Abstract
Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma (PHLS) is an extremely rare malignant tumor, which is often elusive in early diagnosis due to its rarity and nonspecific clinical and imaging presentations. Herein, we present a case of PHLS in a 66-year-old male and a review of the English literature from January 2000 to December 2023, focusing on the clinical and imaging characteristics of 30 patients with PHLS. The present patient was admitted to our hospital with complaints of abdominal distension, with history of hepatitis B. Tumor markers, including alpha-fetoprotein, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CA 19-9, were within the normal range. A hepatic tumor was incidentally identified during an abdominal ultrasound examination, further evaluated by contrast-enhanced CT and MR scans, which was preliminarily misdiagnosed as hepatocellular carcinoma. The tumor was surgically excised and definitively diagnosed as PHLS, characterized by two distinct areas with varying imaging features on contrast-enhanced CT and MR images. PHLS typically manifests as a well-defined, heterogeneously hypo- or iso-dense mass on CT, with a slightly prolonged T2 signal on MRI, and exhibits gradual enhancement during dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. We advocate that the possibility of PHLS should be considered when the aforementioned imaging features are observed.
1 Introduction
Leiomyosarcoma is a malignant mesenchymal tumor originating from smooth muscle lineage (1), which most commonly arises in the uterus, retroperitoneum, soft tissues and the alimentary tract. In clinic, primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma (PHLS) is extremely rare, which is difficult to make accurate pre-surgical diagnosis, due to its rarity, nonspecific clinical and imaging manifestations, and lack of recognition. In this study, we present a case of PHLS that was pathologically confirmed following surgical resection, and provides a systematic review of PHLS in the English literature for comparison, focusing on its clinical characteristics and imaging findings.
2 Case description
A 66-year-old man presented to a local hospital with a complaint of abdominal distension. An abdominal ultrasound examination revealed a large mass in the hepatogastric space. Subsequently, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the abdomen was performed (Figure 1) to better characterize the lesion. The mass demonstrated predominantly slight hyperintensity on T2-weighted images (T2WI) and hypointensity on T1-weighted images (T1WI). The presence of internal hemorrhage within the mass was suggested by hyperintensity on T1WI and hypointensity on T2WI. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) showed restricted diffusion within the lesion. Following the administration of Gd-DTPA, the tumor exhibited heterogeneous enhancement during the arterial phase, with gradual enhancement observed in the portal and delayed phases.
Figure 1
The patient was transferred to our hospital for further evaluation and treatment. Upon physical examination, the findings were predominantly unremarkable, except for mild tenderness in the right upper quadrant. The patient’s medical history is notable for a number of chronic conditions: chronic hepatitis B, which has been present for over 20 years, type 2 diabetes mellitus for the past 12 years, and a historical episode of tuberculosis that was effectively treated and resolved 30 years prior. No other significant personal or family medical histories were reported. Laboratory tests indicated a slight decrease in serum albumin level, while other liver function indices were within normal limits. Viral markers of hepatitis B were positive, including hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), antibody to hepatitis B e (anti-HBe), and antibody to hepatitis B core (anti-HBc). The antibody to hepatitis B surface (anti-HBs) and hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) were negative. The serum levels of tumor markers, including alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and CA 19-9, were within the normal range.
Further evaluation was conducted through pre- and post-contrast computed tomography (CT, Figure 2) of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. A well-defined, heterogeneous mass with hypo- and iso-density was identified in the hepatogastric space, adjacent to the left branch of the portal vein and the ligamentum teres hepatis, measuring approximately 6.8 cm × 4.5 cm × 5.8 cm. Mild to moderate uneven enhancement was observed during the arterial phase, with gradual enhancement during the portal and equilibrium phases. Feeding arteries were noted to originate from the left hepatic artery, suggesting that the large exophytic mass originated from segment IV and III of the liver. No evidence of hepatic cirrhosis or other clinically significant lesions was identified. Given the imaging features and the patient’s history of hepatitis B, a preliminary diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with atypical imaging appearances was established. A laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomy was subsequently performed, and the patient had a smooth postoperative course. He was discharged 7 days following the surgery, marking a total hospital stay of 14 days.
