Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5762_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •1.1 Historical Remarks
- •1.1.1 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound
- •2.2 Machine Settings
- •1.4 CEUS Phases
- •1.8 Three-Dimensional (3D) CEUS
- •1.9 CEUS Guidelines
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2.2 Image Depth Penetration
- •2.2.3 Focus
- •2.2.5 Background Signal (Noise)
- •2.2.6 Dynamic Range
- •2.2.7 Frame Rate
- •2.6 Artifacts
- •2.6.1 Long Liver Enhancement
- •2.7 Safety
- •References
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.7 Detection by Intraoperative Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (IO-CEUS)
- •References
- •4: Malignant Liver Tumors
- •4.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •4.1.1 Introduction
- •4.1.6 Surveillance
- •4.1.7 CEUS LI-RADS
- •4.1.8 Small HCC
- •4.1.9 Treatment Response Follow Up
- •4.1.9.1 Ablation Therapy
- •4.1.9.2 Transarterial Chemoembolization
- •4.1.9.3 Targeted Therapy
- •4.2 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •4.2.2 Imaging
- •4.2.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •4.2.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •4.2.2.3 CT Findings
- •4.2.2.4 MRI Findings
- •4.2.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •4.2.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •4.2.3.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •4.2.4 Pathology
- •4.2.4.1 General Features
- •4.2.5 Clinical Issues
- •4.2.5.1 Presentation
- •4.2.5.2 Prognosis
- •4.2.5.3 Treatment
- •4.3 Liver Metastases
- •4.3.1 Terminology
- •4.3.2 Imaging Features
- •4.3.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •4.3.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •4.3.2.3 CT Findings
- •4.3.2.4 MRI Findings
- •4.3.3.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •4.3.3.2 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •4.3.3.3 Focal Fatty Liver Change
- •4.4 Dysplasia Nodules
- •4.4.1 Terminology
- •4.4.2 Imaging
- •4.4.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •4.4.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •4.4.2.3 CT Findings
- •4.4.2.4 MRI Findings
- •4.4.2.5 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •4.4.4 Pathology
- •4.4.4.1 General Features
- •4.4.5 Clinical Issues
- •4.4.5.1 Presentation
- •4.4.5.2 Prognosis
- •4.4.5.3 Treatment
- •References
- •5: Benign Liver Tumors
- •5.1 Hepatic Hemangioma
- •5.1.1 Terminology
- •5.1.2 Imaging
- •5.1.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •5.1.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •5.1.2.3 CT Findings
- •5.1.2.4 MRI Findings
- •5.1.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •5.1.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •5.1.3.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •5.1.3.2 Metastatic Hepatic Carcinoma
- •5.1.3.3 Focal Angiosarcoma
- •5.1.3.4 Abscess
- •5.1.3.5 Hepatic Adenoma
- •5.1.4 Pathology
- •5.1.4.1 General Features
- •5.1.5 Clinical Issues
- •5.1.5.1 Presentation
- •5.1.5.2 Prognosis
- •5.1.5.3 Treatment
- •5.2 Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
- •5.2.1 Terminology
- •5.2.2 Imaging
- •5.2.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •5.2.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •5.2.2.3 CT Findings
- •5.2.2.4 MRI Findings
- •5.2.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •5.2.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •5.2.3.1 Hepatic Adenoma
- •5.2.3.2 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •5.2.3.3 Fibrolamellar Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •5.2.4 Pathology
- •5.2.4.1 General Features
- •5.2.5 Clinical Issues
- •5.2.5.1 Prognosis
- •5.2.5.2 Treatment
- •5.3 Hepatocellular Adenoma
- •5.3.1 Terminology
- •5.3.2 Imaging
- •5.3.2.1 Ultrasonographic Findings
- •5.3.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •5.3.2.3 CT Findings
