AJR InPractice
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burkholz, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Silva, A. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burkholz, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Silva, A. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.7074
AJR 2008; 190:S53-S56
© American Roentgen Ray Society


AJR Integrative Imaging LIFELONG LEARNING FOR RADIOLOGY

AJR Teaching File: Hypervascular Metastasis or Hepatic Hemangioma?

Kimberly J. Burkholz1 and Alvin C. Silva1

1 Both authors: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 13400 Shea Blvd., Scottsdale, AZ 85259.

Received September 12, 2006; accepted after revision November 11, 2006.

Address correspondence to A. C. Silva.

Keywords: abdominal imaging • dynamic MRI • liver • oncologic imaging

Clinical History

A 67-year-old man presented with the new onset of generalized abdominal pain. CT of the abdomen revealed a 3-cm mass at the root of the mesentery, for which he underwent exploratory laparotomy. Tissue biopsy of the mass revealed high-grade gastrointestinal stromal tumor. The mass was unresectable because of encasement of the superior mesenteric vessels. Despite neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the patient developed liver metastases. His chemotherapy regimen was altered, and he subsequently underwent MRI of the abdomen to evaluate his response to treatment.

Radiologic Description

Unenhanced axial T1-weighted in-phase imaging (Fig. 1A) shows multiple lesions, including a 2.3-cm hypointense mass in segment VIII of the liver This lesion is hyperintense on the axial intermediate-echo T2-weighted image (Fig. 1B), which persists on the long-echo T2-weighted image (Fig. 1C). Steady-state free precession imaging (Fig. 1D) shows well-defined high signal intensity in the lesion equal to that of the left portal vein. After gadolinium contrast administration, this mass shows intense peripheral nodular enhancement in a continuous ringlike pattern during the arterial phase (Fig. 1E) and progressive centripetal enhancement on delayed images (Fig. 1F). Follow-up MRI revealed the decreased size of all lesions (Figs. 1G and 1H).


Figure 1
View larger version (129K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1A 67-year-old man with chemotherapy-treated hepatic metastases mimicking hemangiomas. Unenhanced axial T1 in-phase image shows 2.3-cm hypointense mass (arrow) in liver segment VIII.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (119K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1B 67-year-old man with chemotherapy-treated hepatic metastases mimicking hemangiomas. T2-weighted images show high signal equal to that of CSF in lesion on both intermediate-echo (B, arrow) and long-echo (C, arrow) sequences. Note additional smaller hyperintense metastases (arrowheads).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (132K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1C 67-year-old man with chemotherapy-treated hepatic metastases mimicking hemangiomas. T2-weighted images show high signal equal to that of CSF in lesion on both intermediate-echo (B, arrow) and long-echo (C, arrow) sequences. Note additional smaller hyperintense metastases (arrowheads).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (125K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1D 67-year-old man with chemotherapy-treated hepatic metastases mimicking hemangiomas. Steady-state free precession sequence shows high signal intensity in lesion (arrow) that is equal to that in left portal vein.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (126K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1E 67-year-old man with chemotherapy-treated hepatic metastases mimicking hemangiomas. T1-weighted dynamic gadolinium-enhanced sequences. During arterial phase, mass shows peripheral nodular enhancement in continuous ringlike pattern (E, arrow). Note progressive centripetal enhancement during portal venous and delayed phase (F, arrow). Additional metastases show variable enhancement (arrowheads).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (118K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1F 67-year-old man with chemotherapy-treated hepatic metastases mimicking hemangiomas. T1-weighted dynamic gadolinium-enhanced sequences. During arterial phase, mass shows peripheral nodular enhancement in continuous ringlike pattern (E, arrow). Note progressive centripetal enhancement during portal venous and delayed phase (F, arrow). Additional metastases show variable enhancement (arrowheads).

 

Figure 7
View larger version (113K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1G 67-year-old man with chemotherapy-treated hepatic metastases mimicking hemangiomas. Axial T2-weighted (G) and portal venous phase (H) images obtained 8 months after initiation of chemotherapy treatment show significant decrease in size and number of hepatic metastases (compare with B and F). Dominant segment VIII lesion (arrows) has decreased from 2.3 to 0.9 cm, indicating favorable response to treatment.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (119K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1H 67-year-old man with chemotherapy-treated hepatic metastases mimicking hemangiomas. Axial T2-weighted (G) and portal venous phase (H) images obtained 8 months after initiation of chemotherapy treatment show significant decrease in size and number of hepatic metastases (compare with B and F). Dominant segment VIII lesion (arrows) has decreased from 2.3 to 0.9 cm, indicating favorable response to treatment.

