Hepatocellular Adenoma (Hepatic Adenoma)

Back

Practice Essentials

Hepatocellular adenoma (HCA), also called hepatic adenoma, is an uncommon benign solid liver tumor. Its phenotype is changing from single lesions to multiple lesions owing to the reduction in exogenous estrogen exposure and the increasing incidence of obesity and metabolic syndrome as driving factors in HCA formation. 

Major subtypes of HCA include the following[1, 2] :

Differentiation of HCA subtypes has important clinical implications, as the principal complications—hemorrhage and malignant transformation—differ by subtype. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can differentiate HCA from focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and can help differentiate the the inflammatory, HNF 1a–mutated and sonic hedgehog HCA subtypes.

Patients diagnosed with HCA should avoid all steroid exposure. Counsel overweight or obese patients with HCA on weight loss. In women who have HCAs with a diameter of 5 cm or more, surgical resection (or embolization or radiofrequency ablation, if surgery is not an option) should be considered, especially if the tumor shows no response to lifestyle changes. In women, HCAs smaller than 5 cm should be monitored for growth with imaging at regular intervals. Men with HCA and patients with the β-HCA subtype should be referred for resection regardless of tumor size.

Background

Hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) are also known as hepatic adenomas, telangiectatic focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) or, less commonly, liver cell adenomas. They are rare, benign tumors of epithelial origin and occur in less than 0.007-0.012% of the population.[1]  

HCAs may originate in the bile duct or in liver cells. Those 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.

HCAs are most often found in women of childbearing age and are strongly associated with exogenous estrogen exposure, most commonly in the form of oral contraceptives (OCs).[3] The incidence of HCAs is as much as 30-40-fold higher in women who use OCs: the overall incidence in women taking OCs has been estimated at 34 per million, compared with about 1-1.3 per million in women not taking OCs.[4]  That estimate is from a study published in 1979, and consequently reflects the higher estrogen doses contained in OCs at the time; typical estrogen doses in OCs declined from ≥100 μg in the 1960s to ~50 μg in 1970s to ≤30 μg in the1980s and subsequently.[5] However, more recent epidemiologic studies on HCAs are lacking.

The incidence of HCAs dramatically increased following the introduction of OCs in the 1960s. Prior to this, a study by Edmonson reported finding only two hepatic adenomas among 50,000 autopsy specimens at Los Angeles County Hospital between 1907 and 1958.[6] In 1973, Baum et al first suggested an association between hepatic adenomas and OCs.[7] Klatskin[8] and Rooks et al[4] reported that the greatest risk occurred in women older than 30 years taking OCs for longer than 5 years, but in 10% of patients, exposure may be as short as 6-12 months. Cherqui et al also reported that hepatic adenomas are occasionally diagnosed after discontinuation of OCs,[9] although they generally tend to regress following discontinuation.[1]

In women using OCs, adenomas were found to be more common in patients taking OCs containing higher doses of estrogen and with prolonged use (73.4 mo) when compared with matched controls (36.2 mo) (P < 0.001).[10]  As reported by Edmonson et al, decreases in dosages and the types of hormones contained in OCs since their introduction have led to a reduction in hepatic adenoma incidence[11] ; however, other factors, such as obesity are becoming more prominent in HCA formation.[12, 13] In addition, benign liver tumors, including HCAs, may be detected more frequently, owing to the increased routine use of medical imaging.[12]

Other conditions associated with alterations in steroid exposure are implicated, including anabolic androgenic steroid use,[14] endogenous steroid exposure,[15]  polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS),[16] and Klinefelter syndrome.[17] HCAs are also associated with androgenic steroid use for medical conditions, including paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria[18] and aplastic anemia.[19]  HCAs are known to enlarge during pregnancy.[20] Rarer HCA associations have been noted in familial adenomatous polyposis,[21] mature-onset diabetes of the young type 3 (MODY3),[22] and iron overload such as in beta-thalassemia[2] and primary hemochromatosis.[23]

Glycogen storage diseases (GSDs) are also a known risk factor for HCA development, most often occurring with multiple lesions and early onset (age < 20 years), and have a 2:1 male-to-female ratio.[24] Based on limited case series, the incidence ranges between 22% and 75% in type 1 GSD and 25% in type 3 GSD.[25, 26]  Poor metabolic control may promote adenoma formation in GSD.[27]

Obesity and features of metabolic syndrome (insulin resistance/diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia) are also increasingly recognized as HCA risk factors.[28] Obesity has been linked with the development of multiple and bilobar hepatic adenomas[28] and this association has been shown to be independent of OC use, although obese patients using OCs are at increased risk for these lesions as well.[28] Importantly, HCA progression to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is of particular concern in men, in whom the risk of transformation is up to 10 times the rate seen in women, with most cases occurring in those with β-HCA and metabolic syndrome being the most common associated condition.[29]

HCAs may be single or multiple, and they may occasionally reach a size larger than 20 cm.[30] Hepatic adenomatosis has been historically defined as at least 10 lesions, however, note that many patients with over three HCAs go on to develop more, and thus the definition can be applied to patients with four or more lesions.[31] Hepatic adenomatosis develops at equal frequency in either sex and has strong associations with GSD, anabolic steroids, and metabolic syndrome.[28, 32]

Major subtypes of hepatic adenomas have been defined.[33] These subtypes include inflammatory adenoma (I-HCA), representing 40-55% of HCAs; HCA inactivated for hepatocyte nuclear factor 1α (H-HCA), representing 30-45% of HCAs; β-catenin activated HCA (β-HCA), representing 10-20% of HCAs; and sonic hedgehog activated HCA (shHCA), representing less than 5% of HCAs. Approximately 5-10% of HCA are unclassified.[1, 2]  

Risk of malignant transformation and hemorrhage varies with the different subtypes.[33] Malignant transformation, specifically to HCC, is seen especially in β-HCA, especially when associated with coexisting I-HCA.[34, 35, 36, 37]

Pathophysiology

Since Baum et al first suggested oral contraceptives (OCs) to be a causal factor in hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) (hepatic adenoma) formation in 1973,[7] the role of both female and male sex hormones have been generally accepted as main factors in the pathogenesis of these adenomas, although the exact mechanism is unclear. Nuclear estrogen receptors in HCAs have been identified in higher concentrations than in the surrounding hepatic tissue, suggesting increased responsiveness to estrogenic hormones.[38] However, this remains controversial, as adenomas can occur in males and children without predisposing risk factors, and other studies have not identified significant concentrations of receptors even with the use of monoclonal antibodies.[39]  

Rebouissou et al[40] and Bioulac-Sage et al[35, 41] postulated that hepatic adenomas are monoclonal tumors that develop from an interaction between gene defects and environmental changes such as OCs and steatosis.

Hepatocellular adenoma subtypes

Subtypes of HCA include the following[1, 2] :

Inflammatory HCA

Inflammatory HCAs (I-HCAs) are characterized by a variety of gene mutations, all of which result in activation of the JAK/STAT pathway.[34] They feature an inflammatory response with hepatocyte cystoplasm exhibiting C-reactive protein (CRP) and serum amyloid A (SAA). Risk factors include obesity, hepatic steatosis, excess alcohol use, and glycogen storage disease.[3, 2]  

Genetic mutations activating the JAK/STAT pathway in I-HCA are generally mutually exclusive. The predominant form, present in 65% of cases, is a gain of function mutation of interleukin-6 signal transducer gene (IL6ST), which encodes glycoprotein (gp) 130, an IL-6 receptor component, which results in activation of STAT3 and subsequent inflammatory response.[2] Other causative mutations are in STAT3 (5% of cases), FRK (10%), JAK1 (3%), and GNAS (5%).[42]

The I-HCA subtype was previously referred to as telangiectatic focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), as it was thought to be a type of FNH. However, further investigation showed these lesions to be more closely related to hepatic adenoma.[43, 44]

HNF-1α inactivated HCA

In HNF-1α–inactivated HCA (H-HCA), biallelic inactivation of the HNF1A tumor suppressor gene (also referred to as TCF1) leads to predisposition for HCA formation in individuals with mature-onset diabetes of the young type 3 (MODY3) and liver adenomatosis.[22, 45] Typically, there is a female predominance.[42] Inactivation of HNF1A results in alterations in protein expression—notably, loss of liver fatty acid binding protein (LFABP) in the adenoma compared with the surrounding hepatic tissue; this finding helps in the identification of this subtype.[45]  Micro/small HNF1α-inactivated HCAs have also been incidental findings in liver nodules resected for other reasons.[46]