Figure 2
Gross pathological examination demonstrated a gray-white tumor mass, measuring 6×5×4 cm in size. The cut surface exhibited as a grayish-white hue with scattered areas of hemorrhage and necrosis. The margin was tumor-free, and there was no evidence of lymphovascular or perineural invasion.
Microscopic examination (Figure 3) revealed that the tumor was composed of spindle-shaped cells and had two discrete areas. One area was predominantly composed of ‘differentiated’ cells with moderate nuclear atypia, densely packed in a fascicular and interwoven pattern. These cells exhibited strong positivity for smooth muscle markers: desmin (3+), caldesmon (3+), and smooth muscle actin (3+). The other area was predominantly composed of ‘dedifferentiated’ cells with marked nuclear atypia and a high mitotic rate (approximately 40 per 5 mm²). These cells displayed irregular or epithelioid morphology alongside necrosis, and showed patchy positivity for desmin and caldesmon, and were negative for smooth muscle actin. The Ki-67 proliferation index was significantly elevated in both differentiated and dedifferentiated components. A final diagnosis of leiomyosarcoma was confirmed by a union discussion between the departments of Pathology of our hospital and another institution. The tumor was classified as grade 3 according to the Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer (FNCLCC) grading system.
Figure 3
After the surgical procedure, the patient was informed about the potential benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy. Despite these considerations, the patient declined this treatment option and opted for regular follow-ups, which included periodic imaging and blood tests. After approximately 22 months of post-surgical monitoring, no local recurrence or metastasis was detected. Therefore, the diagnosis of primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma was comprehensive to made.
3 Discussion
Primary hepatic sarcomas account for less than 1% of all malignant hepatic tumors, with PHLS being even rarer, making up only 14-29% of all primary hepatic sarcomas (2–4). PHLS is believed to originate from smooth muscle cells within intrahepatic vessels, bile ducts, or ligaments (3). Given the scarcity of valuable data on clinical and imaging features, coupled with the tumor’s rarity, PHLS is frequently misdiagnosed as HCC or other conditions, such as cholangiocarcinoma, hepatocellular adenoma, focal nodular hyperplasia, abscesses, and hydatid disease (5–9).
The preoperative diagnosis of hepatic leiomyosarcoma is essential due to its metastatic potential, which necessitates a thorough diagnostic workup to exclude other primary sites (10). Such precise diagnosis is vital for devising appropriate treatment strategies, including the consideration of neoadjuvant therapy and the planning of intricate surgeries with broader margins to accommodate the aggressive characteristics of PHLS (11). Correct identification of PHLS is also essential to prevent the administration of inappropriate treatments that are typically prescribed for more prevalent liver tumors, such as HCC.
Therefore, we present this case of PHLS and review the existing literature to raise awareness of this uncommon malignant tumor. Our aim is to contribute to the clinical and radiological understanding of PHLS, ultimately improving patient management and outcomes.
3.1 Literature review
Case reports or case series of PHLS published in the English language from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2023, were retrieved from PubMed and Google Scholar. After detailed screening of each article, 29 publications with 30 cases regarding the imaging features of PHLS were included in this study. The clinical manifestations and imaging findings of these 30 reported cases, along with the findings from the current case, are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Table 1
| References | Case | Age | Sex | Symptoms | Tumor Markers | Past medical history | Treatment | Outcome | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFP | CA19-9 | CEA | ||||||||
| Ghosh, R. 2023 (5) | 1 | 62 | F | right upper abdomen pain | NM | NA | NA | unremarkable | right hepatectomy with cholecystectomy | NA |
| Ahmed, H. 2022 (3) | 2 | 48 | F | abdominal pain and weight loss | NA | NM | NA | diabetic, hypertensive, and morbidly obese | formal extended left hepatectomy | Alive and well at 6-month |
| Vella, S. 2020 (22) | 3 | 77 | F | vague, intermittent epigastric pain | NM | NA | NM | hypertension and cholecystectomy | laparoscopic right hepatectomy with resection of the lower root of the middle hepatic vein | Alive and well at 8-month |
| Kazawa, N. 2020 (17) | 4 | 86 | F | abdominal pain | NM | NM | NM | hypertension | NA | NA |
| Esposito, F. 2020 (11) | 5 | 78 | M | incidentally discovered during cardiac US | NM | NM | NM | NA | laparoscopic left hepatectomy | Alive with no recurrence at 18-month |
| 6 | 53 | M | abdominal pain | NM | NM | NM | NA | Right extended hepatectomy | Recurrence at 7-month Died of recurrence at 14-month | |
| Zhu, K.L. 2019 (23) | 7 | 68 | F | right upper quadrant pain and weight loss. | NM | NM | NA | NA | transcatheter arterial chemoembolization | no progressive enlargement of the tumor or distal metastasis at 82-month |
| Mitra, S. 2018 (21) | 8 | 45 | F | dyspepsia and weight loss | NM | mildly elevated | NM | NA | chemotherapy | Alive and well at 5-month |
| Liu, W. 2018 (6) | 9 | 38 | F | right upper abdominal pain and fever | NM | NM | NM | NA | expanded right hemi-hepatectomy chemotherapy | Lung metastasis at 25-month Liver recurrence at 39-month Then lost to follow-up |
| Feretis, T. 2018 (24) | 10 | 68 | F | right upper quadrant heaviness and discomfort | NM | NM | NM | chronic hepatitis B, type 2 diabetes mellitus and cholelithiasis | resection chemotherapy | recurrence at 18-month Died at 37-month |
| Xie, P. 2017 (25) | 11 | 10 | girl | jaundice | NA | NA | NA | NA | chemotherapy liver transplant | NA |
| Shera, I.2017 (26) | 12 | 72 | F | abdominal pain and swelling in the epigastrium and right hypochondrium, generalized weakness, loss of appetite and weight loss | NM | NM | NM | unremarkable. | chemotherapy | NA |
| Iida, T. 2017 (27) | 13 | 63 | F | general fatigue and fever | NM | NM | NM | autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease | resected a part of the tumor | Died in a short time after the operation |
| Giakoustidis, D. 2017 (28) | 14 | 69 | F | abdominal pain | NM | NM | NM | unremarkable. | portal vein embolization resection of segments IVA, V, VI, and part of VII | Recurrence at 6 months Died of recurrence at 12-month |
| Gupta, S. 2016 (29) | 15 | 45 | F | loss of appetite, abdominal distension and bilateral lower limb swelling | NM | NM | NM | unremarkable. | upfront neoadjuvant chemotherapy | remained unresectable but stable After completing 6 cycles of NACT on regular follow up |
| Lv, W.F. 2015 (16) | 16 | 42 | M | abdominal pain, marasmus and weakness | NM | NM | NM | unremarkable. | NA | died of liver failure at 384-day |
| Metta, H. 2014 (12) | 17 | 38 | M | persistent fever, diarrhea, and productive cough | NM | NA | NA | human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection | Extended left hepatectomy | Alive with no recurrence at 1-year |
| Majumder, S. 2014 (30) | 18 | 42 | M | right upper quadrant abdominal pain and nausea | NA | NA | NA | NA | segment V hepatectomy with adhesiolysis and evacuation of the hematoma. | Alive with no recurrence at 3 -month |
| Tsai, P.S. 2013 (31) | 19 | 5-month | girl | fever, nausea, vomiting, and poor appetite | NM | NA | NA | NA | chemotherapy Exploratory laparotomy with partial hepatectomy | Alive with no recurrence at 4-year |
| Chelimilla, H. 2013 (13) | 20 | 54 | M | intractable hiccups, low grade fever with poor oral intake and weight loss | NM | NA | NM | HIV/AIDS, seizure disorder, and hypertension | conservative management | NA |
| Takehara, K. 2012 (32) | 21 | 59 | M | demonstrated fecal occult blood and multiple liver tumors in a comprehensive medical examination | NM | NM | Slightly elevated | hypertension and hyperuricemia | chemotherapy + curative hepatectomy | Alive with no recurrence at 16-month |
| Shivathirthan, N. 2011 (33) | 22 | 67 | M | abdominal pain | NM | NM | NM | unremarkable | Extended left hepatectomy with extension onto the dorsal part of S8 preserving the MHV with partial resection of S6 | Alive with no recurrence at 9-month |
| Morris, C.J. 2010 (8) | 23 | 78 | F | right upper quadrant abdominal pain, weight loss. | NA | NA | NA | NA | nonsurgical candidate | NA |
| Liang, X. 2010 (34) | 24 | 44 | F | anorexia and right upper quadrant pain | NM | NM | NM | hepatitis B infection | orthotopic liver transplantation | Metastasis at 14-month Died at 34-month |
| Surendrababu, N.R. 2006 (35) | 25 | 1 | boy | fever, right upper quadrant pain and vomiting | NM | NA | NM | NA | NA | NA |
| El Mesbahi, O. 2006 (36) | 26 | 56 | F | right sided abdominal pain, weight loss and fever | NM | NA | NM | hysterectomy for fibroma, diabetes and hypertension, | right hepatectomy and right hepatic lymphadenectomy with chemotherapy | alive at 18-month |
| Rokutanda, N. 2005 (37) | 27 | 64 | M | right upper abdominal pain | NM | NM | NM | NA | left hepatic lobectomy and cholecystectomy percutaneous radiofrequency ablation | Alive with no recurrence at 20-month |
| Kanazawa, N. 2002 (38) | 28 | 31 | M | discovered during routine health check | NM | NM | NA | unremarkable | left lateral segmentectomy | NA |
| Fujita, H. 2002 (15) | 29 | 33 | F | unexpectedly discovered on an abdominal US scan | NM | NA | NM | renal transplant recipients, right breast cancer | posterior segmentectomy | Alive with no recurrence at 2-year |
| Tsuji, M. 2000 (39) | 30 | 68 | M | right- sided abdominal distension and pain, weight loss | elevated | elevated | NM | hepatitis C virus-related liver cirrhosis | NA | died of rupture of the tumor 3-month after admission |
| Ours | 31 | 66 | M | abdominal distension | NM | NM | NM | chronic hepatitis B, | left hemi-hepatectomy | Alive and well at 22-month |
Clinical findings of PHLS from the literature and the present patient.
F, female; M, male; NA, not available; NM, normal; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.
