Leslie D F, Johnson C D, Johnson C M, Ilstrup D M, Harmsen W S
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Mar;164(3):625-9. doi: 10.2214/ajr.164.3.7863883.
Differentiating between cavernous hemangiomas of the liver and hepatic metastases on the basis of single-pass, contrast-enhanced CT is a significant and frequently encountered diagnostic challenge. Recognition of characteristic enhancement features of cavernous hemangiomas can aid in effectively distinguishing between these lesions. The purpose of this study was to determine sensitivity and specificity of dense, globular enhancement for differentiating cavernos hemangiomas and metastases during single-pass, contrast-enhanced CT.
CT appearance of 133 lesions in 91 patients with cavernous hemangiomas (44 patients) or metastases (47 patients) was retrospectively evaluated in a blinded review. CT examinations were performed with nonhelical technique following injection of 150 ml of contrast material. All patients with metastases had pathologic proof (n = 47). Patients with cavernous hemangiomas were clinically stable for at least 2 years after CT (n = 43) or had tissue proof (n = 1). All lesions were evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) Type of enhancement: globular, linear, diffuse and homogeneous, or diffuse and heterogeneous. (Globular enhancement was considered to be present when enhancing nodules less than 1 cm in diameter were seen within lesions.) (2) Continuity of enhancing tissue: continuous or noncontinuous. (Uninterrupted collections of contrast material within at least 50% of a lesion were considered continuous. Multiple, separate collections of contrast material were considered noncontinuous.) (3) Degree of enhancement: hypo-, iso-, or hyperdense relative to the aorta. (4) Distribution of enhancement: peripheral, central, or mixed.
Seventy-six percent of cavernous hemangiomas had globular enhancement, compared to 10% of metastases (p < .001). Seventy-two percent of cavernous hemangiomas had enhancement isodense with the aorta, and 96% of metastases were hypodense (p < .001). Sixty-seven percent of cavernous hemangiomas had peripheral enhancement, compared to 38% of metastases (p < .001). The combined finding of globular, isodense enhancement was seen in 67% of cavernous hemangiomas and none of the metastases. Only 10% of cavernous hemangiomas had nonglobular, hypodense enhancement, compared with 90% of metastases. Combining all criteria, reviewers correctly classified 122 (92%) of the lesions. Presence of globular enhancement, isodense with the aorta, was 67% sensitive and 100% specific in differentiating cavernous hemangiomas from hepatic metastases.
In most cases, differentiation of cavernous hemangiomas from hepatic metastases can confidently be made with single-pass, contrast-enhanced CT. Globular enhancement, isodense with the aorta, is 67% sensitive and 100% specific in differentiating cavernous hemangiomas and hepatic metastases.
基于单次屏气对比增强CT鉴别肝海绵状血管瘤与肝转移瘤是一项重要且常见的诊断挑战。识别肝海绵状血管瘤的特征性强化表现有助于有效区分这些病变。本研究的目的是确定在单次屏气对比增强CT中,致密、球形强化对于鉴别海绵状血管瘤和转移瘤的敏感性和特异性。
对91例患有海绵状血管瘤(44例)或转移瘤(47例)患者的133个病灶的CT表现进行回顾性双盲评估。采用非螺旋技术在注射150 ml对比剂后进行CT检查。所有转移瘤患者均有病理证实(n = 47)。海绵状血管瘤患者在CT检查后临床稳定至少2年(n = 43)或有组织学证实(n = 1)。所有病灶均根据以下标准进行评估:(1)强化类型:球形、线性、弥漫均匀或弥漫不均匀。(当在病灶内可见直径小于1 cm的强化结节时,认为存在球形强化。)(2)强化组织的连续性:连续或不连续。(在至少50%的病灶内造影剂连续聚集被认为是连续的。多个单独的造影剂聚集被认为是不连续的。)(3)强化程度:相对于主动脉为低密度、等密度或高密度。(4)强化分布:周边、中央或混合。
76%的海绵状血管瘤有球形强化,而转移瘤为10%(p <.001)。72%的海绵状血管瘤强化与主动脉等密度,96%的转移瘤为低密度(p <.001)。67%的海绵状血管瘤有周边强化,而转移瘤为38%(p <.001)。67%的海绵状血管瘤可见球形、等密度强化的联合表现,而转移瘤均无此表现。只有10%的海绵状血管瘤有非球形、低密度强化,而转移瘤为90%。综合所有标准,阅片者正确分类了122个(92%)病灶。主动脉等密度的球形强化在鉴别海绵状血管瘤与肝转移瘤时敏感性为67%,特异性为100%。
在大多数情况下,单次屏气对比增强CT能够可靠地鉴别肝海绵状血管瘤与肝转移瘤。主动脉等密度的球形强化在鉴别海绵状血管瘤和肝转移瘤时敏感性为67%,特异性为100%。