β-catenin activated HCA

In β-HCA, activating mutation of the β-catenin1 gene (CTNNB1) exon 3 activates the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, which plays a significant role in liver development. Mutations of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway are also seen in hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), possibly explaining the  strong association of β-HCA with HCC development.[45, 2] β-HCA may also result from mutations in CTNNB1 exon 7 or 8; these cases are associated with a mild activation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, with HCA development but without an increased risk of malignant transformation. Finally, cases of I-HCA in combination with CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation have been reported.[42]

Sonic hedgehog activated HCA

Sonic hedgehog activated HCA (shHCA) is caused by GLI1 overexpression due its fusion with the INHBE gene, which activates the sonic hedgehog pathway. This subtype is significantly associated with histologic hemorrhage and symptomatic bleeding, whereas a hepatic adenoma size of at least 5 cm, the current defining HCA risk factor for hemorrhage, was significantly associated with histologic hemorrhage alone.[42]

Epidemiology

United States data

Hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) (hepatic adenomas) are extremely rare, occurring in less than 0.007-0.012% of the population.[1] A 1979 study estimated the overall incidence at 1-1.3 per million in women not taking oral contraceptives (OCs), but at 34 per million in women taking OCs,[4]  with increased risk associated with higher-dose estrogen exposure and duration of exposure.[10] Although the reduction in estrogen doses in OCs from the 1960s to the 1980s may have affected the incidence, more recent epidemiologic studies are lacking. Despite the introduction of lower-dose hormonal contraceptives, hepatic adenomas may be detected more frequently owing to the increased routine use of medical imaging as well as the increasing incidence of obesity and metabolic syndrome.[12]

Race-, sex-, and age-related demographics

No racial predisposition exists for HCAs, but a large review that compared data from China, Europe, North America, and Southeast Asia from 1998 to 2008 found a male predominance of HCA in the Chinese population, which is in contrast to the female predominance everywhere else. This has been speculated to be due to the birth control policy in China and as well as the limited use of OCs.[47]

Approximately 90% of patients with HCAs are female.[2] HCA in males is more likely to be associated with anabolic-androgenic steroid use and glycogen storage disease (GSD).[14, 2]  Male HCA is also most often associated with the β-HCA subtype, with increased association for malignancy transformation.[2, 29]

Most affected patients are aged 20-50 years.[3]

Prognosis

The principal complications of HCA are hemorrhage and malignant transformation to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Risk of those complications varies by HCA subtype: risk of hemorrhage is low in all except sonic hedgehog HCA; risk of malignant transformation is low in sonic hedehog and HNF-1α HCA, moderate in inflammatory HCA, and high in β-HCA with exon 3 mutation.[1]  Prognosis may be improved by modification of risk factors and monitoring of lesions to reduce the risk of complications,  With risk factor reduction (eg, stopping oral contraceptives or anabolic steroids), the tumor can regress in size but the risk of malignant transformation remains. Complete resolution is atypical. 

Hemorrhage

Hepatic adenomas are relatively well vascularized, so hemorrhage is a common complication. Intraperitoneal bleeding may occur, likely due to lack of a defined, fibrous capsule.[48] In a systematic review comprising 1176 patients, the overall frequency of hemorrhage was 27.2%. Hemorrhage occurred in 15.8% of all HCA lesions; rupture and intraperitoneal bleeding were reported in 17.5% of patients. Interestingly, a similar overall frequency of patients with HCA hemorrhage (25.4%) were found when earlier studies with oral contraceptives with higher estrogen content were excluded.[48] Risk factors involved in an increased risk of HCA hemorrhage include tumor size of at least 5 cm, location in the left hepatic lobe, and exophytic growth of the tumor.[48, 49]

Although a tumor size of 5 cm is the standard for resection owing to the increased risk of hemorrhage and malignant transformation, multiple case series have reported hemorrhage in hepatic adenomas smaller than 5 cm, even as small as 1 cm[50] ; however, the risk appears to be minimal. Size—not number of lesions—appears to be related to the risk of hemorrhage. Multiple studies have not found a difference between patients with a single or multiple HCAs.[51, 52, 53]

Rooks et al estimated mortality to be 21% after HCA rupture and intraperitoneal bleeding.[4] Although data are from limited case series of ruptured HCAs, mortality for emergency resection has been estimated between 5% and 10%, whereas that for elective surgery has been estimated to be less than 1%.[54] In cases of high surgical risk or anatomic difficulty, nonsurgical modalities such as embolization and conservative management with adequate resuscitation can be efficacious.[1] Following a massive hemorrhage with intervention or conservative management, the rebleeding risk has been estimated to be around 4.3%, with elective therapy indicated only for persistent size of 5 cm and larger.[55]

Malignant transformation

Malignant transformation of HCA into HCC may occur in up to 4% of β-HCA cases; this subtype is found more often in males, so males are at higher risk. However, a systematic review found that the overall risk of malignant transformation is 4.2%, with only 4.4% of malignancies developing in lesions smaller than 5 cm in diameter.[56] This transformation rate appears to have remained stable over the past four decades as HCA has been closely monitored, based on resected HCA specimens.[57] Malignant transformation occurs predominantly in tumors with diameter of at least 5 cm.[34, 56]  The risk of malignant transformation remains even after contraceptive or steroid use has been discontinued.[58]

Growth during pregnancy

Pregnancy has been associated with hepatic adenoma growth, due to exposure to hormones. As growth of HCA is associated with an increased risk of rupture, this is of prime importance in pregnant patients, as rupture of the tumor during pregnancy has a 44% maternal mortality and a 38% fetal mortality rate.[59] A prospective study that followed 48 patients with hepatocellular adenoma < 5 cm during 51 pregnancies found minimal maternal risk and no risk to the fetus; HCA growth occurred in 25.5% of the pregnancies; the median increase was 14 mm.[60] In a setting where surgery is indicated, especially with lesions in the periphery of the hepatic anatomy, it is recommended the operation be planned prior to 24 weeks' gestation to reduce the risk of fetal complications.[2]

History

The clinical presentation of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) (hepatic adenomas) varies widely. Salient features of the history and physical examination may include the following:

Physical Examination

The physical examination findings in patients with hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) (hepatic adenomas) are often nonspecific. Patients may be asymptomatic, or they may appear ill, with pallor and abdominal distress. Note the following:

Approach Considerations

Baseline imaging with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended at the initial diagnosis of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) (hepatic adenoma), to aid in characterization of the lesion and possible subtype determination. It is important to recognize the size of the tumor as well as any exophytic protrusion, as these features are associated with an increased risk of hemorrhage.[48, 49]  If the imaging study results are indeterminate or there is concern for malignancy, it is reasonable to perform biopsy.[2]

Laboratory Studies

Serologically, hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) (hepatic adenomas) are a diagnosis of exclusion. No specific serologic studies exist.

Abnormal liver function tests, especially elevations in γ-glutamyl transferase and alkaline phosphatase are seen, likely due to mass effect of the tumor.[42]

Inflammatory syndrome, which can be characterized by serum elevations in C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), white blood cells (WBCs), or others, may be seen predominantly in the inflammatory subtype (I-HCA).[42, 63]

Serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels are within the reference range in patients with hepatic adenoma. Elevations of AFP should prompt consideration of either a primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or an adenoma that has undergone malignant transformation to HCC.[3] However, an AFP level within the reference range does not eliminate HCC from the differential diagnosis.

Elevated serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels suggest metastasis from the colon.

Serologies for amebiasis and echinococcosis should be considered if the lesion appears cystic or there is clinical concern for these diseases.

Imaging Studies

Findings of hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) (hepatic adenomas) on imaging studies have been difficult to characterize due to their heterogeneous nature. Advances in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have made imaging studies more prominent in the diagnosis of HCAs, with regard both to specific subtypes and differentiation from focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH). Utilization of imaging techniques have reduced the need for patients to undergo biopsy and the subsequent associated risks.[64, 65]

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, but that information can be obtained noninvasively with CT scanning or MR angiography.

Ultrasonography

The ultrasonographic appearance of hepatic adenoma is nonspecific and generally requires further investigation. The tumors can appear well demarcated if hyperechoic in the presence of steatosis; HCAs will appear anechoic if intralesional hemorrhage is present.[64] Doppler flow patterns in HCAs show peripheral vessels and venous flow in most cases, as compared with the "spoked-wheel" arterial pattern noted in FNH.[66]

Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS)

CEUS involves using a microbubble contrast medium that reveals rapid arterial enhancement progressing from the periphery to the center of the tumor, which correlates with the presence of higher concentrations of multiple, thin arteries in the periphery of HCA.[67, 68, 69, 70, 71] This finding is in contrast to the findings in FNH, which typically show hyperperfusion from a large feeding artery in the arterial phase from the center outward, producing a "spoked-wheel" appearance.[69]  Hepatic adenomas can have a gradual washout phenomenon due to missing portal veins in the late phase; for this reason, HCA enhancement patterns can be confused with malignancy.[67, 70] The reported sensitivity in differentiating HCA from FNA with CEUS ranges from 86% to 95%, with a specificity of 74-79%.[72]

Computed tomography (CT)

On noncontrast CT scans, HCA appears as a well-demarcated mass with low density and no lobulation.[73] On contrast-enhanced, multiphase, CT images, the tumor shows an early peripheral enhancement with a centripetal pattern during the portal venous phase. It then fades to isodensity in the portal or delayed phase. Rarely, the lesion can have a central necrotic area or calcifications.[64, 73, 74]

The American College of Radiology (ACR) has published an algorithm applied to incidental liver lesions in asymptomatic adult patients (≥18 years of age) for whom CT was requested for an unrelated reason. The algorithm is designed for use in patients with varied underlying risk levels (low versus high) for a malignant hepatic lesion. However, the algorithm should not be applied when the index CT (ie, that which demonstrates the incidental lesion) was requested to evaluate a known or suspected liver lesion or hepatic abnormality. There are some hepatic lesions that present with associated vascular invasion, biliary dilation, or adenopathy; patients with these associated findings should be referred directly for oncologic evaluation.[75]

The  basic principles of the algorithm are as follows[75] :

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

The MRI appearance of hepatic adenoma is variable, owing to the presence or absence of hemorrhage. Hyperintense heterogeneous signals on T1- and T2-weighted imaging are often due to HCAs containing intratumoral lipids, which differentiates HCA from FNH.[76, 77] Hemorrhagic HCAs may also have hyperintense T1 imaging with subcapsular hemosiderin rings.[65]

Specific MRI contrast agents can be administered to further characterize HCAs. Administration of Kupffer cell–specific MRI agents (superparamagnetic iron oxides [SPIOs] and ultra-small superparamagnetic iron oxides [USPIOs]) typically show no uptake due to a lack of endothelial-reticular cells, resulting in decreased T2 signal intensity.[74] Gadolinium-enhanced dynamic gradient-echo MRI may display early arterial enhancement, resulting in visualization of the peritumoral vessels characteristic of HCA.[78]

A prospective study showed administration of gadoxetate disodium in a standard series combined with hepatobiliary phases helped to differentiate HCA from FNA in lesions larger than 2 cm.[65] Both gadobenate dimeglumine and gadoxetic acid are also liver-specific contrast agents; when utilized in the hepatobiliary phase, these agents have shown equivalent efficacy in differentiating HCA from FNH,[79]  although a 2019 study has shown the possible superiority of gadoxetic acid.[80] Additionally, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) has been found to be most cost effective in a 2018 study, although there was similar effectiveness among the EOB-MRI, conventional MRI, and biopsy strategies in patients with incidentally detected liver lesions in a noncirrhotic liver.[81]

MRI can also be helpful in differentiating specific subtypes of HCA, which improves their clinical characterization and follow-up without the need for biopsy.[1, 64, 76]  However, newer discoveries of further subtype classifications has complicated MRI usefulness in differentiation.[42, 2] Any inconclusive imaging should be considered for biopsy, with an informed discussion with the patient of the risks involved.[64]

In HCA inactivated for hepatocyte nuclear factor 1α (H-HCA), typical findings on MRI include loss of signal on chemical shift as well as moderate arterial enhancement without persistent enhancement in the delayed phase. In a study by Laumonier et al, oss of chemical shift in H-HCA, which is associated with the presence of steatosis, had a sensitivity of 86.7% and specificity of 100%.[76]

In inflammatory hepatic adenomas (I-HCA), typical findings on MRI include a markedly hyperintense appearance on T2-weighted images, with a strong peripheral signal as well as persistent enhancement in delayed phase. If both findings are present, Laumonier et al found a sensitivity of 85.2% and specificity of 87.5%.[76]  Ba-Ssalamah et al reported that use of gadoxetic acid resulted in lower sensitivity (80.9%) and specificity (77.3%).[82]

In β-catenin activated HCA (β-HCA), the MRI findings depend on the subtype. The inflammatory subtype of β-HCA has the same appearance as I-HCA. For noninflammatory β-HCA, typical MRI findings show a heterogeneous appearance in all sequences, no signal dropout on chemical shift, isointense appearance on T1- and T2-weighted images, and strong arterial enhancement and delayed washout.[76] Note that subtypes of β-HCA may not be able to be differentiated from each other and HCC with imaging alone, therefore a high index of suspicion is required.[2, 82]

In sonic hedgehog activated HCA (shHCA), an MRI study showed intralesional fluid-filled cavities in 46% of cases, a finding not reported with other HCA subtypes. The cavities were defined on MRI as fluid-like foci markedly hyperintense on T2-weighted sequences and hypointense on T1-weighted sequences, with or without delayed enhancement. On pathologic examination, the cavities proved to be vacuoles filled with blood. Additional MRI findings were hemorrhage, necrosis, or both, detected in 71% of cases.[83]

Nuclear scans

Nuclear scans are rarely diagnostic for hepatic adenomas; however, when performed, HCAs have decreased colloid uptake and thus appear as cold nodules on technetium-99m (99mTc) sulfur colloid scans. This distinguishes them from FNH, which typically shows normal or increased colloid uptake. Decreased uptake in HCA is due to the altered blood flow through the lesions and the lack of phagocytic activity of Kupffer cells.[74, 84]  

Procedures

Although imaging shows promise for noninvasive characterization, in the setting of indeterminate results or concern for malignancy, it is reasonable to perform a biopsy.[2] Results of histologic evaluation with a fine needle biopsy are nondiagnostic and insensitive for hepatocelllular adenoma (HCA) (hepatic adenoma) because the mass comprises normal-appearing hepatocytes.[85] Core needle biopsies, especially when combined with immunohistochemistry, can be considered in cases of nondiagnostic imaging or concern for malignancy.[85] Additionally, indeterminant lesions on imaging do not warrant empiric ablation without confirmation of the diagnosis; core biopsy should be considered in these cases.[2]

In a retrospective review (2000-2013) of patients undergoing hepatic mass biopsy revealing HCA, Doolittle et al investigated the safety and outcomes of biopsy of these lesions.[86] Of 60 identified patients with a total of 61 biopsy-proven hepatic adenomas, they found that one patient (2%) had a single major complication and six patients (10%) had a minor complication. In addition, there were six (10%) discordant biopsy results.[86]

Complete resection of HCA or suspected HCA remains the gold standard of diagnosis, but it is not always required for lesions smaller than 5 cm or those not increasing in size.[2]

Immunohistochemistry

Initial differentiation from the surrounding hepatocytes can be accomplished with the use of CD34, which shows increased sinusoidal staining in both benign and malignant hepatocellular tumors.[87]

Immunoexpression of liver-type fatty acid binding protein (L-FABP) is reduced in HCA inactivated for hepatocyte nuclear factor 1α (H-HCA), but it will be present in the surrounding hepatocytes, helping to differentiate this subtype from other HCA subtypes as well as from the surrounding hepatic tissue.[88] H-HCA also shows negative staining for glutamine synthetase (GS), serum amyloid A (SAA), and C-reactive protein (CRP).[30]

A heterogeneous staining pattern of β-catenin in the nucleus and cytoplasm is a defining feature of β-catenin activated HCA (β-HCA).[30] GS, an enzyme involved in nitrogen metabolism, is also useful in differentiating β-HCA from other hepatic adeoma subtypes and focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH).[30]  FNH has a maplike distribution that is distant from fibrous bands or arteries, whereas β-HCAs have a more diffuse, strong staining pattern.[89, 90] Relatively recent studies have shown the strongest GS positivity to be found in CTNNB1 mutations in exon 3.[42]

Immunoexpression of the acute phase reactants SAA and CRP are defining features of inflammatory adenoma (I-HCA),[42] differentiating it from other subtypes as well as surrounding hepatocytes. Notably, L-FABP expression is increased and GS is usually not expressed.[30] The finding of elevated GS and/or heterogeneous β-catenin should raise suspicion for mixed I-HCA and β-HCA.[30, 42]

Differentiation from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

Differentiation of HCC from HCA is extremely important, especially in β-HCA, where HCC transformation is a known complication.[91] Generally, HCC demonstrates a loss of the reticulin framework on reticulin staining, whereas HCA and FNH maintain an intact reticulin network.[92] Glycipan-3 (GPC3) is a cell surface glycoprotein that is overexpressed in HCCs. Wang et al reported that GPC3 staining was negative in all 110 cases of benign liver tumors in their study, yet the staining was positive in 75.7% of HCCs.[93] Lagana et al demonstrated GPC3 positivity had a sensitivity of 43% and specificity of 100% when differentiating low-grade, well-differentiated HCC from HCA.[94]  Similarly, diffuse nuclear heat-shock protein-70 (HSP-70) staining has shown a 46% sensitivity and 100% specificity when differentiating low-grade, well-differentiated HCC from HCA.[94]

Tretiakova et al assessed tumor cell expression patterns of E-cadherin and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs)-1,-2,-7 and -9 in a variety of liver tumors and controls, reporting that HCA was characterized by an absence of MMP-7 expression, whereas HCC without cirrhosis had low MMP-9 expression.[95]

Agrin is a proteoglycan component of bile duct and vascular basement membranes of the liver that is deposited in microscopic blood vessels of HCC. Tatrai et al reported that the combination of immunohistochemical staining for agrin and CD34 was helpful for differentiating HCC from benign lesions when the diagnosis was equivocal.[96] In addition, agrin appeared to be more sensitive than GPC-3, as agrin is diffusely deposited in all malignant lesions, whereas GPC-3 may only be present in a few cells.

Ahmad et al reported that a combination of cytokeratin 7 and 9 with neuronal cell adhesion molecule immunostains were very helpful not only in differentiating normal liver tissue from tumors but also in differentiating hepatic adenomas from FNH.[97]

Histologic Findings

Upon gross examination, hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) (hepatic adenomas) appear as sharply circumscribed, light brown to yellow tumors that are soft in consistency and often lack a true fibrous tumor capsule.[98] Although these lesions are usually solitary, HCAs may be multiple, with sizes ranging from 1 to 30 cm, although most are between 8 and 15 cm. Hepatic adenomas tend to be larger in women taking oral contraceptives (OCs). They also occur more frequently in the right lobe and are usually subcapsular, although pedunculated adenomas have also been described.[3]

On microscopic examination, the hallmark of adenomas is the normal appearance of the hepatocytes. These are arranged in sheets, have no malignant features, tend to be larger than normal hepatocytes. Their cytoplasm often contains fat or glycogen and thus may appear relatively pale due to abundant glycogen stores when compared with normal hepatocytes. Generally, few, if any, portal tracts are present, and no central veins or bile ducts should be present.[30, 99] However, Bisceglia et al reported that subtypes of HCAs may have cytokeratin 7-positive ductules; they called this hepatic adenoma with ductal/ductular differentiation.[100]

Peliosis hepatis (a rare vascular condition with multiple blood-filled cavities scattered throughout the liver) may occasionally be seen and is most often associated with the β-catenin activated HCA (β-HCA) and inflammatory adenoma (I-HCA) subtype.[35, 101] Vessels, when observed, tend to have thickened walls. Areas of thrombosis and infarction may be noted. Most hepatic adenomas contain a variable degree of microscopic collections of fat.[102] Differentiation from a high-grade hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be difficult, if not impossible. Hepatic adenomas tend to lack malignant-appearing mitotic structures, the cell plates are generally only two cells thick, and no cellular infiltration (invasion) into the capsule or surrounding liver parenchyma occurs. Unfortunately, these features may also be seen in HCC, especially if it is well differentiated.[103]

Hypervascularity is present upon the surface of the lesion. Because hepatic adenomas contain no portal vein branches, their blood supply is entirely arterial. The tendency for these lesions to bleed may be related to poor connective tissue support and their increased vasculature, which is made up of thin-walled, dilated sinusoids carrying blood at arterial pressure.[30]

Approach Considerations

In women with hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs; hepatic adenomas) < 5 cm, American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guidelines suggest discontinuation of exogenous hormones (oral contraceptives, hormone-impregnated intrauterine devices), and weight loss for patients who are overweight or obese, along with surveillance with contrast-enhanced imaging studies every 6 months for 2 years, then annually thereafter. In patients with hepatic adenomas requiring treatment who are unable to undergo surgical resection, the ACG recommends considering embolization or radiofrequency ablation as alternative treatment approaches.[1]

European guidelines recommend HCA resection in men and in patients with proven β-catenin mutation subtype, regardless of size.[2]

 

Medical Care

For women with hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) (hepatic adenomas) with a baseline size smaller than 5 cm, medical management is reasonable with appropriate imaging followup, as rupture and subsequent hemorrhage are rare.[104] If multiple lesions are present, management is based on the size of the largest lesion, rather than on the number of lesions, as studies have not shown a significant increased risk of hemorrhage or malignancy based on number alone.[35]

For all presumed HCAs, the 2016 European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) guidelines recommend repeat contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 6 months from the baseline diagnosis to assess for persistent size of at least 5 cm or for increasing diameter size (≥20%) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria for solid malignant tumors.[2, 105] The RECIST (version 1.1) criteria note that the 20% or greater increase in diameter should also be accompanied by a 5-mm absolute increase in diameter.[105]

A definition for stable disease is lacking; however, the EASL guidelines recommend annual imaging if the hepatic adenoma is stable 12 months from the initial diagnosis. Overall, the initial diagnosis would thus involve a baseline imaging study, followed by imaging at 6 and 12 months following baseline, and then annual imaging, if stable. Imaging intervals can be lengthened to every 2 years if the HCA size is stable after 5 years.[106] Ultrasonography is acceptable if the lesion is clearly defined.[2]  

The 2024 American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guidelines recommend that women with HCAs smaller than 5 cm undergo computed tomography (CT) scanning or MRI at 6-12 month intervals for at least 2 years, followed by annual imaging based on tumor growth and stability. After 2 years, ultrasound could be considered for follow-up imaging, but contrast-enhanced CT or MRI would be indicated if there is any change in the adenomas[1] General measures

In women, HCAs smaller than 5 cm are less likely to rupture or progress to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).[56] Women should stop using any medications implicated in HCA formation, which most often includes oral contraceptives. In most cases, this cessation allows for regression in the size of the tumors, although complete resolution is atypical.[2] Repeat imaging following discontinuation of causative medications should follow in 6-12 months to ensure stability of the hepatic adenoma. Note that the risk of malignant transformation or even possible HCA enlargement remains even after the contraceptives or steroids have been discontinued.[58, 107, 108]

Women with HCAs smaller than 5 cm and who have a body mass index (BMI) over 25 kg/m2 should be encouraged to achieve a healthy body weight.[2] If β-catenin activated HCA (β-HCA) is confirmed, curative treatment or resection should be considered regardless of tumor size.[1, 2] Symptomatic HCA should be considered for surgical resection as well.[52]

In men, resection or curative therapy should be pursued regardless of tumor size, owing to a significant risk of malignant transformation in this population.[29]

Hemorrhage

Do not delay adequate resuscitation with intravenous (IV) fluids and blood products if any concern for active hemorrhage of HCA is suspected. Prompt imaging with CT or MRI should be pursued. In cases of hemodynamic instability or hemorrhage not responding to resuscitation as well as lesions in a difficult anatomic site, transarterial embolization or other noninvasive procedures can be performed to control bleeding.[109] Hepatic adenomas of 5 cm and larger should be considered for surgical resection due to their propensity for rebleeding.[1, 2, 110]

Pregnancy

Given the tendency of HCAs to enlarge and the increased risk of rupture and hemorrhage during pregnancy, close monitoring of these women is required along with a multidisciplinary approach.[111]  The EASL guidelines recommend close monitoring with ultrasonography every 6-12 weeks to monitor for changes in tumor size. For HCAs smaller than 5 cm without growth or exophytic location, vaginal delivery can be pursued.[2, 111] If the HCA enlarges significantly, embolization can be considered. If the pregnancy is at less than 24 weeks' gestation, surgical intervention can be considered to reduce the maternal and fetal risk of ionizing radiation.[2, 112]

There are no consensus guidelines for pursuing pregnancy with known hepatic adenoma, especially if it is at least 5 cm. In this setting, discussion regarding surgical resection prior to pregnancy may be most appropriate. A 2020 prospective study that evaluated pregnant women with tumors smaller than 5 cm found minimal maternal risk and no risk to the fetus.[60] The study recommended contrast-enhanced MRI prior to pregnancy to ensure an accurate diagnosis and to differentiate HCA from focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), as well as serial ultrasonographic examinations during pregnancy to monitor for changes in the size of the lesion.[60]  HCA rupture and hemorrhage during pregnancy requires appropriate hemodynamic resuscitation and noninvasive embolization when appropriate.[113]

Surgical Care

Surgical indications and considerations

Surgical management of HCA is indicated regardless of tumor size in men,[29]  as well as with confirmation of β-catenin activated HCA (β-HCA) subtype,[1, 2] symptomatic HCA,[52] and residual lesion following HCA hemorrhage with intervention.[2]  Patients with significantly elevated serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels should undergo further evaluation and consideration of resection regardless of HCA size due to the concern for underlying hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Surgical management of HCA is indicated when its diameter is at least 5 cm or is increasing (≥20%) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria for solid malignant tumors.[2, 105] Increasing diameter should be reevaluated 6-12 months following cessation of causative agents regardless of HCA size. Although a tumor diameter of 5 cm and larger is an indication for surgery, for patients with an HCA of at least 5 cm with steroid exposure, reevaluation in 6-12 months is reasonable based on patient preference, with the understanding that HCC can develop and the diameter can increase regardless of steroid cessation.[2]

In a multicenter study of 124 patients, Deneve et al reported that factors that predisposed HCAs to rupture were larger tumor size and recent hormone use in women.[51] The investigators recommended surgical resection when HCAs approached 4 cm in size or if the patient needed to stay on hormonal therapy.

Cho et al reported their experience with the management and outcomes of 41 patients with hepatic adenomas treated at the University of Pittsburgh between 1988 and 2007, in which surgical resection was preferable to observation if patients' comorbidities and the anatomic location of the tumor were acceptable due to risks of hemorrhage (29%) and malignancy (5%).[50]

Liver transplantation

In rare patients with glycogen storage disease (GSD), or other underlying liver disease, liver transplantation may be the only intervention that may remove all lesions and cure the underlying metabolic defect.[114] Liver transplantation has also been successfully performed for spontaneous intrapartum rupture of a hepatic adenoma.[115]

Timing and approach

With regard to the timing of resection, Klompenhouwer et al have suggested that a 6-month cut-off point in women is too early for assessment of regression of HCAs of 5 cm and larger.[116] Rather, they propose that in women with typical, non–β-HCAs, regardless of the baseline diameter, the cut-off point may be extended to up to 12 months.[116]

The majority of tumors can be resected locally or with segmental partial lobectomy. In cases of multiple hepatic adenomas, resection of the largest lesions may be the most appropriate approach.[2, 32]  Data from limited case series show mortality for emergency resection of ruptured HCA is about 5-10%, whereas mortality for elective surgery has been estimated to less than 1%.[54]

In a retrospective (1989-2013) multi-institutional European study of all patients who had undergone open or laparoscopic hepatectomies for hepatic adenomas, Landi et al found that open surgery and laparoscopy showed similar postoperative morbidity rates and severities.[117] However, laparoscopy was associated with significantly less blood loss, a reduced need for transfusion, and a shorter hospital stay.[117]

Radiofrequency (RF) ablation

RF ablation can be used effectively in the treatment of hepatic adenoma.[118, 119, 120] However, multiple sessions are often required, and signs of residual adenoma might persist in some patients despite repetitive treatment. RF ablation may be especially beneficial in cases not amenable to surgery or in patients who would require major hepatic resection. Cases not amenable to surgery include those with centrally located lesions or the presence of multiple HCAs in both lobes of the liver.

In a retrospective, single-arm study of 36 patients with 58 HCAs who underwent 44 procedures with percutaneous thermal ablation, Mironov et al reported a primary efficacy of 88% and a secondary efficacy of 100%, with a major complication rate of 4.5% (postprocedural hemorrhage).[120] At a median follow-up of 1.7 years, there was 100% clinical efficacy with no reports of malignant transformation, adenoma-related hemorrhages, or deaths.

Guidelines Summary

The following organizations have released guidelines that include recommendations for the management of hepatocellular adenomas:

Key diagnostic and treatment recommendations from these guidelines have been integrated throughout the article.

What is hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?What causes hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?How is hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) classified?What is the pathophysiology of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?What is the prevalence of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) in the US?What are the racial predilections of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?What are the sexual predilections of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?Which age group has the highest prevalence of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?What is the prognosis of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?What is the mortality and morbidity associated with hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?Which clinical history findings are characteristic of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?Which physical findings are characteristic of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?How is hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) differentiated from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)?Which conditions are included in the differential diagnoses of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?What are the differential diagnoses for Hepatocellular Adenoma (Hepatic Adenoma)?What is the role of serologic testing in the workup of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?What is the role of imaging studies in the workup of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?Which findings on ultrasonography are characteristic of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?Which findings on CT scans are characteristic of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?Which findings on MRI are characteristic of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?Which findings on nuclear scans are characteristic of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?Which findings on arteriography are characteristic of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?What is the role of immunohistochemistry in the workup of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?What is the role of biopsy in the workup of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?Which histologic findings are characteristic of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?How is hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) treated?What is the role of surgery in the treatment of hepatocellular adenoma (HCA)?

Author

Michael H Piper, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Wayne State University School of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Digestive Health Associates, PLC

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Janice M Fields, MD, FACG, FACP, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Gastroenterology, Providence Hospital, St John Macomb-Oakland Hosptial

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Ryan R Kahl, DO, Chief Fellow, Department of Gastroenterology, Ascension Providence-Providence Park Hospital, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editors

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Chief Editor

BS Anand, MD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Bradford A Whitmer, DO, Fellow, Department of Gastroenterology, Providence Hospital

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

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

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Tushar Patel, MB, ChB, Professor of Medicine, Ohio State University Medical Center

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

Brian S Berk, MD Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School; Director of End Stage Liver Disease, Section of Gastroenterology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center

Brian S Berk, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, and American Gastroenterological Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. Kenneth Ingram, PAC Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Sandeep Mukherjee, MB, BCh, MPH, FRCPC Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center; Consulting Staff, Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Veteran Affairs Medical Center

Disclosure: Merck Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Ikaria Pharmaceuticals Honoraria Board membership

References

  1. [Guideline] Frenette C, Mendiratta-Lala M, Salgia R, Wong RJ, Sauer BG, Pillai A. ACG Clinical Guideline: Focal Liver Lesions. Am J Gastroenterol. 2024 Jul 1. 119 (7):1235-1271. [View Abstract]
  2. [Guideline] Columbo M, Forner A, Ijzermans J, et al, for the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL). EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of benign liver tumours. J Hepatol. 2016 Aug. 65(2):386-98. [View Abstract]
  3. Di Bisceglie AM, Befeler AS. Hepatic tumors and cysts. In: Feldman M, Friedman LS, Brandt LJ. Sleisenger and Fordtran's Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease. 11th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier; 2020. 1524-6.
  4. Rooks JB, Ory HW, Ishak KG. Epidemiology of hepatocellular adenoma. The role of oral contraceptive use. JAMA. 1979 Aug 17. 242(7):644-8. [View Abstract]
  5. Bassuk SS, Manson JE. Oral contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapy: relative and attributable risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other health outcomes. Ann Epidemiol. 2015 Mar. 25 (3):193-200. [View Abstract]
  6. Edmonson HA. Tumors of the liver and biliary tract. Fascicle 25. Atlas of Tumor Pathology. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1958.
  7. Baum JK, Bookstein JJ, Holtz F. Possible association between benign hepatomas and oral contraceptives. Lancet. 1973 Oct 27. 2(7835):926-9. [View Abstract]
  8. Klatskin G. Hepatic tumors: possible relationship to use of oral contraceptives. Gastroenterology. 1977 Aug. DA - 19770825(2):386-94. [View Abstract]
  9. 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. [View Abstract]
  10. Edmondson HA, Henderson B, Benton B. Liver-cell adenomas associated with use of oral contraceptives. N Engl J Med. 1976 Feb 26. 294(9):470-2. [View Abstract]
  11. Edmondson HA, Reynolds TB, Henderson B, Benton B. Regression of liver cell adenomas associated with oral contraceptives. Ann Intern Med. 1977 Feb. 86(2):180-2. [View Abstract]
  12. Klompenhouwer AJ, de Man RA, Dioguardi Burgio M, Vilgrain V, Zucman-Rossi J, Ijzermans JNM. New insights in the management of hepatocellular adenoma. Liver Int. 2020 Jul. 40(7):1529-37. [View Abstract]
  13. Bioulac-Sage P, Taouji S, Possenti L, Balabaud C. Hepatocellular adenoma subtypes: the impact of overweight and obesity. Liver Int. 2012 Sep. 32(8):1217-21. [View Abstract]
  14. Martin NM, Abu Dayyeh BK, Chung RT. Anabolic steroid abuse causing recurrent hepatic adenomas and hemorrhage. Anabolic steroid abuse causing recurrent hepatic adenomas and hemorrhage. 2008 Jul 22. 14(28):4573-5. [View Abstract]
  15. Triantafyllopoulou M, Whitington PF, Melin-Aldana H, Benya EC, Brickman W. Hepatic adenoma in an adolescent with elevated androgen levels. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2007 May. 44(5):640-2. [View Abstract]
  16. Grange JD, Guechot J, Legendre C, Giboudeau J, Darnis F, Poupon R. Liver adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia in a man with high endogenous sex steroids. Gastroenterology. 1987 Dec. 93(6):1409-13. [View Abstract]
  17. Beuers U, Richter WO, Ritter MM, Wiebecke B, Schwandt P. Klinefelter's syndrome and liver adenoma. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1991 Apr. 13(2):214-6. [View Abstract]
  18. Hernandez-Nieto L, Bruguera M, Bombi J, Camacho L, Rozman C. Benign liver-cell adenoma associated with long-term administration of an androgenic-anabolic steroid (methandienone). Cancer. 1977 Oct. 40(4):1761-4. [View Abstract]
  19. Nakao A, Sakagami K, Nakata Y, et al. Multiple hepatic adenomas caused by long-term administration of androgenic steroids for aplastic anemia in association with familial adenomatous polyposis. J Gastroenterol. 2000. 35(7):557-62. [View Abstract]
  20. Kent DR, Nissen ED, Nissen SE, Ziehm DJ. Effect of pregnancy on liver tumor associated with oral contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Feb. 51(2):148-51. [View Abstract]
  21. Okamura Y, Maeda A, Matsunaga K, et al. Hepatocellular adenoma in a male with familial adenomatous polyposis coli. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2009. 16(4):571-4. [View Abstract]
  22. Reznik Y, Dao T, Coutant R, et al. Hepatocyte nuclear factor-1 alpha gene inactivation: cosegregation between liver adenomatosis and diabetes phenotypes in two maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY)3 families. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Mar. 89(3):1476-80. [View Abstract]
  23. Radhi JM, Loewy J. Hepatocellular adenomatosis associated with hereditary haemochromatosis. Postgrad Med J. 2000 Feb. 76(892):100-2. [View Abstract]
  24. Labrune P, Trioche P, Duvaltier I, Chevalier P, Odievre M. Hepatocellular adenomas in glycogen storage disease type I and III: a series of 43 patients and review of the literature. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1997 Mar. 24(3):276-9. [View Abstract]
  25. Volmar KE, Burchette JL, Creager AJ. Hepatic adenomatosis in glycogen storage disease type Ia: report of a case with unusual histology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003 Oct. 127(10):e402-5. [View Abstract]
  26. Grazioli L, Federle MP, Ichikawa T, et al. Liver adenomatosis: clinical, histopathologic, and imaging findings in 15 patients. Radiology. 2000 Aug. 216(2):395-402. [View Abstract]
  27. Wang DQ, Fiske LM, Carreras CT, Weinstein DA. Natural history of hepatocellular adenoma formation in glycogen storage disease type I. J Pediatr. 2011 Sep. 159(3):442-6. [View Abstract]
  28. Bunchorntavakul C, Bahirwani R, Drazek D, et al. Clinical features and natural history of hepatocellular adenomas: the impact of obesity. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Sep. 34(6):664-74. [View Abstract]
  29. Farges O, Ferreira N, Dokmak S, Belghiti J, Bedossa P, Paradis V. Changing trends in malignant transformation of hepatocellular adenoma. Gut. 2011 Jan. 60(1):85-9. [View Abstract]
  30. Dhingra S, Fiel MI. Update on the new classification of hepatic adenomas: clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014 Aug. 138(8):1090-7. [View Abstract]
  31. Ribeiro A, Burgart LJ, Nagorney DM, Gores GJ. Management of liver adenomatosis: results with a conservative surgical approach. Liver Transpl Surg. 1998 Sep. 4(5):388-98. [View Abstract]
  32. Arsenault TM, Johnson CD, Gorman B, Burgart LJ. Hepatic adenomatosis. Mayo Clin Proc. 1996 May. 71(5):478-80. [View Abstract]
  33. Torbenson M. Hepatic adenomas: classification, controversies, and consensus. Surg Pathol Clin. 2018 Jun. 11(2):351-66. [View Abstract]
  34. Nault JC, Bioulac-Sage P, Zucman-Rossi J. Hepatocellular benign tumors-from molecular classification to personalized clinical care. Gastroenterology. 2013 May. 144(5):888-902. [View Abstract]
  35. 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. [View Abstract]
  36. Bioulac-Sage P, Rebouissou S, Thomas C, et al. Hepatocellular adenoma subtype classification using molecular markers and immunohistochemistry. Hepatology. 2007 Sep. 46(3):740-8. [View Abstract]
  37. Van der Borght S, Libbrecht L, Katoonizadeh A, et al. Nuclear beta-catenin staining and absence of steatosis are indicators of hepatocellular adenomas with an increased risk of malignancy. Histopathology. 2007 Dec. 51(6):855-6. [View Abstract]
  38. Porter LE, Elm MS, Van Thiel DH, Eagon PK. Hepatic estrogen receptor in human liver disease. Gastroenterology. 1987 Mar. 92(3):735-45. [View Abstract]
  39. Masood S, West AB, Barwick KW. Expression of steroid hormone receptors in benign hepatic tumors. An immunocytochemical study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992 Dec. 116(12):1355-9. [View Abstract]
  40. Rebouissou S, Bioulac-Sage P, Zucman-Rossi J. Molecular pathogenesis of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma. J Hepatol. 2008 Jan. 48(1):163-70. [View Abstract]
  41. Bioulac-Sage P, Blanc JF, Rebouissou S, Balabaud C, Zucman-Rossi J. Genotype phenotype classification of hepatocellular adenoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2007 May 21. 13(19):2649-54. [View Abstract]
  42. Nault JC, Couchy G, Balabaud C, et al. Molecular classification of hepatocellular adenoma associates with risk factors, bleeding, and malignant transformation. Gastroenterology. 2017 Mar. 152(4):880-94. [View Abstract]
  43. Paradis V, Benzekri A, Dargere D, et al. Telangiectatic focal nodular hyperplasia: a variant of hepatocellular adenoma. Gastroenterology. 2004 May. 126(5):1323-9. [View Abstract]
  44. Bioulac-Sage P, Rebouissou S, Sa Cunha A, et al. Clinical, morphologic, and molecular features defining so-called telangiectatic focal nodular hyperplasias of the liver. Gastroenterology. 2005 May. 128(5):1211-8. [View Abstract]
  45. Bioulac-Sage P, Balabaud C, Zucman-Rossi J. Subtype classification of hepatocellular adenoma. Dig Surg. 2010. 27(1):39-45. [View Abstract]
  46. Balabaud C, Laurent C, Le Bail B, et al. Unexpected discovery of small HNF1α-inactivated hepatocellular adenoma in pathological specimens from patients resected for liver tumours. Liver Int. 2018 Jul. 38(7):1273-9. [View Abstract]
  47. Lin H, van den Esschert J, Liu C, van Gulik TM. Systematic review of hepatocellular adenoma in China and other regions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Jan. 26(1):28-35. [View Abstract]
  48. van Aalten SM, de Man RA, IJzermans JN, Terkivatan T. Systematic review of haemorrhage and rupture of hepatocellular adenomas. Br J Surg. 2012 Jul. 99(7):911-6. [View Abstract]
  49. Bieze M, Phoa SS, Verheij J, van Lienden KP, van Gulik TM. Risk factors for bleeding in hepatocellular adenoma. Br J Surg. 2014 Jun. 101(7):847-55. [View Abstract]
  50. Cho SW, Marsh JW, Steel J, et al. Surgical management of hepatocellular adenoma: take it or leave it?. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Oct. 15(10):2795-803. [View Abstract]
  51. Deneve JL, Pawlik TM, Cunningham S, et al. Liver cell adenoma: a multicenter analysis of risk factors for rupture and malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Mar. 16(3):640-8. [View Abstract]
  52. Dokmak S, Paradis V, Vilgrain V, et al. A single-center surgical experience of 122 patients with single and multiple hepatocellular adenomas. Gastroenterology. 2009 Nov. 137(5):1698-705. [View Abstract]
  53. Toso C, Majno P, Andres A, et al. Management of hepatocellular adenoma: solitary-uncomplicated, multiple and ruptured tumors. World J Gastroenterol. 2005 Sep 28. 11(36):5691-5. [View Abstract]
  54. Ribeiro Junior MA, Chaib E, Saad WA, D'Albuquerque LA, Cecconello I. Surgical management of spontaneous ruptured hepatocellular adenoma. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009. 64(8):775-9. [View Abstract]
  55. Klompenhouwer AJ, de Man RA, Thomeer MG, Ijzermans JN. Management and outcome of hepatocellular adenoma with massive bleeding at presentation. World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jul 7. 23(25):4579-86. [View Abstract]
  56. Stoot JH, Coelen RJ, De Jong MC, Dejong CH. Malignant transformation of hepatocellular adenomas into hepatocellular carcinomas: a systematic review including more than 1600 adenoma cases. HPB (Oxford). 2010 Oct. 12(8):509-22. [View Abstract]
  57. Farges O, Dokmak S. Malignant transformation of liver adenoma: an analysis of the literature. Dig Surg. 2010. 27(1):32-8. [View Abstract]
  58. Gordon SC, Reddy KR, Livingstone AS, Jeffers LJ, Schiff ER. Resolution of a contraceptive-steroid-induced hepatic adenoma with subsequent evolution into hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Intern Med. 1986 Oct. 105(4):547-9. [View Abstract]
  59. Cobey FC, Salem RR. A review of liver masses in pregnancy and a proposed algorithm for their diagnosis and management. Am J Surg. 2004 Feb. 187(2):181-91. [View Abstract]
  60. Gaspersz MP, Klompenhouwer AJ, Broker MEE, et al. Growth of hepatocellular adenoma during pregnancy: a prospective study. J Hepatol. 2020 Jan. 72(1):119-24. [View Abstract]
  61. Park WY, Seo HI, Choi KU, et al. Three cases of adrenocortical tumors mistaken for hepatocellular carcinomas/diagnostic pitfalls and differential diagnosis. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2017 Dec. 31:9-13. [View Abstract]
  62. Jiang K, Al-Diffhala S, Centeno BA. Primary liver cancers-part 1: histopathology, differential diagnoses, and risk stratification. Cancer Control. 2018 Jan-Mar. 25(1):1073274817744625. [View Abstract]
  63. Sa Cunha A, Blanc JF, Lazaro E, et al. Inflammatory syndrome with liver adenomatosis: the beneficial effects of surgical management. Gut. 2007 Feb. 56(2):307-9. [View Abstract]
  64. Shaked O, Siegelman ES, Olthoff K, Reddy KR. Biologic and clinical features of benign solid and cystic lesions of the liver. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Jul. 9(7):547-62.e1-4. [View Abstract]
  65. Bieze M, van den Esschert JW, Nio CY, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI in differentiating hepatocellular adenoma from focal nodular hyperplasia: prospective study of the additional value of gadoxetate disodium. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jul. 199(1):26-34. [View Abstract]
  66. Ricci P, Cantisani V, D'Onofrio M, et al. Behavior of hepatocellular adenoma on real-time low-mechanical index contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with a second-generation contrast agent. J Ultrasound Med. 2008 Dec. 27(12):1719-26. [View Abstract]
  67. Jang JY, Kim MY, Jeong SW, et al. Current consensus and guidelines of contrast enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2013 Mar. 19(1):1-16. [View Abstract]
  68. van den Esschert JW, van Gulik TM, Phoa SS. Imaging modalities for focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma. Dig Surg. 2010. 27(1):46-55. [View Abstract]
  69. Piscaglia F, Lencioni R, Sagrini E, et al. Characterization of focal liver lesions with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010 Apr. 36(4):531-50. [View Abstract]
  70. Dietrich CF, Schuessler G, Trojan J, Fellbaum C, Ignee A. Differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Br J Radiol. 2005 Aug. 78(932):704-7. [View Abstract]
  71. Taimr P, Broker MEE, Dwarkasing RS, et al. A model-based prediction of the probability of hepatocellular adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia based on characteristics on contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017 Oct. 43(10):2144-50. [View Abstract]
  72. Kim TK, Jang HJ, Burns PN, Murphy-Lavallee J, Wilson SR. Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma: differentiation with low-mechanical-index contrast-enhanced sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Jan. 190(1):58-66. [View Abstract]
  73. 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. [View Abstract]
  74. Grazioli L, Federle MP, Brancatelli G, Ichikawa T, Olivetti L, Blachar A. Hepatic adenomas: imaging and pathologic findings. Radiographics. 2001 Jul-Aug. 21(4):877-92; discussion 892-4. [View Abstract]
  75. [Guideline] Gore RM, Pickhardt PJ, Mortele KJ, Fishman EK, Horowitz JM, Fimmel CJ, et al. Management of Incidental Liver Lesions on CT: A White Paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 Nov. 14 (11):1429-1437. [View Abstract]
  76. Laumonier H, Bioulac-Sage P, Laurent C, et al. Hepatocellular adenomas: magnetic resonance imaging features as a function of molecular pathological classification. Hepatology. 2008 Sep. 48(3):808-18. [View Abstract]
  77. van Aalten SM, Thomeer MG, Terkivatan T, et al. Hepatocellular adenomas: correlation of MR imaging findings with pathologic subtype classification. Radiology. 2011 Oct. 261(1):172-81. [View Abstract]
  78. Chung KY, Mayo-Smith WW, Saini S, Rahmouni A, Golli M, Mathieu D. Hepatocellular adenoma: MR imaging features with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Aug. 165(2):303-8. [View Abstract]
  79. Grazioli L, Morana G, Kirchin MA, Schneider G. Accurate differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatic adenoma at gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging: prospective study. Radiology. 2005 Jul. 236(1):166-77. [View Abstract]
  80. Vanhooymissen IJSML, Thomeer MG, Braun LMM, et al. Intrapatient comparison of the hepatobiliary phase of Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA in the differentiation of hepatocellular adenoma from focal nodular hyperplasia. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Mar. 49(3):700-10. [View Abstract]
  81. Suh CH, Kim KW, Park SH, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of the diagnostic strategies for differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular adenoma. Eur Radiol. 2018 Jan. 28 (1):214-25. [View Abstract]
  82. Ba-Ssalamah A, Antunes C, Feier D, et al. Morphologic and molecular features of hepatocellular adenoma with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015 Oct. 277(1):104-13. [View Abstract]
  83. Ducatel A, Trillaud H, Reizine E, Vilgrain V, Sempoux C, Schmidt-Kobbe S, et al. Sonic hedgehog hepatocellular adenoma: magnetic resonance imaging features and correlation with histology. Eur Radiol. 2024 Jul. 34 (7):4649-4662. [View Abstract]
  84. Rubin RA, Lichtenstein GR. Hepatic scintigraphy in the evaluation of solitary solid liver masses. J Nucl Med. 1993 Apr. 34(4):697-705. [View Abstract]
  85. Bioulac-Sage P, Cubel G, Taouji S, et al. Immunohistochemical markers on needle biopsies are helpful for the diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma subtypes. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012 Nov. 36(11):1691-9. [View Abstract]
  86. Doolittle DA, Atwell TD, Sanchez W, et al. Safety and outcomes of percutaneous biopsy of 61 hepatic adenomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Apr. 206(4):871-6. [View Abstract]
  87. Choi WT, Kakar S. Immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2017 Jun. 46(2):311-25. [View Abstract]
  88. Bioulac-Sage P, Cubel G, Balabaud C, Zucman-Rossi J. Revisiting the pathology of resected benign hepatocellular nodules using new immunohistochemical markers. Semin Liver Dis. 2011 Feb. 31(1):91-103. [View Abstract]
  89. Hechtman JF, Raoufi M, Fiel MI, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma arising in a pigmented telangiectatic adenoma with nuclear ß-catenin and glutamine synthetase positivity: case report and review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011 Jun. 35(6):927-32. [View Abstract]
  90. Joseph NM, Ferrell LD, Jain D, et al. Diagnostic utility and limitations of glutamine synthetase and serum amyloid-associated protein immunohistochemistry in the distinction of focal nodular hyperplasia and inflammatory hepatocellular adenoma. Mod Pathol. 2014 Jan. 27(1):62-72. [View Abstract]
  91. Zucman-Rossi J, Jeannot E, Nhieu JT, et al. Genotype-phenotype correlation in hepatocellular adenoma: new classification and relationship with HCC. Hepatology. 2006 Mar. 43(3):515-24. [View Abstract]
  92. Shafizadeh N, Kakar S. Diagnosis of well-differentiated hepatocellular lesions: role of immunohistochemistry and other ancillary techniques. Adv Anat Pathol. 2011 Nov. 18(6):438-45. [View Abstract]
  93. Wang HL, Anatelli F, Zhai QJ, et al. Glypican-3 as a useful diagnostic marker that distinguishes hepatocellular carcinoma from benign hepatocellular mass lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008 Nov. 132(11):1723-8. [View Abstract]
  94. Lagana SM, Salomao M, Bao F, Moreira RK, Lefkowitch JH, Remotti HE. Utility of an immunohistochemical panel consisting of glypican-3, heat-shock protein-70, and glutamine synthetase in the distinction of low-grade hepatocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular adenoma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2013 Mar. 21(2):170-6. [View Abstract]
  95. Tretiakova MS, Hart J, Shabani-Rad MT, Zhang J, Gao ZH. Distinction of hepatocellular adenoma from hepatocellular carcinoma with and without cirrhosis using E-cadherin and matrix metalloproteinase immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol. 2009 Aug. 22(8):1113-20. [View Abstract]
  96. Tatrai P, Somoracz A, Batmunkh E, et al. Agrin and CD34 immunohistochemistry for the discrimination of benign versus malignant hepatocellular lesions. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009 Jun. 33(6):874-85. [View Abstract]
  97. Ahmad I, Iyer A, Marginean CE, et al. Diagnostic use of cytokeratins, CD34, and neuronal cell adhesion molecule staining in focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma. Hum Pathol. 2009 May. 40(5):726-34. [View Abstract]
  98. Hussain SM, van den Bos IC, Dwarkasing RS, Kuiper JW, den Hollander J. Hepatocellular adenoma: findings at state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, computed tomography and pathologic analysis. Eur Radiol. 2006 Sep. 16(9):1873-86. [View Abstract]
  99. Ishak KG. Benign tumors and pseudotumors of the liver. Appl Pathol. 1988. 6(2):82-104. [View Abstract]
  100. Bisceglia M, Gatta A, Tomezzoli A, Donataccio M. Multiple spontaneous liver cell adenomas of different types (liver adenomatosis). Adv Anat Pathol. 2009 May. 16(3):172-9. [View Abstract]
  101. Geller S, Petrovic L. Benign tumors and tumor-like conditions. Biopsy Interpretation of the Liver. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Williams and Wilkins.; 2003. 281-304.
  102. Micchelli ST, Vivekanandan P, Boitnott JK, Pawlik TM, Choti MA, Torbenson M. Malignant transformation of hepatic adenomas. Mod Pathol. 2008 Apr. 21(4):491-7. [View Abstract]
  103. Schlageter M, Terracciano LM, D'Angelo S, Sorrentino P. Histopathology of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov. 20(43):15955-64. [View Abstract]
  104. van der Windt DJ, Kok NF, Hussain SM, et al. Case-orientated approach to the management of hepatocellular adenoma. Br J Surg. 2006 Dec. 93(12):1495-502. [View Abstract]
  105. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan. 45(2):228-47. [View Abstract]
  106. Chun YS, Parker RJ, Inampudi S, et al. Imaging surveillance of hypervascular liver lesions in non-cirrhotic patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Mar. 20(3):564-7. [View Abstract]
  107. Gyorffy EJ, Bredfeldt JE, Black WC. Transformation of hepatic cell adenoma to hepatocellular carcinoma due to oral contraceptive use. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Mar 15. 110(6):489-90. [View Abstract]
  108. Mariani AF, Livingstone AS, Pereiras RV Jr, van Zuiden PE, Schiff ER. Progressive enlargement of an hepatic cell adenoma. Gastroenterology. 1979 Dec. 77(6):1319-25. [View Abstract]
  109. Erdogan D, van Delden OM, Busch OR, Gouma DJ, van Gulik TM. Selective transcatheter arterial embolization for treatment of bleeding complications or reduction of tumor mass of hepatocellular adenomas. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007 Nov-Dec. 30(6):1252-8. [View Abstract]
  110. Huurman VA, Schaapherder AF. Management of ruptured hepatocellular adenoma. Dig Surg. 2010. 27(1):56-60. [View Abstract]
  111. Noels JE, van Aalten SM, van der Windt DJ, et al. Management of hepatocellular adenoma during pregnancy. J Hepatol. 2011 Mar. 54(3):553-8. [View Abstract]
  112. Lazarus E, Mayo-Smith WW, Mainiero MB, Spencer PK. CT in the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in pregnant women. Radiology. 2007 Sep. 244:784-90. [View Abstract]
  113. Stoot JH, van Roosmalen J, Terpstra OT, Schaapherder AF. Life-threatening hemorrhage from adenomas in the liver during pregnancy. Dig Surg. 2006. 23(3):155. [View Abstract]
  114. Yuen WY, Quak SH, Aw MM, Karthik SV. Long-term outcome after liver transplantation in children with type 1 glycogen storage disease. Pediatr Transplant. 2021 Mar. 25 (2):e13872. [View Abstract]
  115. Santambrogio R, Marconi AM, Ceretti AP, et al. Liver transplantation for spontaneous intrapartum rupture of a hepatic adenoma. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb. 113(2 pt 2):508-10. [View Abstract]
  116. Klompenhouwer AJ, Broker MEE, Thomeer MGJ, Gaspersz MP, de Man RA, IJzermans JNM. Retrospective study on timing of resection of hepatocellular adenoma. Br J Surg. 2017 Nov. 104(12):1695-703. [View Abstract]
  117. Landi F, De' Angelis N, Scatton O, et al. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs. open liver resection for hepatocellular adenoma: a multicenter propensity score adjustment analysis by the AFC-HCA-2013 study group. Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct. 31(10):4136-44. [View Abstract]
  118. van Vledder MG, van Aalten SM, Terkivatan T, et al. Safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular adenoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011 Jun. 22(6):787-93. [View Abstract]
  119. Laimer G, Schullian P, Scharll Y, Putzer D, Eberle G, Oberhuber G, et al. Stereotactic radiofrequency ablation as a valid first-line treatment option for hepatocellular adenomas. Int J Hyperthermia. 2022. 39 (1):780-787. [View Abstract]
  120. Mironov O, Jaberi A, Beecroft R, Kachura JR. Retrospective single-arm cohort study of patients with hepatocellular adenomas treated with percutaneous thermal ablation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018 Jun. 41(6):935-41. [View Abstract]

Ultrasound in a patient with von Gierke disease (glycogen storage disease type 1) and several hepatic adenomas. This image shows a mass in the right lobe of the liver that is predominantly isoechoic relative to the liver parenchyma and contains a small, round, hypoechoic component. The 2 masses appear slightly hypoechoic. (Same patient as in the following image.)

T2-weighted fat-saturated fast spin-echo axial magnetic resonance image in a patient with von Gierke disease. This image shows 2 heterogeneous, hyperintense masses in the right lobe of the liver. (Same patient as in the following image.)

T1-weighted in-phase magnetic resonance image in a patient with von Gierke disease (same patient as in the following image). This image demonstrates normal hepatic signal intensity that is hyperintense relative to the spleen. Two heterogeneous masses that represent hepatic adenomas are seen in the right lobe and are slightly hypointense relative to the liver parenchyma.

T1-weighted out-of-phase magnetic resonance image in a patient with von Gierke disease (same patient as in the following image). This image shows abnormal low signal intensity of the liver, hypointense relative to the spleen, representing fatty infiltration of the liver. The hepatic adenomas are heterogeneous and slightly hyperintense relative to the fatty liver.

Single-shot fast spin-echo T2-weighted coronal magnetic resonance image in a patient with von Gierke disease (same patient as in the following image). This image shows a hyperintense mass in the right lobe of the liver and an additional hyperintense mass in the inferior tip of the liver, representing a third hepatic adenoma.

Fat-saturated 3-dimensional T1-weighted gradient-echo magnetic resonance image in a patient with von Gierke disease (same patient as in the following image). This image shows 2 heterogeneous, slightly hyperintense masses in the right lobe of the liver.

Gadolinium-enhanced fat-saturated 3-dimensional T1-weighted gradient-echo magnetic resonance image in a patient with von Gierke disease (same patient as in the following image). This image shows intense enhancement of the hepatic adenomas.

Gadolinium-enhanced fat-saturated 3-dimensional T1-weighted gradient-echo magnetic resonance image in a patient with von Gierke disease. This image shows that the hepatic adenoma remains hyperintense relative to the liver parenchyma. (Same patient as in the following image.)

Gadolinium-enhanced fat-saturated 3-dimensional T1-weighted gradient-echo magnetic resonance image in a patient with von Gierke disease (same patient in the previous image). This image shows that the hepatic adenoma remains hyperintense relative to the liver parenchyma.

Noncontrast computed tomography scan in a 41-year-old woman with a history of oral contraceptive use. This image demonstrates a heterogeneous, low-attenuation mass in the right lobe of the liver, a hepatic adenoma. (Same patient as in the following image.)

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan in the portal venous phase in a 41-year-old woman with a history of oral contraceptive use. This image demonstrates a heterogeneous, enhancing mass, a hepatic adenoma, predominantly isoattenuating relative to the liver with areas of low attenuation. (Same patient as in the following image.)

Technetium-99m (99mTc)–labeled red blood cell single-photon emission computed tomography scintigraphy in a 41-year-old woman with a history of oral contraceptive use. This image shows no demonstrable activity in the hepatic mass, indicating that it does not represent a hemangioma. (Same patient as in the previous image.)