Table 2
| References | Case | Size (mm) | Location | Margin | US findings | CT | MR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Density | Enhancement | T1WI | T2WI | DWI | Enhancement | ||||||
| Ghosh, R. 2023 (5) | 1 | 124 | right lobe | well‐defined | a well‐defined heterogeneous hypoechoic mass | hypo- | AP: heterogeneous enhancement VP: persistent enhancement | NA | hyper- | NA | NA |
| Ahmed, H. 2022 (3) | 2 | 99 | left lobe | ill-defined | NA | NA | AP: heterogeneous contrast-enhancing and hyper vascular DP: partial wash-out | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Vella, S. 2020 (22) | 3 | 198 | right lobe | NA | NA | Iso-& hypo- | NA | heterogeneous hypo- | slight hyperintensity with central heterogeneas hyper- & hypo-intensity | restricted diffusion | AP-PVP: peripheral gradual enhancement. |
| Kazawa, N. 2020 (17) | 4 | 40 | caudate lobe | NA | a para-caval hypoechoic mass | iso-hypo- | AP-PVP: gradually enhanced | hypo- | heterogeneous hyper- | heterogeneously high & low- | gradual mild enhancement |
| Esposito, F. 2020 (11) | 5 | 57 | left lobe | well-defined | NA | heterogeneous hypo- | mild and mostly peripheral wash-in and no wash-out | heterogeneous hypo- | hyper- | NA | discretely hypervascular |
| 6 | 290 | right lobe | NA | NA | heterogeneous hypo- | late AP: peripheral enhancement | hypo- | hyper- | NA | AP-PVP: peripheral gradual enhancement | |
| Zhu, K.L. 2019 (23) | 7 | 100 | right lobe | NA | a mixed echoic mass | inhomogeneous | mild delayed enhancement with central necrosis | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Mitra, S. 2018 (21) | 8 | 113 | segment IV, V and VI | well-defined | a large heteroechoic lesion with cystic areas | heterogeneous hypo- | AP: heterogeneously enhancement and hypervascularity PVP: washout | hypo- | mild hyper- | mild diffusion restriction | gradual enhancement |
| Liu, W. 2018 (6) | 9 | 136 | right lobe | NA | a huge mass, which was interpreted as an abscess | heterogeneous hypo- | AP: enhancement of the wall with multiple tortuous vessels PVP&DP: wash-out | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Feretis, T. 2018 (24) | 10 | 130 | left lobe segments III and IVB | irregular margin | a hepatic mass located in the left lobe of the liver | heterogeneous | NA | heterogeneous hypo- | heterogeneous hyper- | NA | NA |
| Xie, P. 2017 (25) | 11 | 70 | hepatic hilum | well-defined | a hepatic mass | NA | NA | hypo- | heterogeneous hyper- | restricted diffusion | NA |
| Shera, I.2017 (26) | 12 | NA | segment 4 and 3 of left lobe | NA | NA | heterogeneous | AP: early enhancement with interspersed non enhancing areas PVP: isointense to the liver parenchyma | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Iida, T. 2017 (27) | 13 | 100 | left lobe | NA | NA | iso- | peripheral enhancement | slightly hypo- | slightly hyper- | NA | NA |
| Giakoustidis, D. 2017 (28) | 14 | 140 | segments IVA, V, VI and part of VII | NA | NA | hypo- | AP: heterogeneous enhancement PVP: delayed washout | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Gupta, S. 2016 (29) | 15 | 119 | segment VII and VIII | well-defined | a hypoechoic mass | hypo- | AP: heterogeneous enhancement PVP: delayed washout | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Lv, W.F. 2015 (16) | 16 | 91 | caudate lobe and the left lobe | well-defined | NA | slight hypo- | NA | slightly heterogeneous hypo- | heterogeneous hyper- | hyper- | AP&VP: no evident enhancement DP(5-min): marked enhancement |
| Metta, H. 2014 (12) | 17 | 90 | left lobe | well-defined | a hypoechoic mass in the left liver lobe, which increased by 30 mm over a 3-month period. | heterogeneous | heterogeneous enhancement | hypo- | hyper- | NA | irregular peripheral enhancement |
| Majumder, S. 2014 (30) | 18 | 137 | right lobe | well-defined | NA | heterogeneous | NA | centrally increased signal consistent with internal hemorrhage | hypointense rim compatible with a capsule or pseudocapsule | NA | peripheral enhancement |
| Tsai, P.S. 2013 (31) | 19 | 65 | right lobe | partially demarcated | a huge heteroechogenic mass | heterogeneous hypo- | enhanced heterogeneously and intensely | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Chelimilla, H. 2013 (13) | 20 | 35 | right lobe | NA | NA | hypo- | rim enhancement | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Takehara, K. 2012 (32) | 21 | 42 | left lobe | well-defined | hypo- or isoechoic heterogeneous masses without halos | hypo- or iso- | early enhancement and delayed washout or gradual enhancement | hypo- | hyper- | hyper- | delayed washout or gradual enhancement |
