Comparison analysis of clinical and contrast-enhanced ultrasound characteristics of hepatic angiomyolipoma compared with hepatic cavernous hemangioma and hepatocellular carcinoma
10.13929/j.1003-3289.201905096
- Author:
Bowen ZHUANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Medical Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Sun Yat-sen University
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Angiomyolipoma;
Liver neoplasms;
Ultrasonography;
Ultrasound contrast
- From:
Chinese Journal of Medical Imaging Technology
2019;35(11):1616-1621
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To compare clinical features and ultrasonic characteristics of hepatic angiomyolipoma (HAML), hepatic cavernous hemangioma (HCH) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: Data of 40 patients with HAML confirmed by pathology who underwent CEUS were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical features, imaging characteristics of conventional ultrasound and CEUS were observed. Mean while, 40 patients with HCH and 40 patients with HCC were enrolled for comparison with HAML. Results: HAML mainly occurred in female (70.00%, 28/40), with an average age of (39.8±10.6) years. Distinctions of gender, age and hepatitis virus infection were statistically significant between HAML and HCC (all P<0.001), but no statistically difference was found between HAML and HCH (all P>0.05). HAML mostly presented as high echogenic lesions with clear boundaries and regular morphology on conventional ultrasound. There was no significant difference lesions'number, size, morphology nor blood supply between HAML and HCC (all P>0.05), but the distinctions of echo (χ2=8.93, P=0.008) and boundary (χ2=2.03, P=0.013) were statistically different. No statistical difference of number, size, border, echo, lesion morphology and blood supply was found between HAML and HCH (all P>0.05). On CEUS, 62.50% (25/40) of HAML showed "fast in and fast out" performance, but it subsided into iso-enhancement (t=-2.46, P=0.016) or hypo-enhancement (t=-5.35, P<0.001) later than HCC. There were significant differences of enhancement level in portal and delayed phases between HAML and HCH, as well as between HAML and HCC (all P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in arterial phase (both P>0.05). Conclusion: Combination of clinical features, conventional ultrasound and CEUS characteristics are helpful to distinguish HAML from HCH and HCC.