 
Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis includes hemangioma, focal nodular hyperplasia, adenoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and hypervascular metastases.

Diagnosis

The diagnosis is chemotherapy-treated metastasis from gastrointestinal stromal tumor of the mesentery.

Commentary

Hemangiomas are common benign liver lesions that can have a variable appearance on MRI. However, a mass that maintains high signal intensity on a long-echo T2-weighted sequence and shows early peripheral nodular enhancement with centripetal progression and coalescence of nodules after contrast administration has been considered virtually pathognomonic for hemangioma [13]. Although this has been shown to be the most common pattern, small hemangiomas can display rapid intense homogeneous arterial enhancement, whereas large hemangiomas can exhibit persistent central hypointensity [3].

The discrimination of hemangiomas from hepatic metastases is a common clinical indication for MRI. Because most liver metastases are hypovascular, and thus hypointense on the portal venous phase, these lesions are easily differentiated from hemangiomas on contrast-enhanced studies [4]. On the other hand, distinguishing hypervascular metastases from the early-enhancing type of hemangioma can be problematic because both types of lesions are rapidly enhancing on arterial phase contrast-enhanced images. However, on the portal venous and delayed phases, hypervascular metastases typically show early washout, becoming isointense or hypointense to the surrounding liver parenchyma. In addition, the peripheral washout of contrast material on serial delayed contrast-enhanced images (target lesion) has been shown to be highly specific for hypervascular metastases [5]. Thus, the portal venous and delayed phase retention of contrast material by hemangiomas is key to differentiating them from other hypervascular masses.

In regard to T2-weighted sequences, the markedly hyperintense signal of hemangiomas typically exceeds that of most metastases, which are more heterogeneous and intermediate in signal. The use of heavily T2-weighted [6] and steady-state free precession [7] sequences will help improve differentiation. However, a number of different liver metastases have been reported to have high T2 signal, which is thought to relate to the increased fluid content of these tumors. These lesions include leiomyosarcoma, carcinoid, melanoma, renal cell cancer, insulinoma, glucagonoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma [2, 810]. Thus, the T2-weighted imaging characteristics alone cannot reliably be used to differentiate hypervascular metastases from hemangioma.

Another problematic issue in the differentiation of hemangiomas from other hepatic masses occurs after treatment with chemotherapy. The neovascularity of the primary tumor and its metastases is the basis for differentiating an underlying mass from normal background organ parenchyma on contrast-enhanced MRI. For example, the ring-enhancing pattern frequently seen in metastatic lesions is attributable to the increased density and permeability of neovessels at the tumor periphery [11]. After initiation of chemotherapy, metastases can exhibit a less aggressive pattern, mimicking hemangiomas, including early peripheral nodular enhancement and delayed retention of contrast material. This has been postulated to be a result of chemotherapy-induced antiangiogenesis, with the early peripheral nodular enhancement due to altered vascularity, and the retention of contrast material on the 10-minute contrast-enhanced images reflecting an enlarged extracellular space or decreased venous drainage [12]. In a previous study describing chemotherapy-treated metastases mimicking hemangiomas, none of the metastases had the classic appearance of rounded lobules of contrast enhancement in a dis continuous ring with gradual coalescence [12]. Thus, although variations in the morphology and the rate of progression of enhancement in hemangiomas can occur, a nodular, but continuous, rim enhancement should favor the diagnosis of treated metastasis.

With regard to the other differential considerations, these can be excluded in this patient for the following reasons. Focal nodular hyperplasia is usually isointense, or nearly isointense, on T1- and T2-weighted imaging, except for a T2 hyperintense central scar. On delayed contrast-enhanced images, focal nodular hyperplasia will exhibit washout, except for a late enhancing scar, visible in up to 78% of cases undergoing MR [13, 14]. Adenomas and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can show variable T1 and T2 signals, depending on the amount of fat, hemorrhage, or cellular atypia present. However, these two lesions do not typically exhibit the degree of increased T2 signal present in this patient. In addition, both adenomas and HCCs also will classically show washout on delayed contrast-enhanced images, with a late enhancing peripheral rim (capsule) [15, 16]. The lack of underlying chronic liver disease also makes HCC less likely. Both the early-enhancing type of hemangioma and hypervascular metastases can present as hypervascular masses with well-defined, persistent increased signal on heavily T2-weighted and steady-state free precession sequences. Typically, the later contrast-enhanced images are the key sequences in differentiating a persistently enhancing hemangioma from the contrast washout of hypervascular metastases. However, it is the intact, continuous rim of enhancement on the arterial phase images that suggests the correct diagnosis of metastases. Table 1 describes the characteristic MR signal and enhancement patterns of common focal liver lesions.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 1: Characteristic MRI Signal and Enhancement Patterns of Focal Liver Lesions

 

Clinical history and prior imaging often are critical in the discrimination of these lesions. In this case, the lesions were not present on the patient's initial diagnostic CT examination, but grew in size over the course of the year until the chemotherapy regimen was altered, at which time the lesions began to regress in size and number, indicating a favorable response to treatment.

