Hepatic Adenoma Imaging

No Results

No Results

processing….

Hepatic adenoma is a rare, benign tumor of the liver. ^{[1, 2, 3, 4]} Two types of hepatic adenoma have been identified, including tumors of bile duct origin and tumors of liver cell origin. Hepatic adenomas of bile duct origin are usually smaller than 1 cm and are not of clinical interest; typically, they are found incidentally on postmortem examinations. Hepatic adenomas of liver origin are larger—on average, they measure 8-15 cm—and are often clinically significant.

See the images below of a patient with hepatic adenoma.

The 3 major subtypes include (1) the inflammatory/telangiectatic subtype, (2) the steatotic (with HNF1-α gene mutation) subtype, and (3) the subtype with β-catenin activation. An additional unclassified/miscellaneous subgroup is also recognized. ^{[5, 6]}

The inflammatory subtype is characterized as follows:

Previously misclassified as telangiectatic focal nodular hyperplasia

Comprises 40-55% of hepatocellular adenomas

Increased risk of bleeding but small risk of malignant transformation

Due to mutations involving interleukin 6

Strong expression of serum amyloid-associated protein A2 (SAA-2) and C-reactive protein on immunohistochemistry

Inflammation and peliosis at histology

The steatotic subtype is characterized as follows:

Comprises 35-50% of hepatocellular adenomas

No risk of malignant transformation

Leads to the development of familial adenomatosis and MODY-3 (maturity-onset diabetes of the young)

Lacks of expression of liver fatty acid binding protein (LFABP) on immunohistochemistry

The subtype with β-catenin activation is characterized as follow:

Comprises 10-18% of hepatocellular adenomas

Affects men and women

Increased risk of malignancy

Associated with androgen therapy and glycogen storage disease

Strong diffuse overexpression of glutamine synthetase and nuclear β-catenin staining

Risk of malignant transformation to hepatocellular carcinoma is 4-8%. After stopping the ingestion of oral contraceptives or anabolic steroids, the tumor can regress in size but the risk of malignant transformation remains.

Because of the small risk of life-threatening hemorrhage and the risk of malignant transformation, surgical excision is recommended for hepatic adenomas. Successful percutaneous radiofrequency ablation has been reported to be successful in 3 patients. ^[7] Radiofrequency ablation is less invasive and is an option for patients who cannot undergo surgery or who refuse surgery.

A combination of multiphasic computed tomography (CT) scans and gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is best to identify and characterize most hepatic lesions. Certain characteristics, such as arterial enhancement and the presence of fat and hemorrhage, suggest that the lesion represents hepatic adenoma. If an enhancing central scar is seen, the diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) can be made. Nuclear medicine studies can also be helpful. Most hepatic adenomas do not demonstrate uptake on sulfur-colloid and gallium-67 (⁶⁷ Ga) scans. ^{[8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]}

Although CT scanning, MRI, and nuclear medicine studies may help characterize lesions as adenomas, the findings are frequently nonspecific, and biopsy and/or resection may be necessary.

For patient education information, see the Cancer and Tumors Center, as well as Liver Biopsy.

Usually, plain radiographs of the abdomen provide no findings to suggest the diagnosis of hepatic adenoma. The liver is usually normal in size. Rarely, coarse calcifications may be present in hepatic adenomas; calcifications may be seen in the right upper quadrant on radiographs, but this finding is nonspecific.

Hepatic adenomas are often discovered incidentally on CT scans that are performed for other reasons. Once identified, a multiphasic CT scan should be performed to better characterize most hepatic tumors. Protocols differ from institution to institution.

See the CT images below of a patient with hepatic adenocarcinoma.

Typically, helical CT scans are obtained, first of the nonenhanced liver. Then, images are obtained in the hepatic arterial phase using intravenous injection of approximately 120-150 mL of nonionic contrast at a rate of 3-5 mL/s with a 25- to 30-second delay. Images are then acquired in the portal venous phase after a scanning delay of 60-80 seconds.

On CT scans, the most consistent finding in hepatic adenomas is the enhancement pattern. Most lesions (90% according to Ichikawa et al ^[15] ) show homogeneous enhancement in the hepatic arterial phase. Unfortunately, this feature is not specific to hepatic adenomas, because hepatocellular carcinoma, hypervascular metastases, and focal nodular hyperplasia can demonstrate similar enhancement in the hepatic arterial phase.

Because hepatic adenomas are histologically composed of uniform hepatocytes, most are isoattenuating relative to the healthy liver tissue on nonenhanced scans in the portal venous phase. In a fatty liver, hepatic adenomas usually are hyperattenuating.

The finding of hemorrhage as an area of high attenuation can be seen in as many as 40% of patients. Fat deposition within adenomas is identified on CT scans in only approximately 7% of patients.

Typically, hepatic adenomas have well-defined borders and do not have lobulated contours. A low-attenuation pseudocapsule can be seen in as many as 25% of patients. Coarse calcifications are seen in only 5% of patients.

Some MRI findings of hepatic adenomas are similar to CT findings; however, MRI is usually more sensitive in detecting fat and hemorrhage (see the images below). ^{[16, 8, 13]}

Hepatic adenomas tend to be hyperintense or isointense relative to the liver tissue on T1-weighted images (up to 93% in a series by Paulson et al ^[17] ). High signal intensity on T1-weighted images probably relates to the presence of fat or, less commonly, to hemorrhage within the lesion.

Chemical-shift imaging that shows loss of signal on out-of-phase images can confirm the presence of fat. Unfortunately, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is known to contain fat in as many as 40% of lesions; therefore, the presence of fat does not help differentiate the lesions.

Other hepatic lesions can be hyperintense on T1-weighted images, such as melanoma metastases and cavities containing proteinaceous material. On T2-weighted images, hepatic adenomas are most often slightly hyperintense relative to liver tissue. This finding is not specific because many hepatic lesions, including HCC and metastases, are hyperintense on T2-weighted images.

Heterogeneity, defined as any difference of a signal within a lesion on T1-weighted or T2-weighted images, is seen in approximately one half of patients. Heterogeneity relates to the presence of either hemorrhage or necrosis. This finding is not specific as HCC and metastases can bleed and become necrotic. Although uncommon, focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) also can be hemorrhagic.

A peripheral rim corresponding histologically to a pseudocapsule is seen in 17-31% of patients. Signal characteristics of the rim are variable. Most often, the peripheral rim, when seen, is of low signal intensity on T1-weighted images, is of variable intensity on T2-weighted images, and usually does not enhance.

After gadolinium administration, the pattern of enhancement is similar to that of CT scans. Most hepatic adenomas show intense enhancement in the arterial phase and are isointense relative to the liver tissue on delayed imaging.

Gadolinium-based contrast agents have been linked to the development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) or nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy (NFD). NSF/NFD has occurred in patients with moderate to end-stage renal disease after being given a gadolinium-based contrast agent to enhance MRI or MRA scans. NSF/NFD is a debilitating and sometimes fatal disease. Characteristics include red or dark patches on the skin; burning, itching, swelling, hardening, and tightening of the skin; yellow spots on the whites of the eyes; joint stiffness with trouble moving or straightening the arms, hands, legs, or feet; pain deep in the hip bones or ribs; and muscle weakness.

Hepatic adenomas, unlike FNH, do not have a central scar. If a low signal intensity scar is seen on T1-weighted images and the scar enhances after gadolinium is administered, the diagnosis of FNH is strongly favored. A central scar has never been reported in a hepatic adenomas.

On routine MRI of the liver consisting of T1-weighted and T2-weighted images, chemical-shift imaging, and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced imaging, distinguishing among hepatic adenomas, HCC, and hypervascular metastases is usually not possible.

Studies have been performed to determine if MRI (superparamagnetic iron oxides) enhancement with the use of ferumoxides may help to better distinguish FNH from hepatic adenomas and HCC in indeterminate cases. ^[18] Ferumoxides are taken up by the reticuloendothelial cells in a healthy liver. Because FNH contains Kupffer cells, the ferumoxides are taken up by healthy liver tissue and by FNH, which results in marked reduction in the signal intensity of healthy liver tissue and FNH on T2-weighted images.

Usually, no other lesions show significant signal loss on T2-weighted images. Lesions such as HCC, hepatic adenomas, and metastases usually become conspicuous because they lack a significant number of Kupffer cells. Lesions such as FNH drop out almost as much as healthy liver tissue; however, some hepatic adenomas and some well-differentiated HCCs show some signal intensity loss, which may be explained by the presence of some Kupffer cells in the lesions.

Mangafodipir trisodium (formerly termed Mn-DPDP) is a hepatobiliary MRI contrast agent that is taken up by hepatocytes and excreted into bile. Because hepatic adenoma, FNH, and HCC all contain hepatocytes, they may demonstrate enhancement with this agent. Metastases and hemangiomas do not contain hepatocytes and do not enhance; therefore, this agent can help differentiate hepatic adenoma, which enhances, from metastases, which do not enhance.

Venkatesh et al assessed the potential for MR elastography (MRE) to characterize solid liver tumors. ^[9] After 44 tumors were identified on T2- and T1-weighted and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted images, a stiffness map (elastogram) was obtained, and the stiffness value of tumor-free hepatic parenchyma was calculated. The results appeared to be promising for MRE as a potential noninvasive technique in the evaluation of solid liver tumors: malignant liver tumors had significantly greater mean shear stiffness than benign tumors, fibrotic liver, and normal liver, and fibrotic livers had stiffness values that overlapped both the benign and the malignant tumors. The authors reported that a “cutoff value of 5 kPa accurately differentiated malignant tumors from benign tumors and normal liver parenchyma in this preliminary investigation.” ^[9]

In another study, Chang and Thoeni evaluated the effect of T1 shortening on T2-weighted MRI sequences before and after the administration of gadolinium by comparing conspicuity of 118 pathologically proven or serially followed focal liver lesions in 84 patients ^[19] “On gadolinium-enhanced T2-weighted images, 21 (17.8%) of 118 of the lesions had improved conspicuity, 86 (72.9%) had no difference in conspicuity, and 11 (9.3%) appeared worse.” However, there was no statistically significant difference between the unenhanced and enhanced images, although the authors noted a trend toward improved conspicuity with the gadolinium enhancement MRIs. With subgroup analysis the gadolinium-enhanced T2-weighted images, demonstrated significantly better visualization of solid hepatic lesions (28.3%) compared with nonsolid lesions (9.2%). ^[19]

Giovanoli et al evaluated the use of gadoxetic acid, a newly developed liver-specific MR contrast agent, in 3 patients with histologically proven liver adenomatosis. ^[10] The initial results were not promising: in all 3 patients, >100 adenomas showed no or limited uptake of gadoxetic acid in the delayed phase, thus not making it possible for the differentiation of adenomas from dysplastic or malignant lesions.

Generally, on routine MRI of the liver using T1-weighted, T2-weighted, chemical-shift, and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced imaging, certain hepatic masses can be diagnosed with confidence, whereas others cannot.

If a hepatic mass contains a low signal central scar on T1-weighted images that enhance after gadolinium administration, the diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) is fairly certain.

However, overlap exists in the imaging and enhancement characteristics of hepatic adenomas, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and hypervascular metastases such as melanoma. Clinical correlation in such cases is most helpful. A history of cirrhosis and high alpha-fetoprotein levels favor an HCC diagnosis. A history of melanoma or other primary tumors favors the diagnosis of metastases. In otherwise healthy young women using oral contraceptives, the diagnosis of hepatic adenoma is favored. Patients with glycogen storage disease, hemochromatosis, or acromegaly, as well as males on anabolic steroids, are also more prone to developing hepatic adenomas.

Although most hepatic adenomas are hyperintense relative to normal liver on T1-weighted images, this is not a specific finding. Other hepatic masses, such as hepatocellular carcinoma, melanoma, metastases, and protein material in hepatic abscess cavities, can be hyperintense on T1-weighted images as well.

On ultrasound, hepatic adenomas demonstrate variable echogenicity (see the first image below). The lesions may be hypoechoic, isoechoic, or hyperechoic relative to liver parenchyma. Usually, differentiating hepatic adenomas from other liver lesions such as focal nodular hyperplasia or hepatocellular carcinoma is not possible based on either gray scale or Doppler ultrasonographic characteristics. ^[14]

In April 2016, the FDA approved sulfur hexafluoride (Lumason) for ultrasonography of the liver in adults and children to enhance the characterization of focal liver lesions. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) greatly improved diagnosis as compared to ultrasound without contrast. In this study, CEUS allowed a correct diagnosis in more than 80% of focal liver lesions and led to a change in the diagnostic workup in 131/157 patients (83.4%) and in the therapeutic workup in 93/157 patients (59.2%). ^[20]

Cherqui et al described increased intralesional venous structures with a paucity of intra-arterial structures in hepatic adenomas ^[21] ; however, Rumack et al failed to replicate this finding, and it is not a reliable differentiating feature. ^[22] The primary role of ultrasound is to screen patients with hepatic masses that are discovered incidentally or who have a clinical history of abnormal liver function test results. Further imaging is then indicated using MRI, CT scanning, and/or nuclear medicine.

Morin et al, however, report that ultrasound can be used with specific contrast media and specialized imaging techniques to fully characterize the enhancement pattern of hepatic lesions, which, the authors indicate, are similar to that achieved with contrast-enhanced, multiphasic CT scanning and MRI. ^[11]

A combination of radiotracers may help make the diagnosis of hepatic adenomas in equivocal cases (see the third image below). ^[12]

On gallium-67 (⁶⁷ Ga) scans, hepatic adenomas demonstrate decreased uptake compared with healthy liver tissue, which can be explained by the benign nature of the cells. In contrast, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often demonstrates equivocal or greater⁶⁷ Ga uptake than liver, with studies reporting that 90-95% of HCCs demonstrate uptake or equivocal uptake of⁶⁷ Ga.

Because hepatic adenomas usually have few or absent Kupffer cells, the lesions show focal defects on sulfur-colloid liver-spleen scans. However, an occasional hepatic adenoma contains enough Kupffer cells to demonstrate normal uptake of sulfur colloid. HCC almost always appears as defects on sulfur-colloid scintigraphy because HCC lacks Kupffer cells. In contrast, focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) contains Kupffer cells and usually demonstrates uptake of sulfur colloid. In summary, sulfur-colloid uptake strongly favors a diagnosis of FNH. Lack of sulfur-colloid uptake is not specific and can be attributed to many other hepatic lesions, including hepatic adenomas, HCC, and metastases.

When hepatobiliary agents are used, hepatic adenomas usually demonstrate early uptake with subsequent retention of the radiotracer because hepatic adenomas do not contain bile ducts; thus, the radiotracer is not excreted by the lesion, which remains “hot” on delayed images. This is in contrast to HCC, which shows focal defects on early scans. Avid uptake becomes detectable only after 2-5 hours.

The use of positron emission tomography (PET) scanning with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (¹⁸ FDG) has been shown to be useful in the evaluation of many tumors. Malignant tumors usually show uptake of¹⁸ FDG, whereas benign tumors do not. Occasionally, benign lesions such as sarcoid lesions, inflammatory processes, and abscesses can show uptake. A case has been reported of¹⁸ FDG uptake in a hepatic adenoma. ^[23]

When hepatic adenoma is radiologically indistinguishable from HCC and FNH, a combination of radionuclide imaging, including sulfur-colloid,⁶⁷ Ga, and technetium-99m (^99m Tc) pyridoxyl-5-methyltryptophan (PMT) uptake, may help establish the correct diagnosis. Most hepatic adenomas demonstrate decreased⁶⁷ Ga uptake, decreased sulfur-colloid uptake, and early and retained uptake of hepatobiliary agents.

Most hepatic adenomas demonstrate decreased⁶⁷ Ga uptake, decreased colloid uptake, early and retained uptake of hepatobiliary agents, and no uptake on PET scanning; therefore, the diagnosis of hepatic adenoma can often be confidently made with the use of nuclear medicine studies.

Cases have been reported of hot hepatic adenomas on PET¹⁸ FDG scans. In addition, reports exist of hepatic adenomas with enough Kupffer cells to demonstrate uptake on sulfur colloid scans.

In the diagnostic workup of hepatic adenomas, angiography does not have a significant role. This modality can be helpful for technical reasons when considering resection. On angiography, hepatic adenomas typically appear as hypervascular masses, with the vascular supply arising peripherally. However, hepatic adenomas may be hypovascular (as many as 50%) or have areas of hypovascularity within the mass that correspond to hemorrhage and necrosis.

In contrast, focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) is typically hypervascular with dense capillary blushing. In large lesions, a dilated branch of the hepatic artery can enter the center of the mass and then divide into small branches that radiate in a manner similar to the spokes on a wheel (spoke-wheel appearance). If the spokelike appearance is noted, FNH is the likely diagnosis. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) demonstrates hypervascularity, irregular tumor vessels, and arteriovenous shunting. In patients with HCC, a tumor thrombus in the portal or hepatic veins may also be seen. Most liver metastases are hypervascular with a capillary stain.

Angiography is usually not performed for the detection and differentiation of hepatic masses. Angiography can be performed preoperatively to better define the vascular anatomy before resection, although the information can be obtained noninvasively with CT scanning or MR angiography.

Micchelli ST, Vivekanandan P, Boitnott JK, et al. Malignant transformation of hepatic adenomas. Mod Pathol. 2008 Apr. 21(4):491-7. [Medline].

Ibrahim S, Chen CL, Wang SH, et al. Liver resection for benign liver tumors: indications and outcome. Am J Surg. 2007 Jan. 193(1):5-9. [Medline].

Herman P, Pugliese V, Machado MA, et al. Hepatic adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia: differential diagnosis and treatment. World J Surg. 2000 Mar. 24(3):372-6. [Medline].

Kume N, Suga K, Nishigauchi K, Shimizu K, Matsunaga N. Characterization of hepatic adenoma with atypical appearance on CT and MRI by radionuclide imaging. Clin Nucl Med. 1997 Dec. 22(12):825-31. [Medline].

Bioulac-Sage P, Laumonier H, Couchy G, et al. Hepatocellular adenoma management and phenotypic classification: the Bordeaux experience. Hepatology. 2009 Aug. 50(2):481-9. [Medline].

Takayasu H, Motoi T, Kanamori Y, et al. Two case reports of childhood liver cell adenomas harboring beta-catenin abnormalities. Hum Pathol. 2002 Aug. 33(8):852-5. [Medline].

Atwell TD, Brandhagen DJ, Charboneau JW, Nagorney DM, Callstrom MR, Farrell MA. Successful treatment of hepatocellular adenoma with percutaneous radiofrequency ablation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Mar. 184(3):828-31. [Medline].

Dunphy T. Magnetic resonance imaging of focal liver lesions. Appl Radiol. 2001. 30(suppl):69-70.

Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Glockner JF, et al. MR elastography of liver tumors: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Jun. 190(6):1534-40. [Medline].

Giovanoli O, Heim M, Terracciano L, Bongartz G, Ledermann HP. MRI of hepatic adenomatosis: initial observations with gadoxetic acid contrast agent in three patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 May. 190(5):W290-3. [Medline].

Morin SH, Lim AK, Cobbold JF, Taylor-Robinson SD. Use of second generation contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the assessment of focal liver lesions. World J Gastroenterol. 2007 Dec 7. 13(45):5963-70. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Lim D, Lee SY, Lim KH, Chan CY. Hepatic adenoma mimicking a metastatic lesion on computed tomography-positron emission tomography scan. World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jul 21. 19 (27):4432-6. [Medline].

Cogley JR, Miller FH. MR imaging of benign focal liver lesions. Radiol Clin North Am. 2014 Jul. 52 (4):657-82. [Medline].

Nahar N, Khan N, Chakraborty RK, Rima SZ, Ara R, Islam SM, et al. Color Doppler sonography and resistivity index in the differential diagnosis of hepatic neoplasm. Mymensingh Med J. 2014 Jan. 23 (1):35-40. [Medline].

Ichikawa T, Federle MP, Grazioli L, Nalesnik M. Hepatocellular adenoma: multiphasic CT and histopathologic findings in 25 patients. Radiology. 2000 Mar. 214(3):861-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Arrivé L, Fléjou JF, Vilgrain V, et al. Hepatic adenoma: MR findings in 51 pathologically proved lesions. Radiology. 1994 Nov. 193(2):507-12. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Paulson EK, McClellan JS, Washington K, et al. Hepatic adenoma: MR characteristics and correlation with pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Jul. 163(1):113-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Paley MR, Mergo PJ, Torres GM, Ros PR. Characterization of focal hepatic lesions with ferumoxides-enhanced T2-weighted MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Jul. 175(1):159-63. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Chang SD, Thoeni RF. Effect of T1 shortening on T2-weighted MRI sequences: comparison of hepatic mass conspicuity on images acquired before and after gadolinium enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 May. 190(5):1318-23. [Medline].

Lorusso A, Quaia E, Poillucci G, Stacul F, Grisi G, Cova MA. Activity-based cost analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) related to the diagnostic impact in focal liver lesion characterisation. Insights Imaging. 2015 Aug. 6 (4):499-508. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Cherqui D, Rahmouni A, Charlotte F, et al. Management of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma in young women: a series of 41 patients with clinical, radiological, and pathological correlations. Hepatology. 1995 Dec. 22(6):1674-81. [Medline].

Rumack CM, Wilson SR, Charboneau JW, eds. Diagnostic Ultrasound. 2nd ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby-Year Book; 1998. Vol 1: 129-30.

Patel PM, Alibazoglu H, Ali A, Fordham E, LaMonica G. False-positive’ uptake of FDG in a hepatic adenoma. Clin Nucl Med. 1997 Jul. 22(7):490-1. [Medline].

Welch TJ, Sheedy PF 2nd, Johnson CM, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma: comparison of angiography, CT, US, and scintigraphy. Radiology. 1985 Sep. 156(3):593-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].

Davis LP, McCarroll K. Correlative imaging of the liver and hepatobiliary system. Semin Nucl Med. 1994 Jul. 24(3):208-18. [Medline].

Wojtowycz M. Handbook of Interventional Radiology and Angiography. 2nd ed. St Louis, Missouri: Mosby-Year Book; 1995. 77-83.

Karen Kodsi Garfield, MD Attending Physician in Body Imaging, Department of Radiology, St Luke’s Hospital

Karen Kodsi Garfield, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, American Medical Association, Radiological Society of North America

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Sandor Joffe, MD 

Sandor Joffe, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, American Roentgen Ray Society, Radiological Society of North America

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Stephen A Okon, MD 

Stephen A Okon, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Medical Association, American Roentgen Ray Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Bernard D Coombs, MB, ChB, PhD Consulting Staff, Department of Specialist Rehabilitation Services, Hutt Valley District Health Board, New Zealand

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Paul M Silverman, MD Professor, Chief of Body Imaging, Chair in Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Radiology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas School of Medicine

Paul M Silverman, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, American Roentgen Ray Society, Association of University Radiologists, Radiological Society of North America

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

John Karani, MBBS, FRCR Clinical Director of Radiology and Consultant Radiologist, Department of Radiology, King’s College Hospital, UK

John Karani, MBBS, FRCR is a member of the following medical societies: British Institute of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, Royal College of Radiologists, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology, British Society of Interventional Radiology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Neela Lamki, MD, FACR, FRCPC Professor, Department of Radiology, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman; Adjunct Professor, Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine

Neela Lamki, MD, FACR, FRCPC is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American Roentgen Ray Society, Association of University Radiologists, Radiological Society of North America, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Texas Medical Association, Texas Radiological Society, Society of Abdominal Radiology, Association of Program Directors in Interventional Radiology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Hepatic Adenoma Imaging

Research & References of Hepatic Adenoma Imaging|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us