Mao JX, Teng F, Liu C, Yuan H, Sun KY, Zou Y, Dong JY, Ji JS, Dong JF, Fu H, Ding GS, Guo WY. Two case reports and literature review for hepatic epithelioid angiomyolipoma: Pitfall of misdiagnosis. World J Clin Cases 2019; 7(8): 972-983 [PMID: 31119142 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i8.972]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Wen-Yuan Guo, MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Liver Surgery and Organ Transplantation, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, 415 Fengyang Road, Huangpu District, Shanghai 200003, China. guowenyuan@smmu.edu.cn
Research Domain of This Article
Surgery
Article-Type of This Article
Case Report
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Enhancement mode (fast wash-in and fast wash-out/fast wash-in and slow wash-out/delayed enhancement)
67/83/15
Pseudocapsule (Y/N)
65/73
Table 3 Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid enhanced scan manifestations of hepatic epithelioid angiomyolipoma
Items
Cases
Magnetic resonance imaging
T1WI
Low, slightly low signal/equisignal/high signal
107/1/1
Slightly uniform/non-uniform
13/26
T2WI
Slightly high signal/high signal
39/70
Slightly uniform/non-uniform
3/29
DWI
Slightly high signal/high signal
13/51
Slightly uniform/non-uniform
4/15
Gd-EOB-DTPA
Arterial phase
Homogeneous enhancement/heterogeneous enhancement
29/21
Obvious enhancement/Medium enhancement
47/7
Portal phase
Continuous enhancement/enhancement weakened
22/29
Delayed phase
Continuous enhancement/enhancement weakened
1/2
Table 4 Gross appearance of hepatic epithelioid angiomyolipom
Items
Cases or manifestations
Section
Mostly incanus, grayish yellow or grayish red
Capsule (Y/N)
10/53
Boundary
Clear
Texture (slightly soft/medium/slightly dense)
65/6/18
Hemorrhage or necrosis (Y/N)
60/89
Fat lesions (Y/N)
23/46
Cystic degeneration (Y/N)
16/98
Table 5 Immunohistochemistry markers of hepatic epithelioid angiomyolipoma
Markers
Positive/weakly positive/negative (+/±/-)
Positive rate
HMB45
219/2/5
97.35%
S-100
19/5/63
24.71%
SMA
128/15/32
77.43%
MSA
4/10/1
60%
Actin
32/1/5
85.53%
Melan-A
91/1/22
80.70%
CD31
2/0/2
50%
CD34
38/0/34
52.78%
CD68
2/6/5
33.33%
CD117
0/0/13
0%
Vimentin
23/11/17
55.88%
Kpan
0/0/101
0%
HepPar-1
0/0/52
0%
MAC387
6/0/0
100%
EMA
0/0/30
0%
Desmin
0/20/30
20%
MART-1
24/0/1
96%
CEA
1/0/9
10%
AFP
0/1/66
0.75%
MPO
0/1/1
25%
p53
0/0/9
0%
E-cadherin, b-cadherin
0/1/4
10%
pp70S6K
1/2/1
50%
MyoD1
2/2/1
60%
Citation: Mao JX, Teng F, Liu C, Yuan H, Sun KY, Zou Y, Dong JY, Ji JS, Dong JF, Fu H, Ding GS, Guo WY. Two case reports and literature review for hepatic epithelioid angiomyolipoma: Pitfall of misdiagnosis. World J Clin Cases 2019; 7(8): 972-983