Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fat in mass in primary liver lesions: are usual MRI diagnostic criteria of both malignant and benign liver lesions still applicable?

  • Hepatobiliary
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy of the usual MRI diagnostic patterns of primary liver lesions applied to the diagnosis of pathologically proven fat-containing liver lesions.

Materials and Methods

This monocentric IRB approved retrospective study included all patients with pathologically proven focal liver lesions and documented intra-tumoral fat on pathology and who underwent preoperative liver MRI for characterization. Both liver morphology and usual lesion MRI features were analyzed and their distribution correlated to the final pathological result (Khi-2 or Fisher exact tests, Student t-test or Mann–Whitney U test, as appropriate). The Sensitivity (Se) and Specificity (Sp) of MRI patterns known to be associated to both Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC), Focal Nodular Hyperplasia (FNH), and Hepatocellular Adenoma (HCA) subtypes were evaluated.

Results

Between March 2014 and November 2021, 66 lesions were included, corresponding to: 26 HCC, 32 HCA, 6 FNH and 2 hepatic angiomyolipoma (HAML). All lesions developed on a dysmorphic liver were HCC. A non-rim arterial phase hyperenhancement with a washout and an enhancing capsule had a 98% specificity for HCC diagnosis; A homogeneous dropout of signal on the opposed phase had a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 89% for the diagnosis of HNF1alpha inactivated subtype of HCA (HHCA). The FNH pattern was specific at 100% for the diagnosis of FNH with a 40% Se. Finally, the accuracy of inflammatory hepatocellular adenoma (IHCA) pattern had a low 60% Se but a high 89% Sp for IHCA diagnosis.

Conclusion

Known MRI patterns remain reliable for the accurate diagnosis of primary liver tumors on MRI even in fat-containing lesions.

Graphical abstract

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prasad, S.R., et al., Fat-containing lesions of the liver: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics, 2005. 25(2): p. 321-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hamer, O.W., et al., Fatty liver: imaging patterns and pitfalls. Radiographics, 2006. 26(6): p. 1637-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chung, A.D., Fat-Containing Lesions of the Liver: A Review of Differential Diagnoses. Can Assoc Radiol J, 2020. 71(1): p. 12-18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Costa, A.F., et al., Fat-Containing Liver Lesions on Imaging: Detection and Differential Diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2018. 210(1): p. 68-77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tekath, M., et al., Fat-containing lesions of the liver: a pictorial essay. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2015. 96(2): p. 201-11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vij, M. and J. Calderaro, Pathologic and molecular features of hepatocellular carcinoma: An update. World J Hepatol, 2021. 13(4): p. 393-410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nault, J.C., et al., Molecular Classification of Hepatocellular Adenoma Associates With Risk Factors, Bleeding, and Malignant Transformation. Gastroenterology, 2017. 152(4): p. 880-894.e6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bello, H.R., et al., Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Atypical Imaging Features: Review of the Morphologic Hepatocellular Carcinoma Subtypes With Radiology-Pathology Correlation. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021.

  9. Nault, J.C., et al., Molecular classification of hepatocellular adenoma in clinical practice. J Hepatol, 2017. 67(5): p. 1074-1083.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address, e.e.e. and L. European Association for the Study of the, EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol, 2018. 69(1): p. 182–236.

  11. Chernyak, V., et al., Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Version 2018: Imaging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in At-Risk Patients. Radiology, 2018. 289(3): p. 816-830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee, S.J., et al., Hepatic Angiomyolipoma Versus Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Noncirrhotic Liver on Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI: A Diagnostic Challenge. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2016. 207(3): p. 562-70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ronot, M., et al., Hepatocellular adenomas: accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and liver biopsy in subtype classification. Hepatology, 2011. 53(4): p. 1182-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Laumonier, H., et al., Hepatocellular adenomas: magnetic resonance imaging features as a function of molecular pathological classification. Hepatology, 2008. 48(3): p. 808-18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ronot, M., et al., MR findings of steatotic focal nodular hyperplasia and comparison with other fatty tumours. Eur Radiol, 2013. 23(4): p. 914-23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Calderaro, J., et al., Histological subtypes of hepatocellular carcinoma are related to gene mutations and molecular tumour classification. J Hepatol, 2017. 67(4): p. 727-738.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cree, I.A.C.i.d.r.s.l.c.O.m.d.l.s., WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. 2019.

  18. Brunt, E.M., et al., NAFLD: Reporting Histologic Findings in Clinical Practice. Hepatology, 2021. 73(5): p. 2028-2038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Krishna, M., Histological Grading and Staging of Chronic Hepatitis. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken), 2021. 17(4): p. 222-226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lafortune, M., et al., Segment 4 (the quadrate lobe): a barometer of cirrhotic liver disease at US. Radiology, 1998. 206(1): p. 157-60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Awaya, H., et al., Cirrhosis: modified caudate-right lobe ratio. Radiology, 2002. 224(3): p. 769-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bise, S., et al., New MRI features improve subtype classification of hepatocellular adenoma. Eur Radiol, 2019. 29(5): p. 2436-2447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ronot, M. and V. Vilgrain, Imaging of benign hepatocellular lesions: current concepts and recent updates. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol, 2014. 38(6): p. 681-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Koo, T.K. and M.Y. Li, A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med, 2016. 15(2): p. 155-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cassidy, F.H., et al., Fatty liver disease: MR imaging techniques for the detection and quantification of liver steatosis. Radiographics, 2009. 29(1): p. 231-60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rajlawot, K., et al., Accuracies of Chemical Shift In/Opposed Phase and Chemical Shift Encoded Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Intratumoral Fat in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021. 53(6): p. 1791-1802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Marrero, J.A., et al., Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology, 2018. 68(2): p. 723-750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Silva, A.C., et al., MR imaging of hypervascular liver masses: a review of current techniques. Radiographics, 2009. 29(2): p. 385-402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nakayama, T., et al., Fat in liver metastasis from renal cell carcinoma detected by chemical shift MR imaging. Abdom Imaging, 2003. 28(5): p. 657-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, APHP, HU Henri Mondor, Creteil, Val-de-Marne, France

    Edouard Reizine, Azure Meurgey, Sebastien Mule & Alain Luciani

  2. Faculté de Médecine, Universite Paris Est Creteil, 94010, Creteil, France

    Edouard Reizine, Sebastien Mule & Alain Luciani

  3. INSERM Unit U 955, Equipe 18, 94010, Creteil, France

    Edouard Reizine, Giuliana Amaddeo, Alexis Laurent, Julien Calderaro, Sebastien Mule & Alain Luciani

  4. Department of Hepatology, APHP, HU Henri Mondor, Créteil, France

    Giuliana Amaddeo

  5. Departement of Liver Surgery, APHP, HU Henri Mondor, Creteil, Val-de-Marne, France

    Alexis Laurent

  6. Department of Pathology, APHP, HU Henri Mondor, Creteil, Val-de-Marne, France

    Julien Calderaro

Authors
  1. Edouard Reizine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Azure Meurgey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giuliana Amaddeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexis Laurent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julien Calderaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sebastien Mule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alain Luciani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edouard Reizine.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 20 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reizine, E., Meurgey, A., Amaddeo, G. et al. Fat in mass in primary liver lesions: are usual MRI diagnostic criteria of both malignant and benign liver lesions still applicable?. Abdom Radiol 47, 2347–2355 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03561-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03561-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation