MR imaging of primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm and metastatic hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm: a comparative study

Abstract

MRI may provide valuable information for the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of PHNENs and MHNENs.

Primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumour with multiple liver metastases: A case report with literature review

“…MRI showed long T1 and long T2 signals, nodular or circular enhancement in the arterial phase, and continuous enhancement in the portal phase and delayed phase. Compared with the surrounding liver parenchyma, PHNETs show high signals on DWI sequences and decreased ADC values [22] . PHNETs in the G1 and G2 phases usually appear as a single lesion on the right lobe of the liver on CT or MRI, while in the G3 phase, there are often multiple lesions or a large tumour accompanied by several satellite lesions [23] .…”

Primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: imaging characteristics and misdiagnosis analysis

“…The imaging features of PHNENs have been summarized in previous literature ( 19 – 25 ) as follows: (1) Tumors can occur as single or multiple lesions with no significant difference in their distribution between the left and right lobes of the liver; (2) Heterogeneity is observed in tumors, presenting as uneven low attenuation on pre-contrast CT and mixed long T1 and long T2 signals on MRI; (3) Significant enhancement of tumor parenchyma is observed on the arterial phase, while a decrease in enhancement is noted on the venous portal phase and delayed phase; (4) Calcification and fat deposition within the lesion are rare occurrences, as well as cancer thrombus formation within blood vessels or bile ducts.…”

“…(5) Metastatic hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (MPHNENs): The differential diagnosis of PHNENs and MHNENs is a complex challenge difficult for both pathologists and radiologists. Some radiologists have conducted exploratory studies on the MR manifestations of both tumor types and propose that certain features such as large, solitary or rapidly growing nodules with lobulated or irregular contours, capsule-like enhancement, heterogeneous signals, or lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values may potentially support the diagnosis of PHNENs compared to metastatic ones ( 25 ). The presence of multiple lesions, tumor size less than 6.3 cm, and a hepatocellular carcinoma-like enhancement pattern have been identified as significant independent factors for differentiating secondary from PHNENs ( 30 ).…”