| Shivathirthan, N. 2011 (33) | 22 | 170 | left lobe and segment 8 | NA | a hypoechoic mass | hypo- | AP: heterogenous enhancement PVP: delayed washout | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Morris, C.J. 2010 (8) | 23 | 174 | right and left lobes | NA | NA | NA | NA | heterogeneous hypo- | heterogeneous hyper- | NA | peripheral enhancement |
| Liang, X. 2010 (34) | 24 | NA | right lobe | well-defined | a heterogeneous mass | hypo- | predominantly peripheral enhancement | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Surendrababu, N.R. 2006 (35) | 25 | NA | right lobe | a large cystic lesion with multiple thick septations and few internal echoes, with no color flow on Doppler | hypo- | multiple enhanced septations | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| El Mesbahi, O. 2006 (36) | 26 | 230 | right lobe | NA | heterogeneous hypo- | NA | hypo- | hyper- | NA | peripheral enhancement | |
| Rokutanda, N. 2005 (37) | 27 | 140 | left lobe | well-defined | a large cystic mass with a mixed echoic wall, including a hypoechoic internal lesion | heterogeneous hypo- | peripheral enhancement | hypo- | hyper- | NA | peripheral enhancement |
| Kanazawa, N. 2002 (38) | 28 | 350 | left lobe | NA | a low echoic mass with a clearly defined boundary | hypo- | peripheral enhancement | hypo- | peripheral isointensity with central heperintensity | NA | peripheral enhancement |
| Fujita, H. 2002 (15) | 29 | 50 | right lobe | well- defined | a large heterogeneous lesion | heterogeneous hypo- | NA | hypo- | hyper- | NA | NA |
| Tsuji, M. 2000 (39) | 30 | 140 | right lobe | well-defined | NA | hypo- | peripheral enhancement | hypo- | irregular hyper- | NA | peripheral enhancement |
| Ours | 31 | 68 | left lobe | well-defined | a hypoechoic mass in the hepato-gastric space | heterogeneous hypo- and iso-density | AP: mild to moderate enhancement PVP&DP: gradual enhancement | hypointensity with internal hemorrhage | heterogeneous hyperintensity with hypointense area | restricted diffusion | AP: heterogeneous enhancement PVP&DP: gradual enhancement |
Imaging findings of PHLS from the literature and the present patient.
NA, not available; US, ultrasound; CT, computed tomography; MR, magnetic resonance; T1WI, T1-weighted images; T2WI, T2-weighted images; DWI, Diffusion-weighted imaging; AP, arterial phase; PVP, portal venous phase; DP, delayed phase.
3.2 Clinical manifestations of PHLS
The patients’ ages ranged from 5 months to 86 years, with a mean age of 52.4 years and three patients being under 18 years old. The prevalence was slightly higher among female patients, reflected in a female-to-male ratio of 1.4:1. The most common symptom was right upper quadrant abdominal pain. Other clinical presentations included abdominal distension, nausea, jaundice, weight loss, and a palpable abdominal mass, while some patients were incidentally discovered without apparent symptoms. Tumor marker levels, including AFP, CEA, and CA19-9, were typically within the normal range. Among the 30 reported cases, serum CA19-9 levels were slightly elevated in two patients, and serum AFP and CEA levels were each slightly increased in one patient. The current patient, an elderly male, presented with the clinical symptom of abdominal distension and had normal levels of tumor markers, a presentation similar to that of other abdominal malignancies and lacking specificity.
PHLS has been reported to be closely associated with immunocompromised states, including AIDS (12, 13), the post-renal transplant period (14, 15), and radiochemotherapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma (9). This association is postulated to occur due to the uninhibited effects of the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) on smooth muscle proliferation (12, 13). However, many patients diagnosed with PHLS were immunocompetent. Among the 31 patients, 3 (3/31, 9.6%) were immunodeficient, 4 (4/31, 12.9%) had a history of hepatitis B or C, with or without liver cirrhotic, and the remaining 24 (24/31, 77.4%) had no identifiable predisposing factors. Therefore, the etiology of PHLS remains unclear and requires further elucidation.
