Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2019 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 1

Focal hypersteatosis: a pseudolesion in patients with liver steatosis

Pages
14–20
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

MRI should be used for correct diagnosis in patients with equivocal findings on CT to avoid biopsy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE We aimed to describe ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic reso-nance imaging (MRI) findings of focal hypersteatosis (FHS).METHODSWe retrospectively reviewed our database for patients with hypersteatosis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Over a 5-year period (February 2005 to September 2010) a total of 17 321 patients underwent abdominal CT scan and 28 patients were determined to have FHS.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:MRI should be used for correct diagnosis in patients with equivocal findings on CT to avoid biopsy.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

PURPOSE We aimed to describe ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic reso-nance imaging (MRI) findings of focal hypersteatosis (FHS).METHODSWe retrospectively reviewed our database for patients with hypersteatosis. Over a 5-year period (February 2005 to September 2010) a total of 17 321 patients underwent abdominal CT scan and 28 patients were determined to have FHS. All patients had US, CT, and MRI studies. Size, area, and density measurements were performed on CT images. Fat signal percentage (FSP) was measured on T1-weighted in- and out-of-phase gradient-echo images. FHS was defined based on MRI findings, as an area of greater signal drop on out-of phase images compared with the rest of the fatty liver. RESULTSThe period prevelance of focal hypersteatosis was measured as 0.16% over the 5-year period. Cancer was the most common diagnosis (22 of 28 patients, 78.5%), with the breast (32.1%) and colorectal (25%) cancers predominating. FHS was seen in segment 4 (n=26, 92.8%), segment 8 (n=1, 3.6%), and segment 3 (n=1, 3.6%). Shape was nodular in 21 patients (75%), while triangular or amorphous in the remaining 7 patients (25%). FHS was hyperechoic and isoechoic in 5 (17.9%) and 23 (82.1%) patients, respectively. FHS was hypodense on CT of all patients relative to fatty liver. On MRI, the FHS was hyperintense on T1-weighted in-phase images in 17 patients (60.7%). Median liver parenchymal FSP was 21.5% (range, 10%–41.4%) and median FSP of hypersteatotic area was 32.5% (range, 19%–45%).CONCLUSION Focal hypersteatosis is a pseudolesion that can be observed in patients with liver steatosis. It ap-pears hypodense on CT and mostly isoechoic on US relative to fatty liver. It may mimic metastasis in cancer patients with steatosis, due to nodular shape and atypical location. MRI should be used for correct diagnosis in patients with equivocal findings on CT to avoid biopsy.

🔖

Cite This Article

METİN, N. O., KARAOSMANOĞLU, A., METİN, Y., KARÇAALTINCABA, M. (2019). Focal hypersteatosis: a pseudolesion in patients with liver steatosis. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 1, 14–20. https://ajindex.com/articles/349989

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, Fazel Y, et al. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatol-ogy 2016
  2. 73–84. [CrossRef ] 2. Zhou J, Li YY, Nie YQ, et al. Prevalence of fatty liver disease and its risk factors in the popu-lation of South China. World J Gastroenterol 2007
  3. 6419–6424. [CrossRef ] 3. Karcaaltincaba M, Akhan O. Imaging of hepatic steatosis and fatty sparing. Eur J Radiol 2007
  4. 33–43. [CrossRef ] 4. Peppercorn PD, Reznek RH, Wilson P, Slevin ML, Gupta RK. Demonstration of hepatic steato-sis by computerized tomography in patients receiving 5-fluorouracil-based therapy for advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 1998
  5. 2008–2011.[CrossRef ] 5. Nguyen MC, Steward RB, Banerji MA. Relation-ships between tamoxifen use, liver fat and body fat distribution in women withbreast cancer. Int J Obesity 2001
  6. 296–298. [CrossRef ] 6. Bilici A, Ozguroglu M, Mihmanli I, Turna H, Adaletli I. A case-control study of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in breast cancer. Med Oncol 2007
  7. 367–371. [CrossRef ] 7. Basaran C, Karacaaltıncaba M, Akata D, et al. Fat containing lesions of the liver: Cross sectional imaging findings with emphasis on MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005
  8. 1103–1110.[CrossRef ] 8. Idilman IS, Ozdeniz I, Karacaaltıncaba M. He-patic steatosis: etiology, patterns and quantifi-cation,Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2016
  9. 501–510. [CrossRef ] 9. Kodama Y, Ng CS, Wu TT, et al. Comparison of CT methods for determining the fat content of the liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007
  10. 1307–1312. [CrossRef ] 10. Zhong L, Chen JJ, Chen J, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Quantitative assessment of liver fat content by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and proton mag-netic resonance spectroscopy. J Dig Dis 2009
  11. 315–320. [CrossRef ] 11. Borra RJH, Salo S, Dean K, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: rapid evaluation of liver fat content with ın-phase and out-of-phase MR im-aging. Radiology 2009
  12. 130–136. [CrossRef ] 12. Xiaozhou Ma X, Holalkere NS, Kambadakone RA, Mino-Kenudson M, Hahn PF, Sahani DV. Imaging-based quantification of hepatic fat: methods and clinical applications. Radiograph-ics 2009
  13. 1253–1280. [CrossRef ] 13. Zorzi D, Laurent A, Pawlik TM, Lauwers GY, Vau-they JN, Abdalla EK. Chemotherapy-associated hepatotoxicity and surgery for colorectal liver me-tastases. Br J Surg 2007
  14. 274–286. [CrossRef ] 14. Fernandez