Abstract：
Focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and hepatic adenoma (HA) are two common benign liver lesions with different management options. In particular, resection is considered for large HA lesions to avoid possible bleeding complications or rarely malignant degeneration.
To determine whether early enhancement of a draining hepatic vein (EDHV) and absence of perilesional enhancement (PLE) on arterial phase MR images are useful for distinguishing FNH from HA.
Retrospective.
A total of 34 patients: 16 with FNH and 18 with HA lesions.
A1.5 T, axial T1 fat-suppressed arterial postcontrast.
Four abdominal radiologists blinded to pathologic diagnosis assessed for the presence or absence of EDHV in association with the lesion, definitively characterized by pathology. This was considered present if contrast could be identified in a hepatic vein contiguous with the lesion in question. Secondarily, PLE was evaluated.
Fleiss\'s multirater kappa statistic, Chi-squared statistic, Phi-coefficient. Significance level P < 0.05.
Considering all observations obtained from the four readers, an EDHV was identified with FNH 48.5% of the time. EDHV was seen with HA in 8.8% of cases. PLE was seen with significantly greater frequency in HA. The presence of an EDHV was associated with the absence of PLE.
In a lesion that may be either an FNH or HA, confident identification on arterial phase images of an EDHV should lead the reader to favor FNH, while the presence PLE should dissuade the reader from FNH.
4.
Stage 2.
To determine whether early enhancement of a draining hepatic vein (EDHV) and absence of perilesional enhancement (PLE) on arterial phase MR images are useful for distinguishing FNH from HA.
Retrospective.
A total of 34 patients: 16 with FNH and 18 with HA lesions.
A1.5 T, axial T1 fat-suppressed arterial postcontrast.
Four abdominal radiologists blinded to pathologic diagnosis assessed for the presence or absence of EDHV in association with the lesion, definitively characterized by pathology. This was considered present if contrast could be identified in a hepatic vein contiguous with the lesion in question. Secondarily, PLE was evaluated.
Fleiss\'s multirater kappa statistic, Chi-squared statistic, Phi-coefficient. Significance level P < 0.05.
Considering all observations obtained from the four readers, an EDHV was identified with FNH 48.5% of the time. EDHV was seen with HA in 8.8% of cases. PLE was seen with significantly greater frequency in HA. The presence of an EDHV was associated with the absence of PLE.
In a lesion that may be either an FNH or HA, confident identification on arterial phase images of an EDHV should lead the reader to favor FNH, while the presence PLE should dissuade the reader from FNH.
4.
Stage 2.
摘要：
背景：局灶性结节性增生（FNH）和肝腺瘤（HA）是两种常见的良性肝脏病变，具有不同的治疗选择。特别是,考虑切除大的HA病变，以避免可能的出血并发症或罕见的恶性变性。
目的：确定动脉期MR图像上引流肝静脉（EDHV）的早期增强和病灶周围增强（PLE）的缺失是否有助于区分FNH和HA。
方法：回顾性。
方法：共有34例患者：16例FNH和18例HA病变。
未经评估：A1.5T，轴向T1脂肪抑制动脉造影后。
UNASSIGNED：四名腹部放射科医生对病理诊断不了解，评估是否存在与病变相关的EDHV，明确的病理特征。如果可以在与所讨论的病变相邻的肝静脉中识别出造影剂，则认为存在造影剂。其次，对PLE进行了评价。
方法：Fleiss\的多评估者kappa统计，卡方统计量，Phi系数。显著水平P<0.05。
结果：考虑到从四位读者那里获得的所有观察结果，EDHV在48.5%的时间内被FNH识别。在8.8％的病例中，使用HA观察到EDHV。在HA中看到PLE具有显著更大的频率。EDHV的存在与PLE的缺失有关。
结论：在可能是FNH或HA的病变中，对EDHV动脉期图像的自信识别应该引导读者偏爱FNH，而PLE的存在应该劝阻读者远离FNH。
方法：4.
未经评估：第二阶段。
目的：确定动脉期MR图像上引流肝静脉（EDHV）的早期增强和病灶周围增强（PLE）的缺失是否有助于区分FNH和HA。
方法：回顾性。
方法：共有34例患者：16例FNH和18例HA病变。
未经评估：A1.5T，轴向T1脂肪抑制动脉造影后。
UNASSIGNED：四名腹部放射科医生对病理诊断不了解，评估是否存在与病变相关的EDHV，明确的病理特征。如果可以在与所讨论的病变相邻的肝静脉中识别出造影剂，则认为存在造影剂。其次，对PLE进行了评价。
方法：Fleiss\的多评估者kappa统计，卡方统计量，Phi系数。显著水平P<0.05。
结果：考虑到从四位读者那里获得的所有观察结果，EDHV在48.5%的时间内被FNH识别。在8.8％的病例中，使用HA观察到EDHV。在HA中看到PLE具有显著更大的频率。EDHV的存在与PLE的缺失有关。
结论：在可能是FNH或HA的病变中，对EDHV动脉期图像的自信识别应该引导读者偏爱FNH，而PLE的存在应该劝阻读者远离FNH。
方法：4.
未经评估：第二阶段。
