, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 2003; 362: 1907-1917.
  • 59
    Kelekis NL, Semelka RC, Worawattanakul S, de Lange EE, Ascher SM, Ahn IO, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Reinhold% 20C%22%5BAuthor%5Det al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in North America: a multi institutional study of appearance on T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and serial gadolinium-enhanced gradient echo images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170: 1005-1013.
  • 60
    Marrero JA, Hussain HK, Nghiem HV, Umar R, Fontana RJ, Lok AS. Improving the prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients with an arterially-enhancing liver mass. Liver Transpl 2005; 11: 281-289.
  • 61
    Kudo M. Multistep human hepatocarcinogenesis: correlation of imaging with pathology. J Gastroenterol 2009; 44: 112-118.
  • 62
    Carlos RC, Kim HM, Hussain HK, Francis IR, Nghiem HV, Fendrick AM. Developing a prediction rule to assess hepatic malignancy in patients with cirrhosis. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 893-900.
  • 63
    Khan AS, Hussain HK, Johnson TD, Weadock WJ, Pelletier SJ, Marrero JA. Value of delayed hypointensity and delayed enhancing rim in magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 32: 360-366.
  • 64
    Cruite I, Schroeder M, Merkle EM, Sirlin CB. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 2, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the cirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 29-41.
  • 65
    Kawada N, Ohkawa K, Tanaka S, Matsunaga T, Uehara H, Ioka T, et al. Improved diagnosis of well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma with gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Hepatol Res 2010; 40: 930-936.
  • 66
    Mita K, Kim SR, Kudo M, Imoto S, Nakajima T, Ando K, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Fukuda%20K%22%5BAuthor%5Det al. Diagnostic sensitivity of imaging modalities for hepatocellular carcinoma smaller than 2 cm. World J Gastroeneterol 2010; 16: 4187-4192.
  • 67
    Di Martino M, Marin D, Guerrisi A, Baski M, Galati F, Rossi M, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Brozzetti%20S%22% 5BAuthor%5Det al. Intraindividual comparison of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging and 64-section multidetector CT in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Radiology 2010; 256: 806-816.
  • 68
    Raman SS, Leary C, Bluemke D, Amendola M, Sahani D, McTavish J, et al. Improved characterization of focal liver lesions with liver-specific gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter phase 3 clinical trial. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2010; 34: 163-172.
  • 69
    Sun HY, Lee JM, Shin CI, Lee DH, Moon SK, Kim KW, et al. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating small hepatocellular carcinomas (<2 cm in diameter) from arterial enhancing pseudolesions: special emphasis on hepatobiliary phase imaging. Invest Radiol 2010; 45: 96-103.
  • 70
    Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sou H, Sano K, Tominaga L, Muhi A, et al. Distinguishing hypervascular pseudolesions of the liver form hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2010; 256: 152-158.
  • 71
    Saito K, Kotake F, Ito N, Ozuki T, Mikami R, Abe K, et al. Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MRI for hepatocellular carcinoma: quantitative evaluation of tumor enhancement in hepatobiliary phase. Magn Reson Med Sci 2005; 4: 1-9.
  • 72
    Tsuda N, Okada M, Murakami T. New proposal for the staging of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: evaluation of liver fibrosis on Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol 2010; 73: 137-142.
  • 73
    Organ distribution: allocation of livers-liver transplant candidates with HCC. UNOS website: http://www.unos.org/policiesandbylaws/policies.asp?resources_true
  • 74
    American College of Radiology (ACR): LI-RADS: liver imaging reporting and data systems. ACR website: http://www.acr.org/LI-RADS Version1.0_March2011
  • 75
    Bolondi L, Gaiani S, Celli N, Golfieri R, Grigioni W, Leoni S, et al. Chracterization of small nodules in cirrhosis by assessment of vascularity: the problem of hypovascular hepatocellular carcinoma. HEPATOLOGY 2005; 42: 27-34.
  • 76
    Forner A, Vilana R, Ayuso C, Bianchi L, Sole M, Ayuso J, et al. Diagnosis of hepatic nodules 20 mm or smaller in cirrhosis: prospective validation of the noninvasive diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma. HEPATOLOGY 2008; 47: 97-104.
  • 77
    Kojiro M, Roskams T. Early hepatocellular carcinoma and dysplastic nodules. Semin Liver Dis 2005; 25: 133-142.
  • 78
    Welzel T, Graubard B, El-Serag H, Shaib Y, Hsing A, Davila J, et al. Risk factors for intra- and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States: a population based case-control study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 1221-1228.
  • 79
    Maetani Y, Itoh K, Watanabe C, Shibata T, Ametani F, Yamabe H, et al. MR imaging of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 1499-1507.
  • 80
    Chung YE, Kim MJ, Park YN, Choi JY, Pyo JY, Kim YC, et al. Varying appearances of cholangiocarcinoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2009; 29: 683-700.
  • 81
    Hamrick-Turner J, Abbitt PL, Ros PR. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: MR appearance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158: 77-79
  • 82
    Fan ZM, Yamashita Y, Harada M, Baba Y, Yamamoto H, Matsukawa T, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: spin-echo and contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 313-317
  • 83
    Murakami T, Nakamura H, Tsuda K, Ishida T, Tomoda K, Hori S, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: pathologic correlation study. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995; 5: 165-170.
  • 84
    Vilgrain V, Van Beers BE, Flejou JF, Belghiti J, Delos M, Gautier AL, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: MRI and pathologic correlation in 14 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997; 21: 59-65
  • 85
    Zech CJ, Herrmann KA, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. MR imaging in patients with suspected liver metastases: value of liver-specific contrast agent Gd-EOB-DTPA. Magn Reson Med Sci 2007; 6: 43-52.
  • 86
    Hammerstingl R, Huppertz A, Breuer J, Balzer T, Blakeborough A, Carter R, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid (Primovist)-enhanced MRI and spiral CT for a therapeutic strategy: comparison with intraoperative and histopathologic findings in focal lesions. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18: 457-467.