Imaging features of hepatic inflammatory pseudotumor: distinction from colorectal liver metastasis using gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

Purpose

To identify gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI features distinguishing hepatic IPT from CLM.

Methods

From February 2008 to December 2019, 162 lesions (IPT, n = 31 and CLM, n = 131) from 94 patients (mean age 65.1 ± 12.2 years; 65 men and 29 women) were retrospectively assessed for the presence or absence of obscure boundary, rim enhancement on arterial phase (AP), persistent rim enhancement during AP to transitional phase (TP), blood vessel penetration, peritumoral parenchymal enhancement on AP, peritumoral parenchymal hypointensity on hepatobiliary phase (HBP), peritumoral parenchymal hyperintensity on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), biliary dilatation, central hypointensity with a relatively hyperintense periphery on HBP, peripheral hyperintensity on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and T2WI, and lesion to liver signal intensity ratio (SIRlesion/liver) on HBP and DWI. Relevant features for differentiating between ITP and CLM were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Univariate analysis revealed significantly higher frequencies of the following features in IPT than CLM: younger age, obscure boundary, blood vessel penetration, central hypointensity with a relatively hyperintense periphery on HBP, higher SIRlesion/liver on HBP, and lower SIRlesion/liver on DWI (P < 0.001‒0.035). Rim enhancement on AP and persistent rim enhancement during AP to TP were significantly more common in CLM than in IPT (P ≤ 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that a central hypointensity with a relatively peripheral hyperintensity on HBP, higher SIRlesion/liver on HBP, and lower SIRlesion/liver on DWI were predictive of IPT (P = 0.003‒0.039).

Conclusion

Central hypointensity with a relatively peripheral hyperintensity on HBP and SIRlesion/liver on HBP and DWI may be reliable gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI features for distinguishing IPT from CLM.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Patnana M, Sevrukov AB, Elsayes KM, Viswanathan C, Lubner M, Menias CO (2012) Inflammatory pseudotumor: the great mimicker. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:W217-W227. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Matsuo Y, Sato M, Shibata T, et al (2014) Inflammatory pseudotumor of the liver diagnosed as metastatic liver tumor in a patient with a gastrointestinal stromal tumor of the rectum: report of a case. World J Surg Oncol 12:140. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-140.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Shirai Y, Shiba H, Fujiwara Y, Eto K, Misawa T, Yanaga K (2013) Hepatic inflammatory pseudotumor with elevated serum CA19-9 level mimicking liver metastasis from rectal cancer: report of a case. Int Surg 98:324-329. https://doi.org/10.9738/INTSURG-D-13-00091.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ishida H, Tatsuta M, Furukawa H, et al (2000) Multiple inflammatory pseudotumors mimicking liver metastasis from colon cancer: report of a case. Surg Today 30:530-533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005950070121.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bae SK, Abiru S, Kamohara Y, et al (2015) Hepatic inflammatory pseudotumor associated with xanthogranulomatous cholangitis mimicking cholangiocarcinoma. Intern Med 54:771-775. https://doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.54.2623.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ahn KS, Kang KJ, Kim YH, et al (2012) Inflammatory pseudotumors mimicking intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma of the liver; IgG4-positivity and its clinical significance. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 19:405-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-011-0436-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Iguchi H, Yamazaki H, Tsunoda H, Takahashi Y, Yokomori H (2013) A case of inflammatory pseudotumor of the liver mimicking hepatocellular carcinoma on EOB-MRI and PET. Case Rep Med 594254. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/594254.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Yin L, Zhu B, Lu XY, Lau WY, Zhang YJ (2017) Misdiagnosing hepatic inflammatory pseudotumor as hepatocellular carcinoma: A case report. JGH Open 1:76-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ananthakrishnan A, Gogineni V, Saeian K (2006) Epidemiology of primary and secondary liver cancers. Semin Intervent Radiol 23:47-63. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-939841.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Park KS, Jang BK, Chung WJ, et al (2006) Inflammatory pseudotumor of liver--a clinical review of 15 cases. Korean J Hepatol 12:429-438.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Park JY, Choi MS, Lim YS, et al (2014) Clinical features, image findings, and prognosis of inflammatory pseudotumor of the liver: a multicenter experience of 45 cases. Gut Liver 8:58-63. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl.2014.8.1.58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Moon JY, Kim SH, Choi SY, Hwang JA, Lee JE, Lee J (2018) Differentiating malignant from benign hyperintense nodules on unenhanced T1-weighted images in patients with chronic liver disease: using gadoxetic acid-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Jpn J Radiol 36:489-499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-018-0748-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Asato N, Tsurusaki M, Sofue K, et al (2017) Comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced dynamic MR imaging and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for preoperative evaluation of colorectal liver metastases. Jpn J Radiol 35:197-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-017-0622-2

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Choi SH, Lee SS, Park SH, et al (2019) LI-RADS Classification and Prognosis of Primary Liver Cancers at Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MRI. Radiology 290:388-397. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Chang AI, Kim YK, Min JH, Lee J, Kim H, Lee SJ (2019) Differentiation between inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor and cholangiocarcinoma manifesting as target appearance on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. Abdom Radiol 44:1395-1406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1847-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Chang SD, Scali EP, Abrahams Z, Tha S, Yoshida EM (2014) Inflammatory pseudotumor of the liver: a rare case of recurrence following surgical resection. J Radiol Case Rep 8:23-30. https://doi.org/10.3941/jrcr.v8i3.1459.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sheng RF, Zhai CW, Ji Y, Chen CZ, Yang L, Zeng MS (2017) Role of MR in the differentiation of IgG4-related from non-IgG4-related hepatic inflammatory pseudotumor. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 16:631-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-3872(17)60062-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ijuin H, Ono N, Koga K, et al (1997) Inflammatory pseudotumor of the liver--MR imaging findings. Kurume Med J 44:305-313. https://doi.org/10.2739/kurumemedj.44.305

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Xiao Y, Zhou S, Ma C, Luo J, Zhu H, Tang F (2013) Radiological and histopathological features of hepatic inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour: analysis of 10 cases. Clin Radiol 68:1114-1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.05.097.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Zen Y, Fujii T, Sato Y, Masuda S, Nakanuma Y (2007) Pathological classification of hepatic inflammatory pseudotumor with respect to IgG4-related disease. Mod Pathol 20:884-894. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800836.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Yamamoto H, Yamaguchi H, Aishima S, et al (2009) Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor versus IgG4-related sclerosing disease and inflammatory pseudotumor: a comparative clinicopathologic study. Am J Surg Pathol 33:1330-1340. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0b013e3181a5a207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research received no specific Grant.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Utaroh Motosugi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ichikawa, S., Motosugi, U., Suzuki, T. et al. Imaging features of hepatic inflammatory pseudotumor: distinction from colorectal liver metastasis using gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Radiol 45, 2400–2408 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02575-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gadoxetate disodium
  • Inflammatory pseudotumor
  • Liver
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Metastasis