4.4 Article

Long-term follow-up of hepatic adenoma and adenomatosis: analysis of size change on imaging with histopathological correlation

Journal

CLINICAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 73, Issue 11, Pages 958-965

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.06.015

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [P30 DK089502] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To analyse the change in size on follow-up of hepatic adenomas (HAs) and adenomatosis, and to investigate the relationship of imaging features with size change. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 44 patients (142 lesions) who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) for diagnosis and follow-up of HA. The imaging features and percentage change in maximum tumour dimension were observed over a follow-up duration of up to 139 months. RESULTS: With an average follow-up of 43 months, 37% lesions decreased in size, 58% were stable, 4% increased; one lesion regressed completely. Adenomas were stratified into size groups (<3, 3-5, and >= 5 cm). Size change among the three groups was similar (p>0.05). Percent size change was different for lesions followed for <= 12 months (-7.2%) compared with lesions followed for 13-60 months (-20.5%), and those followed for >= 60 months (-23.5%; p<0.05); there was no difference between lesions followed for 13-60 months and >= 60 months (p=0.523). Baseline size and percent size change was similar between the hepatocyte nuclear factor 1 alpha-inactivated HA (HA-H) and inflammatory HA (HA-I) subtype (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Most adenomas were either stable or regressed on follow-up. Size change was independent of baseline size. After an initial size decrease within 5 years, no further size reduction was noted on extended follow-up. The percent size change in the HA-H and HA-I subtype was similar. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available