FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2223775663> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2223775663 abstract "The clinician is occasionally faced with the diagnostic dilemma of an indeterminate upper abdominal mass. Despite thorough evaluation with cross-sectional imaging, endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and even biopsy, not all upper abdominal masses can be diagnosed preoperatively. As described in the case report by Kochar and colleagues, hepatic lesions—including hemangiomas—can infrequently appear as apparent extrahepatic tumors.1 In this case report, a symptomatic, exophytic hepatic hemangioma abutting the greater curve of the stomach was misdiagnosed as a gastric subepithelial tumor (SET) by both computed tomography (CT) scan and EUS. The correct diagnosis was subsequently made by core biopsy and laparoscopy.In contrast to other liver tumors, hemangiomas can usually be diagnosed using cross-sectional imaging. On CT scan, hepatic hemangiomas are typically hypodense on unenhanced images.2 Following administration of intravenous contrast medium, hepatic hemangiomas have a characteristic pattern of enhancement, with early peripheral nodular enhancement, followed by centripetal filling in of the lesion on delayed phases. This delayed-phase CT imaging can be particularly helpful in the diagnosis of an hepatic hemangioma. In fact, a late-contrast phase should be included when evaluating all masses in proximity to the liver, and care must be taken not to interpret imaging of tumors adjacent to the liver solely based on noncontrast or early-phase CT scan.Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be particularly accurate for diagnosing a liver hemangioma. Even without contrast, hemangiomas have a pathognomonic appearance on MRI in most cases. On MRI, these tumors are characterized as homogeneous, well-demarcated lesions with very high signal intensity on T2-weighted images. Like CT, contrast-enhanced MRI of hepatic hemangiomas typically display early peripheral nodular enhancement with centripetal fill-in on delayed images. In one recent study by Szurowska and colleagues, the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced CT for a hemangioma was 76%, and the specificity was 90%.3 In comparison, the sensitivity of MRI (both noncontrast and with contrast) was 98%, and the specificity was 99%.Unlike smaller hemangiomas, very large heman-giomas can have more heterogeneous features on CT or MRI.4 This is often secondary to hemorrhage, thrombosis, fibrosis, or extensive hyalinization. Although such tumors can be more difficult to diagnose on cross-sectional imaging, they still commonly display characteristic peripheral nodular enhancement with delayed centripetal filling after contrast administration on both CT and MRI. However, the centripetal filling of these lesions is often incomplete, representing the areas of hemorrhage, fibrosis, or hyalinization. This underscores the importance of the use of delayed-contrast CT and MRI in the evaluation of indeterminate masses in or adjacent to the liver.Biopsy is rarely required for the diagnosis of a liver hemangioma. Early reports of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of a liver hemangioma demonstrated significant risk of often fatal complications as a result of bleeding.5-7 In addition, the diagnostic yield from FNA is low. In one early report by Taavitsainen and colleagues, FNA was performed in 36 patients with suspected hepatic hemangiomas; however, diagnostic cellular material could only be obtained in 21 patients.7 Core biopsy, although perhaps riskier than FNA, may improve the accuracy of needle biopsy because a larger volume of tissue is sampled. However, biopsy of lesions suspected to be hepatic hem-angiomas is rarely advised, given the high sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced CT and MRI, the risk of bleeding associated with percutaneous biopsy, and the low diagnostic yield of percutaneous biopsy.The presence of symptoms requiring tumor resection for palliative indications can make the preoperative evaluation of tumors in this region less complicated in most cases. When symptomatic, surgical resection is generally recommended in patients with liver hemangiomas. Most commonly, patients with symptomatic hepatic hemangiomas present with pain or with symptoms of compression of extrinsic organs (nausea, vomiting, and early satiety), as did the patient in the case presented by Kochar and colleagues.1 Complications from hepatic hemangiomas, including spontaneous rupture, are exceedingly rare. In addition, when followed over time, the size of most hemangiomas remains stable. Thus, when asymptomatic, even giant hepatic hemangiomas can safely be observed.8,9 Prior to resection, it is imperative that other potential causes of a patient’s symptoms be fully investigated and ruled out. In a series published by Pietrabissa and colleagues, 50% of patients continued to be symptomatic following intervention for a symptomatic hepatic hemangioma,9 indicating the existence of an alternative cause for the patients’ symptoms.The differential diagnoses of gastric SETs are extensive and include gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), leio-myomas, lipomas, gastric varices, tumors of neural origin, pancreatic rests, duplication cysts, carcinoid tumors, lym-phomas, and metastases.10 SETs outside the stomach can mimic gastric tumors, originating from adjacent structures (including the liver, spleen, biliary tract, and pancreas), and cause extrinsic compression of the stomach. For gastric SETs that are clearly resectable, biopsy is generally not needed because initial resection is indicated, even when the SET is not symptomatic. For borderline resectable and unresectable SETs—or if lymphoma is suspected based on imaging—biopsy can be useful in dictating management and is generally indicated. For example, preoperative ima-tinib therapy may be useful in some cases of a borderline or unresectable GIST to improve resectability. Similarly, gastric lymphoma is generally treated with either Helicobacter pylori eradication, systemic therapy, radiation, or a combination of the above therapies, and surgery is rarely indicated for gastric lymphoma. When the diagnosis is uncertain, the asymptomatic lesion will often undergo more thorough diagnostic evaluation to rule out tumors that do not require resection. Although cross-sectional imaging alone is often sufficient to diagnose hepatic hem-angioma, indeterminate lesions may necessitate further testing, including endoscopy, EUS, or biopsy.In summary, this interesting case illustrates that the diagnosis of upper abdominal masses can be challenging. Although hepatic hemangiomas are typically less difficult to diagnose using triple-phase contrast imaging, the diagnosis of those that may not have classic imaging features may be problematic. In particular, atypical hemangiomas that are exophytic and abut other organs such as the stomach, as in the case reported by Kochar and colleagues,1 may masquerade as gastric SETs." @default.
• W2223775663 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2223775663 creator A5054942671 @default.
• W2223775663 creator A5059338254 @default.
• W2223775663 date "2013-06-01" @default.
• W2223775663 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2223775663 title "Differential diagnoses and diagnostic troubleshooting of upper abdominal masses." @default.
• W2223775663 cites W2009090804 @default.
• W2223775663 cites W2069724687 @default.
• W2223775663 cites W2077774197 @default.
• W2223775663 cites W2103997239 @default.
• W2223775663 cites W2141153813 @default.
• W2223775663 cites W2147807111 @default.
• W2223775663 cites W2160151200 @default.
• W2223775663 cites W2317403593 @default.
• W2223775663 cites W2409197605 @default.
• W2223775663 cites W2429018799 @default.
• W2223775663 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3736799" @default.
• W2223775663 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23935549" @default.
• W2223775663 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2223775663 type Work @default.
• W2223775663 sameAs 2223775663 @default.
• W2223775663 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2223775663 countsByYear W22237756632023 @default.
• W2223775663 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2223775663 hasAuthorship W2223775663A5054942671 @default.
• W2223775663 hasAuthorship W2223775663A5059338254 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C143409427 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C16568411 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C2775934546 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C2776407475 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C2779786684 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C2779889316 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C2780191036 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C2780801072 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C2909655054 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C118552586 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C126838900 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C142724271 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C143409427 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C16568411 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C2775934546 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C2776407475 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C2779134260 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C2779786684 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C2779889316 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C2780191036 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C2780801072 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C2909655054 @default.
• W2223775663 hasConceptScore W2223775663C71924100 @default.
• W2223775663 hasLocation W22237756631 @default.
• W2223775663 hasOpenAccess W2223775663 @default.
• W2223775663 hasPrimaryLocation W22237756631 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W10387848 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W1585998421 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W1984726654 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W1993669251 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2014231612 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2017906441 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2022987647 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2063103662 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2125878998 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2144517578 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2186874296 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2396680232 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2404933389 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2415521437 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2418126996 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2562889331 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2892345853 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2947279379 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W3015265004 @default.
• W2223775663 hasRelatedWork W2116070474 @default.
• W2223775663 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2223775663 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2223775663 magId "2223775663" @default.
• W2223775663 workType "article" @default.