- •5.3.2.4 MRI Findings
- •5.3.2.5 Imaging Recommendations
- •5.3.3.1 Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
- •5.3.3.2 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •5.3.3.3 Fibrolamellar Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •5.3.3.4 Hepatic Hemangioma
- •5.3.4 Pathology
- •5.3.4.1 General Features
- •5.3.5 Clinical Issues
- •5.3.5.1 Presentation
- •5.3.5.2 Complications
- •5.4.1 Terminology
- •5.4.2 Imaging
- •5.4.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •5.4.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •5.4.2.3 CT Findings
- •5.4.2.4 MRI Findings
- •5.4.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •5.4.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •5.4.3.1 Hepatocellular Carcinomas
- •5.4.3.2 Metastases
- •5.4.3.3 Hemangioma
- •5.4.4 Pathology
- •5.4.4.1 General Features
- •5.4.5 Clinical Issues
- •5.4.5.1 Presentation
- •5.4.5.2 Prognosis
- •5.4.5.3 Treatment
- •References
- •6: Rare Malignant Liver Tumors
- •6.1 Hepatic Lymphoma
- •6.1.1 Terminology
- •6.1.2 Imaging
- •6.1.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •6.1.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •6.1.2.3 CT Findings
- •6.1.2.4 MRI Findings
- •6.1.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •6.1.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •6.1.4 Pathology
- •6.1.4.1 General Features
- •6.1.5 Clinical Issue
- •6.1.5.1 Presentation
- •6.1.5.2 Prognosis
- •6.1.5.3 Treatment
- •6.2.1 Terminology
- •6.2.2 Imaging
- •6.2.2.1 General Features
- •6.2.2.2 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •6.2.2.3 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •6.2.2.4 CT Findings
- •6.2.2.5 MRI Findings
- •6.2.2.6 Other Imaging Findings
- •6.2.2.7 Imaging Recommendations
- •6.2.4 Pathology
- •6.2.4.1 General Features
- •6.2.5 Clinical Issues
- •6.2.5.1 Presentation
- •6.2.5.2 Prognosis
- •6.2.5.3 Treatment
- •6.3.1 Terminology
- •6.3.2 Imaging
- •6.3.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •6.3.2.3 Computed Tomography Findings
- •6.3.2.4 Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings
- •6.3.2.5 Nuclear Medicine Findings
- •6.3.2.6 Imaging Recommendations
- •6.3.3.1 Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
- •6.3.3.2 Hepatocarcinoma
- •6.3.3.4 Hepatoadenoma
- •6.3.3.5 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •6.3.4 Pathology
- •6.3.4.1 General Features
- •6.3.5 Clinical Issues
- •6.3.5.1 Presentation
- •6.3.5.2 Prognosis
- •6.3.5.3 Treatment
- •6.4 Hepatic Biliary Cystadenocarcinoma
- •6.4.1 Terminology
- •6.4.2 Imaging
- •6.4.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •6.4.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •6.4.2.3 CT Findings
- •6.4.2.4 MRI Findings
- •6.4.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •6.4.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •6.4.3.1 Hepatic Biliary Cystadenoma
- •6.4.3.2 Simple Hepatic Cysts
- •6.4.3.3 Hemorrhagic Hepatic Cysts
- •6.4.3.4 Metastatic Tumor
- •6.4.3.5 Hepatic Abscesses
- •6.4.3.6 Hydatid Disease
- •6.4.3.9 Mesenchymal Hamartoma
- •6.4.4 Pathology
- •6.4.4.1 General Features
- •6.4.5 Clinical Issues
- •6.4.5.1 Presentation
- •6.4.5.2 Prognosis
- •6.4.5.3 Treatment
- •6.5 Neuroendocrine Neoplasm
- •6.5.1 Terminology
- •6.5.2 Image
- •6.5.2.1 Ultrasonographic Findings
- •6.5.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •6.5.2.3 CT Findings
- •6.5.2.4 MR Findings
- •6.5.2.5 Other Imaging Finding
- •6.5.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •6.5.3.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •6.5.3.2 Metastatic Hepatic Carcinoma
- •6.5.4 Pathology
- •6.5.4.1 General Features
- •6.5.5 Clinical Issues
- •6.5.5.1 Presentation
- •6.5.5.2 Prognosis
- •6.5.5.3 Treatment
- •6.6.1 Terminology
- •6.6.2 Imaging
- •6.6.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •6.6.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •6.6.2.3 CT Findings
- •6.6.2.4 MRI Findings
- •6.6.2.5 PET/CT Findings
- •6.6.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •6.6.3.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •6.6.3.2 Cholangiocarcinoma
- •6.6.3.3 Metastatic Liver Cancer
- •6.6.4 Pathology
- •6.6.5 Clinical Issues
- •References
- •7: Rare Benign Liver Tumors
- •7.1 Hepatic Angiomyolipoma
- •7.1.1 Terminology
- •7.1.2 Imaging
- •7.1.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •7.1.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •7.1.2.3 CT Findings
- •7.1.2.4 MRI Findings
- •7.1.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •7.1.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •7.1.4 Pathology
- •7.1.4.1 General Features
- •7.1.5 Clinical Issues
- •7.1.5.1 Presentation
- •7.1.5.2 Prognosis
- •7.1.5.3 Treatment
- •7.2 Hepatic Biliary Cystadenoma
- •7.2.1 Terminology
- •7.2.2 Imaging
- •7.2.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •7.2.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Features
- •7.2.2.3 CT Findings
- •7.2.2.4 MRI Findings
- •7.2.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •7.2.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •7.2.3.1 Hepatic Biliary Cystadenocarcinoma
- •7.2.3.2 Simple Hepatic Cyst
- •7.2.3.3 Hemorrhagic Hepatic Cysts
- •7.2.3.4 Metastatic Tumor
- •7.2.3.5 Hepatic Abscesses
- •7.2.3.6 Hydatid Disease
- •7.2.3.9 Mesenchymal Hamartoma
- •7.2.4 Pathology
- •7.2.4.1 General Features
- •7.2.5 Clinical Issues
- •7.2.5.1 Presentation
- •7.2.5.2 Prognosis
- •7.2.5.3 Treatment
- •References
- •8: Hepatic Parasitosis
- •8.1 Terminology
- •8.1.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.1.2 Amebiasis
- •8.1.3 Schistosomiasis
- •8.2 Imaging
- •8.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •8.2.1.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.2.1.2 Amebiasis
- •8.2.1.3 Schistosomiasis
- •8.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •8.2.2.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.2.3 CT Findings
- •8.2.3.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.2.3.2 Amebiasis
- •8.2.3.3 Schistosomiasis
- •8.2.4 MRI Findings
- •8.2.4.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.2.4.2 Amebiasis
- •8.2.4.3 Schistosomiasis
- •8.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •8.2.5.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •8.2.6.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.2.6.2 Amebiasis
- •8.2.6.3 Schistosomiasis
- •8.3 Pathology
- •8.3.1 General features
- •8.3.1.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.3.1.2 Amebiasis
- •8.3.2.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.4 Clinical Issues
- •8.4.1 Presentation
- •8.4.1.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.4.1.2 Amebic Liver Abscess
- •8.4.1.3 Schistosomiasis
- •8.4.2 Prognosis
- •8.4.2.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.4.2.2 Amebiasis
- •8.4.2.3 Schistosomiasis
- •8.4.3 Treatment
- •8.4.3.1 Echinococcosis
- •8.4.3.2 Amebiasis
- •8.4.3.3 Schistosomiasis
- •References
- •9: Hepatic Inflammatory Pseudotumor
- •9.1 Terminology
- •9.2 Imaging
- •9.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •9.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •9.2.3 CT Findings
- •9.2.4 MRI Findings
- •9.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •9.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •9.3.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •9.3.2 Liver Metastasis Tumor
- •9.3.3 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •9.3.4 Liver Abscess
- •9.4 Pathology
- •9.4.1 General Features
- •9.5 Clinical Issues
- •9.5.1 Presentation
- •9.5.2 Prognosis
- •9.5.3 Treatment
- •References
- •10: Hepatic Artery Aneurysm
- •10.1 Terminology
- •10.2 Hepatic Artery Aneurysm
- •10.3 Imaging
- •10.3.1 General Features
- •10.3.2 Radiographic Findings
- •10.3.3 DSA Findings
- •10.3.4 CT Findings
- •10.3.5 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •10.3.7 MRI Findings
- •10.3.8 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •10.3.9 Protocol Advice
- •10.5 Pathology
- •10.5.1 General Features
- •10.6 Clinical Issues
- •10.6.1 Presentation
- •10.6.2 Prognosis
- •10.6.3 Treatment
- •References
- •11: Peliosis Hepatis
- •11.1 Terminology
- •11.2 Imaging
- •11.2.1 Conventional Ultrasound Findings
- •11.2.2 Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Findings
- •11.2.3 CT Findings
- •11.2.4 MRI Findings
- •11.2.5 Other Imaging Findings
- •11.2.6 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
- •11.3.1 Hepatic Adenoma
- •11.3.2 Hemangioma
- •11.3.3 Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
- •11.3.4 Hepatic Abscess
- •11.3.5 Hypervascular Metastases
- •11.3.6 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •11.3.7 Arteriovenous Malformations
- •11.4 Pathology
- •11.4.1 General Features
- •11.5 Clinical Issues
- •11.5.1 Presentation
- •11.5.2 Prognosis
- •11.5.3 Treatment
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.8 Summary
- •References
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Indications
- •14.3 Equipment
- •14.4 3D-CEUS Procedures
- •14.5 Clinical Application
- •References
- •15: Future Prospects
- •15.2 Improved Liver Metastasis Detection (Sonazoid)
- •References

4 Malignant Liver Tumors
87
e
g
f
h
i
Fig. 4.38 (continued)
ies, some DNs could manifest hypoenhancement in arterial
phase (Figs.4.46 and 4.47), because normal arterial and portal supplies reduce simultaneously [38–40].
Three types of ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) are
commonly used in liver today, including SonoVue (sulfur
hexauoride with a phospholipid shell), Denity/Luminity
(octauoropropane with a lipid shell), and Sonazoid (perubutane with a phospholipid shell: hydrogenated egg phos-
phatidyl serine). The rst two UCAs are similar in CEUS
imaging manifestation. Both of them belong to vascular pool
agents with slow removal over about 5min after intravenous
injection. Sonazoid is a liver-specic contrast agent that is
phagocytosed by Kupffer cells on the late phase (termed
“postvascular phase” or “Kupffer phase”), and can persist for
several hours in the liver and spleen. By contrast, malignant
liver lesions usually have few or no Kupffer cells and mani-

88
a
Y. Dong et al.
b
c
d
e
f
Fig. 4.39 A case of liver metastases from colon carcinoma. B mode
ultrasound revealed an isoechoic focal liver lesion in right hepatic lobe
(a). No color ow signal can be detected inside the lesion (b). It showed
rim-like hyperenhancement in arterial phase on contrast enhanced
ultrasound (CEUS) (c, d) and rapid wash-out in portal venous and late
phases (e, f)

4 Malignant Liver Tumors
89
a
c
b
d
e
g
f
h
Fig. 4.40 A case of multiple liver metastases from colon carcinoma. B
mode ultrasound showed a slightly hyperechoic lesion in left hepatic
lobe (a). The lesion showed peripheral rim-like hyperenhancement during arterial phase (b–d). The lesion showed obvious hypoenhancement
in portal venous and late phases (e, f). More lesions smaller than 1cm
in diameter were detected during late phase (g, h), while these small
lesions were invisible on B mode ultrasound

90
Y. Dong et al.
a
c
e
b
d
f
Fig. 4.41 Liver metastases from colon carcinoma. B mode ultrasound
showed a heterogeneously isoechoic lesion near the surface of right
hepatic lobe, and there were several scattered calcications in the lesion
(a). Color ow signals could be detected inside the lesion (b). The
lesion showed rapid and heterogeneous hyperenhancement in arterial
fest contrast defect. The Kupffer defect is commonly assessed
in the Kupffer phase beginning 6–10min after intravenous
injection and lasting for an hour or more. No DNs showed
hypoenhancement in the Kupffer phase [41].
4.4.2.3 CT Findings
Most DNs show non-hypervascularity on arterial phase and
isoattenuation on portal venous phase because of the relatively decreased normal arterial and portal venous ow.
However, some HGDNs may show hyperenhancement
owing to increased neoangiogenesis suggesting the potential
probability of HCC transformation [36].
phase on contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) (c, d). At 44s after
injection of SonoVue, the lesion showed obviously heterogeneous
hypoenhancement (e). The diagnosis was conrmed by surgery and
pathology (f)
4.4.2.4 MRI Findings
Since MRI can provide better soft-tissue contrast and information of tissue components, current studies suggest MRI is
more useful than other imaging methods to identify DNs and
HCCs in the background of liver cirrhosis. Pathological
changes during hepatocarcinogenesis, including increased
cellular density, increased neoangiogenesis followed by
decreased portal tracts and decreased OATP expression,
could be reected by various MRI techniques. Compared to
CT or MRI with extracellular contrast agents, Gd-EOBDTPA-enhanced MRI (using a kind of liver-specic contrast
agent) can improve the diagnostic accuracy of DNs and

4 Malignant Liver Tumors
91
a
c
b
d
e
Fig. 4.42 A case of multiple liver metastases of colon carcinoma. B
mode ultrasound image revealed several slightly hyperchoic lesions
with unclear boundaries in right lobe of liver (a). The lesion showed
rim-like enhancement and rapid ll-in immediately during early arterial
f
phase (b–d). The lesion showed rapid wash-out in late arterial phase (e)
and portal venous phase (f). In this phase, more lesions with clear
boundaries can be observed (g, h)

92
gh
Fig. 4.42 (continued)
Y. Dong et al.
a
c
b
d
Fig. 4.43 A case of liver metastasis from nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
B mode ultrasound revealed a heterogeneous isoechoic lesion in right
lobe of liver (a). Color ow signals could be detected around the lesion
(b). The lesion showed heterogeneous enhancement during arterial
phase (c, d). The lesion showed rapid wash-out in portal venous and in
late phases (e, f). On 1 day after TACE treatment, the lesion was hyperechoic on B mode ultrasound (g). No color ow signal could be detected
(h). The lesion showed nonenhancement during CEUS (i)

4 Malignant Liver Tumors
e f
93
g
h
i
Fig. 4.43 (continued)

94
Premalignant
Genetic alteration
e
Dy
ic
foc
L
e
dy
)
Hi
e
D
e
)
S
(
2
CC
C
t
e
e
)
Genetic alteration
Clonal expansion
Clonal expansion
Hypatocyt
Hypatocyte
Regenerative
Regenerativ
Nodule (RN)
Nodule (RN
Moderately/poorly-differentiated HCC
Moderately/poorly-differentiated HC
Distinctly nodular HCC
istinctly nodular HCC
Dysplastic
splast
foci
i
Small HCC with indistinet margins
mall HCC with indistinet margins
dysplastic nodule (LGDN)
Well-differentiated HCC
Well-differentiated HCC
Early HCC
ow grad
Low grade
splastic nodule (LGDN
(£2cm)
cm)
arly H
High grade
dysplastic nodule (HGDN)
dysplastic nodule (HGDN)
Dysplastic nodule
ysplastic nodul
with a focus of (HCC)
with a focus of (HCC
gh grad
Y. Dong et al.
Progressed HCC
Progressed HCC
portal tractunpair artery fibrous pseudocapsule
portal trac
Fig. 4.44 Nourishing vessels changes in hepatocarcinogenesis in cirrhotic liver. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)
npair artery
HCCs and the sensitivity for the detection of HCCs, espe-
fibrous pseudocapsul
4.4.3 Dierential Diagnosis
cially small HCCs. Before neoangiogenesis in an overt HCC,
imaging feature of non-enhancement followed by hypointense on hepatobiliary phase is a strong predictor of precancerous lesion or malignancy (Fig.4.45) [41].
Regerative nodulars
Regerative nodulars (RNs) are usually smaller than 10mm
and innumerable in liver cirrhosis. On CEUS, RNs usually
show isoenhancement in the arterial phase. Nearly all RNs
4.4.2.5 Best Imaging Protocol Advices
show isoenhancement in the portal venous and late phases.
• US every 6 months is universally recommended for
patients with high risk of HCC.When DNs are present,
they are usually small and difcult to be distinguished
from RNs by US.
• On CEUS, DNs typically show iso-or hypoenhancement
on the arterial phase and isoenhancement on subsequent
phases.
• On Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI, non-enhancement
followed by hypointense on hepatobiliary phase is a
strong predictor of precancerous lesion or malignancy
(HGDN or early HCC).
Well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma
About 40% of well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma
(HCCs) demonstrated non-hyperenhancement in the arterial
phase on CEUS.Some well-differentiated HCCs manifesting arterial hypoenhancement are conrmed pathologically
to have fewer unpaired arteries. Furthermore, 60–90% of
well-differentiated HCCs showed almost complete isoenhancement in the portal vein phase and late phase, even
though Sonazoid is used. Therefore, DNs and welldifferentiated HCCs maybe both hypoenhancement in the

4 Malignant Liver Tumors
95
a
c
b
d
e
Fig. 4.45 Features of dysplasia nodular (DN) on conventional ultrasound and contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). A hyperechoic lesion
in the right lobe of liver, with ill-dened margin (arrow) (a). Color ow
imaging showed portal veins signals around the lesion (b). Arterial
phase isoenhancement on CEUS (arrow) (c). Persisting isoenhancement during portal venous and late phase on CEUS (arrow) (d). The
lesion showed slight hyperintensity on T1-weighted in-phase image
f
(arrow) (e) and loss of signal on out-of-phase on pre-enhanced
T1-weighted imaging, suggesting fat content in the lesion (arrow) (f).
Isointensity on pre-enhanced T2-weighted imaging (arrow) (g). Nonenhancement on arterial phase on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI
(arrow) (h). Hypointensity on hepatobiliary phase on Gd-EOB-DTPAenhanced MRI (i)

96
Y. Dong et al.
g
h
i
Fig. 4.45 (continued)
arterial phase and isoenhancement in the late phase or in the
Kupffer phase on CEUS [36, 39]. To a certain extent, imaging features between HGDNs and well-differentiated HCCs
are overlapping, accurate recognition of HGDNs and welldifferentiated HCCs is still challenging, not only on CEUS
but also on CT and MRI.
The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
(AASLD) recommends that biopsy is necessary for hepatic
lesions less than 2cm in liver cirrhosis without typical HCC
imaging ndings, whereas biopsy is not needed for hepatic
lesions with characteristic HCC imaging nding [42]. It
should be noted that biopsy diagnosis of hepatic border nodules may be also a challenge, because minute biopsy specimens may be inadequate to detect stromal invasion. Core liver
biopsy is more recommended than ne needle aspiration,
because the specimen obtained is more sufcient and suitable
for assessment. Furthermore, the tissue block obtained can be
assessed by immunohistochemical technique.
4.4.4 Pathology
4.4.4.1 General Features
DNs may be single or multiple, and may have distinct or
indistinct margins on gross examination. The size of DNs
ranges from few millimeters to few centimeters. The diameter of most DNs is <15 mm. Based on varying degrees of
atypia, DNs are divided into LGDN and HGDN [35].
Low-grade dysplasia nodular
Low-grade dysplasia nodular (LGDNs) usually have no true
capsule, but are still distinct from the surrounding cirrhotic
liver parenchyma with brous tissue around. LGDNs show
moderate cell density increase with a homogeneous pattern,
and have no cytologic atypia. Large cell changes could be
usually found, but there have no architectural changes.
Pseudoglands or markedly thickened trabeculaes are nonexistent. Some HGDNs have a few unpaired arteries. Nodule-
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
