Abstract
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is the most common primary liver cancer except hepatocellular carcinoma. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas can be classified into three types by morphology: mass-forming type, periductal infiltrative type, and intraductal papillary growth type. Mass-forming type is the most common and periductal infiltrative type is known to show the worst prognosis. Imaging findings of mass-forming-type intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma overlap those of metastases of adenocarcinoma from gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, careful evaluation for the primary tumors other than liver cancer should be performed to diagnose cholangiocarcinoma. Biliary cystadenocarcinoma, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, and sarcomas are rare malignant tumors of the liver. Unusual hepatic sarcomas frequently show large, solitary masses with central necrosis. Hepatic metastasis is the most common malignant tumor of non-cirrhotic liver. Accurate diagnosis of hepatic metastases gains more and more attention because complete resection or ablation of metastases has been proved to be effective for prolonging overall survival in some malignancies including colorectal cancer and neuroendocrine carcinomas. Hepatic metastases have various imaging features and resemble the imaging findings of the primary tumors. MRI was a problem-solving tool; however, it plays more important roles now and is superior to MDCT in terms of diagnostic performance for hepatic metastases. Liver is one of the most commonly involved organs of lymphomas, and majority of the cases are secondary lymphoma. Hepatic lymphomas can be divided into three groups by their appearance: large solitary masses, multiple nodules, and diffuse infiltrative type.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsSuggested Reading
Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. Chapter 18 liver malignancy, Chapter 19 Intrahepatic bile duct malignancy. In: Edge SB, American Joint Committee on Cancer, editor. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2009.
Kim SJ, Lee JM, Han JK, et al. Peripheral mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;186(6):1428–34.
Choi BI, Lee JM, Han JK. Imaging of intrahepatic and hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Abdom Imaging. 2004;29(5):548–57.
Han JK, Choi BI, Kim AY, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: pictorial essay of CT and cholangiographic findings. Radiographics. 2002;22(1):173–87.
Kang Y, Lee JM, Kim SH, Han JK, Choi BI. Intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma: enhancement patterns on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images. Radiology. 2012;263(3):751–60.
Takanami K, Yamada T, Tsuda M, et al. Intraductal papillary mucininous neoplasm of the bile ducts: multimodality assessment with pathologic correlation. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(4):447–56.
Lim JH, Jang KT, Rhim H, Kim YS, Lee KT, Choi SH. Biliary cystic intraductal papillary mucinous tumor and cystadenoma/cystadenocarcinoma: differentiation by CT. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32(5):644–51.
Allen RA, Lisa JR. Combined liver cell and bile duct carcinoma. Am J Pathol. 1949;25:647–55.
Ebied O, Federle MP, Blachar A, et al. Hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: helical computed tomography findings in 30 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003;27:117–24.
Nishie A, Yoshimitsu K, Asayama Y, et al. Detection of combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinomas on enhanced CT; comparison with histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1157–62.
Kim JY, Kim SH, Eun HW, et al. Differentiation between biliary cystic neoplasms and simple cysts of the liver: accuracy of CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(5):1142–8.
Bruegel M, Muenzel D, Waldt S, Specht K, Rummeny EJ. Hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma: findings at CT and MRI including preliminary observation at diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(4):415–24.
Lyburn ID, Torreggiani WC, Harris AC, et al. Hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma: sonographic, CT, and MR imaging appearances. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(5):1359–94.
Kitami M, Yamada T, Sato A, et al. Diffuse hepatic angiosarcoma with a portal venous supply mimicking hemangiomatosis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003;27(4):626–9.
Bruegel M, Muenzel D, Waldt S, Specht K, Rummeny EJ. Hepatic angiosarcoma: cross-sectional imaging findings in seven patients with emphasis on dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MRI. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38(4):745–54. doi:10.1007/s00261-012-9967-2.
Koyama T, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Kuo MS, Notohara K, Burgart LJ. Primary hepatic angiosarcoma: findings at CT and MR imaging. Radiology. 2002;222(3):667–73.
Lashkari HP, Khan SU, Ali K, Sashikumar P, Mukherjee S. Diagnosis of undifferentiated embryonal sarcoma of the liver-importance of combined studies of ultrasound and CT scan. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2009;31(10):797–8.
Buetow PC, Buck JL, Pantongrag-Brown L, et al. Undifferentiated (embryonal) sarcoma of the liver: pathologic basis of imaging findings in 28 cases. Radiology. 1997;203(3):779–83.
Tan Y, Xiao EH. Rare hepatic malignant tumors: dynamic CT, MRI, and clinicopathologic features: with nalysis of 54 cases and review of the literature. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38(3):511–26. doi:10.1007/s00261-012-9918-y.
Chung EM, Lattin Jr GE, Cube R, et al. From the archives of the AFIP: pediatric liver masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Part 2. Malignant tumors. Radiographics. 2011;31(2):483–507.
Lu M, Greer ML. Hypervascular multifocal hepatoblastoma: dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MRI findings indistinguishable from infantile hemangioendothelioma. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(6):587–91.
Paulson EK. Evaluation of the liver for metastatic disease. Semin Liver Dis. 2001;21(2):225–36.
Sica GT, Ji H, Ros PR. CT and MR imaging of hepatic metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(3):691–8.
Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Goshima S, et al. Imaging liver metastases: review and update. Eur J Radiol. 2006;58(2):217–28.
Semelka RC, Hussain SM, Marcos HB, et al. Perilesional enhancement of hepatic metastases: correlation between MR imaging and histopathologic findings-initial observations. Radiology. 2000;215:89–94.
Seo HJ, Kim MJ, Lee JD, Chung WS, Kim YE. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Invest Radiol. 2011;46(9):548–55.
Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV. Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics. 2009;29(6):1725–48.
Kim YK, Lee MW, Lee WJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity of diffusion-weighted and of gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3-T MR imaging alone or in combination in the detection of small liver metastasis (≤1.5 cm in diameter). Invest Radiol. 2012;47(3):159–66.
Maher MM, McDermott SR, Fenlon HM, et al. Imaging of primary non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma of the liver. Clin Radiol. 2011;56(4):295–301.
Gazelle GS, Lee MJ, Hahn PF, Goldberg MA, Rafaat N, Mueller PR. US, CT, and MRI of primary and secondary liver lymphoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1994;18(3):412–15.
Monill J, Pernas J, Montserrat E, et al. CT features of abdominal plasma cell neoplasms. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(8):1705–12.
Nguyen BD, Dash N, Lupetin AR. MR imaging of hepatic plasmacytoma: a case report. Clin Imaging. 1992;16:98–101.
Ng P, Slater S, Radvan G, Price A. Hepatic plasmacytomas: case report and review of imaging features. Australas Radiol. 1999;43:98–101.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Choi, JI., Choi, B.I. (2014). Other Malignant Tumors of the Liver. In: Choi, B. (eds) Radiology Illustrated: Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Radiology. Radiology Illustrated. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35825-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35825-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35824-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35825-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)