Retrospective study identifies MRI characteristics of neuroendocrine liver metastases, suggesting improved diagnostic methods.
Background: Neuroendocrine neoplasms are frequently diagnosed after the detection of liver metastases, often when the primary tumor remains occult. Accurate non-invasive differentiation of neuroendocrine liver metastases (NELMs) from other focal hepatic lesions is therefore crucial. This study aimed to characterize the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of NELMs using hepatocyte-specific contrast agents and to identify a potential radiologic “signature” that may suggest a neuroendocrine origin. Methods: This retrospective study included three cohorts: patients with histologically confirmed NELMs (n = 51; 146 lesions), patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (n = 18; 46 lesions), and patients with benign hepatic hemangiomas (n = 28; 51 lesions). All subjects underwent standardized liver MRI with Gd-EOB-DTPA. Lesions were evaluated for size, diffusion-weighted imaging characteristics, apparent diffusion coefficient values, arterial-phase enhancement, T2-weighted signal, hepatobiliary-phase appearance, and hemorrhagic components. Statistical analyses included univariate and multivariate testing and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results: NELMs commonly demonstrated arterial hyperenhancement, diffusion restriction, and variable T2 and hepatobiliary-phase signal heterogeneity. Compared with colorectal metastases and hemangiomas, NELMs showed distinctive patterns, particularly higher rates of hepatobiliary-phase heterogeneity and arterial enhancement. Lesion size, ADC metrics, T2 heterogeneity, and hemorrhage were significant discriminators. Conclusions: Hepatocyte-specific MRI enables identification of characteristic imaging features of NELMs. An integrated assessment of morphologic, diffusion, and hepatobiliary-phase findings may facilitate early recognition of neuroendocrine metastases, even when the primary tumor is unknown, improving diagnostic confidence and clinical management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Serafini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: