We would like to comment on the recent article by Dr. Wilson and colleagues [1] about discordance between contrast-enhanced sonography and CT and MRI as to patterns of enhancement of focal liver lesions. The authors should be commended on their effort to clarify this topic: albeit representing a small percentage of cases, patients with space-occupying liver lesions and discordant results between the contrast-based imaging techniques constitute a diagnostic challenge to their physicians.However, we have several questions. First, it is unclear from the Materials and Methods section what was the pathologic method of reference: percutaneous biopsy or histology on a surgical specimen? For example, in some cases of atypical liver adenoma, only surgery can definitely exclude liver malignancy [2].Second, did the authors evaluate whether discordant results occurred more often when older sonography, CT, or MRI machines were used? In other words, could the use of different equipment have influenced their results?Third, did the authors verify whether different histomorphology, vascular architecture, or both could explain why the same category of lesions (e.g., adenoma) behaved differently after the administration of contrast agents? Could lesion size affect the results as well?