Objective

The educational objective of this article is to emphasize potential imaging similarities of chemotherapy-treated liver metastases and hemangiomas.

Conclusion

Liver metastases treated with chemotherapy can show MRI characteristics similar to those seen in benign hemangiomas. One discriminating feature of treated metastases is a nodular, but continuous, rim of enhancement in the arterial phase, as opposed to the discontinuous peripheral nodules of enhancement typically seen in hemangiomas. A history of chemotherapy should be sought in patients undergoing evaluation for liver metastases to avoid inaccurate staging and ensure appropriate treatment planning.

References

  1. Mitchell DG, Saini S, Weinreb J, et al. Hepatic metastases and cavernous hemangioma: distinction with standard- and triple-dose gadoteridol-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology1994; 193:49 -57[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Whitney WS, Herfkens RJ, Jeffrey RB, et al. 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[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Semelka RC, Brown ED, Ascher SM, et al. Hepatic hemangiomas: a multi-institutional study of appearance on T2-weighted and serial gadolinium-enhanced gradient-echo MR images. Radiology1994; 192:401 -406[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Goshima S, et al. Imaging liver metastases: review and update. Eur J Radiol 2006;58 : 217-228[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Quillin SP, Atilla S, Brown JJ, Borello A, Ya CY, Pilgram TK. Characterization of focal hepatic masses by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: findings in 311 lesions. Magn Reson Imaging1997; 15:275 -285[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. McFarland EG, Mayo-Smith WW, Saini S, Hahn PF, Goldberg MA, Lee MJ. Hepatic hemangiomas and malignant tumors: improved differentiation with heavily T2-weighted conventional spin-echo MR imaging. Radiology 1994;193 : 43-47[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Numminen K, Halavaara J, Isoniemi H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: true fast imaging with steady state free precession sequence facilitates rapid and reliable distinction between hepatic hemangiomas and liver malignancies. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27:571 -576[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Lombardo DM, Baker ME, Spritzer CE, Blinder R, Meyers W, Herfkens RJ. Hepatic hemangiomas vs metastases: MR differentiation at 1.5 T. AJR 1990; 155:55 -59[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Soyer P, Riopel M, Blumeke DA, Scherrer A. Hepatic metastases from leiomyosarcoma: MR features with histopathologic correlation. Abdom Imaging 1997; 22:67 -71[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Larson RE, Semelka RC, Bagley AS, Molina PL, Brown ED, Lee JK. Hypervascular malignant liver lesions: comparison of various MR imaging pulse sequences and dynamic CT. Radiology 1994;192 : 393-399[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Passe TJ, Bluemke DA, Siegelman SS. Tumor angiogenesis: tutorial on implications for imaging. Radiology 1997;203 : 593-600[Free Full Text]
  12. Semelka RC, Worawattanakul S, Noone TC, et al. Chemotherapy-treated liver metastases mimicking hemangiomas on MR images. Abdom Imaging 1999; 24:378 -382[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Hussain SM, Terkivatan T, Zondervan PE, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia: findings at state-of-the-art MR imaging, US, CT, and pathologic analysis. RadioGraphics 2004;24 : 3-17[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Mortelé KJ, Praet M, Van Vlierberghe H, Kunnen M, Ros PR. CT and MR imaging findings in focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver: radiologic–pathologic correlation. AJR2000; 175:687 -692[Free Full Text]
  15. Elsayes KM, Narra VR, Yin Y, Mukundan G, Lammle M, Brown JJ. Focal hepatic lesions: diagnostic value of enhancement pattern approach with contrast-enhanced 3D gradient-echo MR imaging. RadioGraphics 2005;25 : 1299-1320[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Hussain SM, Semelka RC, Mitchell DG. MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am2002; 10:31 -52[CrossRef][Medline]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C.-H. Liu, D. C. Rivard, A. C. Silva, K. J. Burkholz, and S. D. Beaty
Imaging of Focal Hepatic Lesions: Self-Assessment Module
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6_Supplement): S65 - S68.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burkholz, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Silva, A. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burkholz, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Silva, A. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS