Eosinophilic hepatic necrosis: magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography comparison.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the findings of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with those of computed tomography (CT) of focal liver lesions related to peripheral eosinophilia.

METHODS

For 12 patients with peripheral eosinophilia (>7%) examined with hepatic MR imaging and CT, 52 focal hepatic lesions larger than 0.5 cm, including 31 lesions simultaneously found on the 2 imaging modalities, were subjected to a comparative analysis of their imaging features.

RESULTS

The total number of lesions distinguished from background liver was 39 (75%) on MR imaging and 44 (85%) on CT scans. On arterial phase images of 10 patients with comparable data, homogeneously hyperintense lesions were demonstrated more frequently (P = 0.006) on MR imaging (16 [50%] of 32 lesions) than on CT scans (4 [13%] of 32 lesions). Only 7 (22%) of the 32 hypoattenuating lesions on portal phase CT were depicted as hypointense lesions on portal phase MR images in 12 patients. On delayed phase images in 8 patients, the number of hyperintense lesions on MR images (9 [56%] of 16) was greater (P = 0.077) than that seen on the CT scans (4 [25%] of 16).

CONCLUSIONS

For many focal hepatic lesions related to peripheral eosinophilia, dynamic MR imaging more easily demonstrates lesional enhancement on arterial and delayed phases than CT scans. Because of the higher degree of lesional enhancement of MR imaging compared with CT, the lesion-to-liver contrast may not be sufficient to distinguish the lesion from the background liver, resulting in decreased sensitivity of portal phase dynamic MR imaging.