Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multimodality Approach to Detection and Characterization of Hepatic Hemangiomas

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Abdomen and Thoracic Imaging

  • 1771 Accesses

Abstract

Hemangiomas are the most common benign hepatic tumor and represent a common incidental finding on routine imaging examinations of the liver. The majority of hemangiomas demonstrate classical imaging findings on grayscale ultrasound (US), multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The classic appearance on contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging is that of centripetal nodular enhancement with progressive fill-in of the lesion over time with conventional extracellular CT and MR contrast agents. With the advent of new gadolinium-based MR contrast agents such as hepatocyte-specific contrast agents and blood pool contrast agents, some different appearances of hemangiomas are possible and familiarity with these appearances is critical in making the correct diagnosis. There are also variants of the typical hemangioma, including the flash-filling hemangioma, giant hemangioma, sclerosed or hyalinized hemangioma, as well as hemangiomas occurring on a background of hepatic steatosis and cirrhosis. Again, knowledge of these variant types of hemangiomas can prevent against misdiagnosis of these lesions in the clinical setting.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Karhunen P (1986) Benign hepatic tumours and tumour like conditions in men. J Clin Pathol 39(2):183–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jang H, Kim T, Lim H et al (2003) Hepatic hemangioma: atypical appearances on CT, MR imaging, and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(1):135–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mergo PJ, Ros PR (1998) Benign lesions of the liver. Radiol Clin North Am 36(2):319–331

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ishak KJ et al (2001) Benign mesenchymal tumors and pseudotumors. In: Ishak KJ, Goodman ZD, Stocsker JT (eds) Tumours of the liver and intrahepatic bile ducts. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC, pp 113–114

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nelson RC, Chezmar JL (1990) Diagnostic approach to hepatic hemangiomas. Radiology 176(1):11–13

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moody A, Wilson S (1993) Atypical hepatic hemangioma: a suggestive sonographic morphology. Radiology 188(2):413–417

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee JY, Choi BI, Han JK et al (2002) Improved sonographic imaging of hepatic hemangioma with contrast-enhanced coded harmonic angiography: comparison with MR imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 28(3):287–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Quinn SF, Benjamin G (1992) Hepatic cavernous hemangiomas: simple diagnostic sign with dynamic bolus CT. Radiology 182(2):545–548

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jang HJ, Choi B, Kim T et al (1998) Atypical small hemangiomas of the liver: “bright dot” sign at two-phase spiral CT. Radiology 208(2):543–548

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Itai Y, Ohtomo K, Furui S et al (1985) Noninvasive diagnosis of small cavernous hemangioma of the liver: advantage of MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 145(6):1195–1199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Taouli B, Koh DM (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 254(1):47–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dahlstrom N, Persson A, Albiin N et al (2007) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography with Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA in healthy subjects. Acta Radiol 48(4):362–368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Carlos RC, Hussain HK, Song JH et al (2002) Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid as an intrabiliary contrast agent: preliminary assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(1):87–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hamm B, Staks T, Muhler A et al (1995) Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology 195(3):785–792

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Carlos RC, Branam JD, Dong Q et al (2002) Biliary imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA: is a 20-minute delay sufficient? Acad Radiol 9(11):1322–1325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tschirch FT, Struwe A, Petrowsky H et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography with Gd-EOB-DTPA in patients with liver cirrhosis: visualization of the biliary ducts in comparison with patients with normal liver parenchyma. Eur Radiol 18(8):1577–1586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lim JS, Kim MJ, Jung YY et al (2005) Gadobenate dimeglumine as an intrabiliary contrast agent: comparison with mangafodipir trisodium with respect to non-dilated biliary tree depiction. Korean J Radiol 6(4):229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Petersein J, Spinazzi A, Giovagnoni A et al (2000) Focal liver lesions: evaluation of the efficacy of gadobenate dimeglumine in MR imaging-a multicenter phase III clinical study. Radiology 215(3):727–736

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Seale M, Catalano O, Saini S et al (2009) Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics 29(6):1725–1748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schneider G, Maas R, Schultze KL et al (2003) Low-dose gadobenate dimeglumine versus standard dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: an intra-individual crossover comparison. Invest Radiol 38(2):85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gupta RT, Iseman CM, Leyendecker JR et al (2012) Diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia with MRI: multicenter retrospective study comparing gadobenate dimeglumine to gadoxetate disodium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199(1):35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gupta RT, Marin D, Boll DT et al (2012) Hepatic hemangiomas: difference in enhancement pattern on 3T MR imaging with gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadoxetate disodium. Eur J Radiol 81(10):2457–2462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hanafusa K, Ohashi I, Himeno Y et al (1995) Hepatic hemangioma: findings with two-phase CT. Radiology 196(2):465–469

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Larson RE, Semelka RC, Bagley AS et al (1994) Hypervascular malignant liver lesions: comparison of various MR imaging pulse sequences and dynamic CT. Radiology 192(2):393–399

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Byun JH, Kim TK, Lee CW et al (2004) Arterioportal shunt: prevalence in small hemangiomas versus that in hepatocellular carcinomas 3 cm or smaller at two-phase helical CT. Radiology 232(2):354–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Valls C, Rene M, Gil M et al (1996) Giant cavernous hemangioma of the liver: atypical CT and MR findings. Eur Radiol 6(4):448–450

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Brancatelli G, Federle MP, Blachar A et al (2001) Hemangioma in the cirrhotic liver: diagnosis and natural history. Radiology 219(1):69–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Vilgrain V, Boulos L, Vullierme MP et al (2000) Imaging of atypical hemangiomas of the liver with pathologic correlation. Radiographics 20(2):379–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Soyer P, Bluemke DA, Vissuzaine C et al (1994) CT of hepatic tumors: prevalence and specificity of retraction of the adjacent liver capsule. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162(5):1119–1122

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Rajan T. Gupta M.D. & Daniele Marin M.D.

Authors
  1. Rajan T. Gupta M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniele Marin M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajan T. Gupta M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioengineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA

    Ayman S. El-Baz

  2. University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Luca Saba

  3. Biomedical Technologies, Inc Idaho State University (Affiliated), Roseville, California, USA

    Jasjit Suri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gupta, R.T., Marin, D. (2014). Multimodality Approach to Detection and Characterization of Hepatic Hemangiomas. In: El-Baz, A., Saba, L., Suri, J. (eds) Abdomen and Thoracic Imaging. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8498-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8498-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8497-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8498-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation