Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. May 21, 2016; 22(19): 4741-4749
Published online May 21, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i19.4741
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients included in our study
CharacteristicHEHE (n = 25)Hemangioma and FNH (n = 45)
Age (yr)
mean ± SD46 ± 1446 ± 14
Range24-7823-74
Male/female8/179/36
Number of FLL (single/multiple)3/220/45
Histological results
hepatic surgery60
core needle biopsy1945
Table 2 Conventional ultrasound features of hepatic epithelioid haemangioendothelioma and hemangioma/Focal nodular hyperplasia n (%)
CharacteristicHEHE (n = 25)Hemangioma/FNH(n = 45)
Number of nodules (single/multiple)3/220/45
Size of nodules (mm)
mean ± SD41.5 ± 25.650.4 ± 25.7
range12-12020-138
Echogenicity of nodules
Hyperechoic2 (8)19 (42.2)
Hypoechoic23 (92)9 (20.0)
Isoechoic017 (37.8)
Homogenous/heterogeneous9/1615/30
Table 3 Contrast enhanced ultrasound imaging features of hepatic epithelioid haemangioendothelioma and multilocular hemangioma/ focal nodular hyperplasia n (%)
CharacteristicHEHE(n = 25 patients)Hemangioma/FNH(n = 45 patients)
Arterial phase
Rim like hyperenhancement18 (72)0
Heterogeneously hyperenhancement7 (28)6 (13.3)
Peripheral nodular enhancement0All hemangioma
Central arterial blood supplyAll FNH
Portal-venous phase
Hyperenhancement0100 (100.0%)
Hypoenhancement25 (100)0
Isoenhancement00
Late phase
Hyperenhancement045 (100.0%)
Hypoenhancement25 (100)0
Isoenhancement00
Sensitivity
Rim like hyperenhancement18/25 (72)0
Hypoenhancement at portal venous phase25/25 (100)0
Central unenhanced area at late phase
Yes18 (72)13 (28.9)
No7 (28)32 (71.1)