3.3 Imaging findings of PHLS
The non-specific imaging features of PHLS present a challenge for preoperative diagnosis. Conventional US was performed in 18 of the 31 patients, typically revealing a hypoechoic mass. CT scans were conducted on 29 of the 31 patients, with most showing well-defined hypo- or iso-dense masses that included heterogeneous areas indicative of necrosis or hemorrhage. MR imaging was performed in 20 of the 31 patients, showing hyperintensity on T2WI and hypointensity on T1WI. It may also exhibit internal heterogeneity, suggesting the presence of intratumoral hemorrhage or necrosis. The enhancement patterns of PHLS are comparable on both CT and MRI scans. Among the 31 cases, 23 patients received contrast-enhanced CT scans, and 15 received contrast-enhanced MR scans. A substantial proportion of these cases demonstrated peripheral, heterogeneous enhancement during the arterial phase, with persistent or gradual enhancement observed in the portal venous or delayed phases. Lv WF (16) and Kazawa N (17) have suggested that the gradual enhancement observed during the delayed phase on contrast-enhanced MR images may be a distinctive feature of PHLS. However, certain other hepatic tumors, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, atypical HCC, squamous cell carcinoma, and other sarcomas, frequently show delayed enhancement (18–20). Therefore, in our opinion, this feature could be a significant sign for the differential diagnosis of PHLS from typical HCC, but the diagnostic value for PHLS requires further study. In addition, some cases of PHLS reported in the literature exhibited the enhancement pattern described as “fast-in and fast-out” (6, 21), which is characteristic of the typical enhancement pattern seen in HCC. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed in 7 of the 31 patients, revealing restricted diffusion in all cases.
In the present case, contrast-enhanced CT and MR imaging indicated a probable malignant hepatic lesion. Considering the patient’s history of hepatitis B, the initial misdiagnosis by radiologists and clinicians was HCC. However, with normal AFP levels and the scans showing gradual enhancement—features not aligning with HCC —the possibility of other malignant tumors necessitates consideration.
3.4 Imaging findings with pathologic correlation
A definitive diagnosis of PHLS relies solely on histological and immunohistological examinations. Characteristic histological features include intersecting bundles of spindle-shaped cells with deeply eosinophilic cytoplasm and hyperchromatic nuclei. Immunostaining is positive for SMA and desmin, which are markers indicative of smooth muscle differentiation. A negative reaction for CD34, CD117, DOG1, cytokeratins, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), S-100 protein, and alpha-fetoprotein aids in ruling out other differential diagnosess (3, 16, 21).
MRI is considered the most useful modality for characterizing liver masses due to its superior soft-tissue contrast resolution. In the present case, MR images revealed two distinct areas within the tumor, each exhibiting different imaging characteristics that correspond to the underlying pathological changes of PHLS. The area adjacent to the liver showed mixed high and low signals on T2WI and T1WI, corresponding to the undifferentiated region with necrosis and hemorrhage identified in pathological examination. The solid component of this area demonstrated significant hyperintensity on T2WI and a gradual enhancement pattern on dynamic contrast-enhanced images. In contrast, the area more distant from the liver displayed homogeneously mild hyperintensity on T2WI and marked gradual enhancement on dynamic contrast-enhanced images, correlating with the differentiated region composed of densely packed spindle-shaped cells as observed in pathological examination.
4 Conclusion
In conclusion, we report a case of PHLS, which is rare and lacks characteristic clinical and imaging manifestations. Based on the current patient and previously published data, PHLS often presents as a well-defined, heterogeneously hypo- or iso-dense mass on CT, with slightly prolonged T2 signal on MRI, and shows gradual enhancement during dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Although a definitive diagnosis of PHLS requires pathological examination, differentiation should be made once the aforementioned imaging features are present.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethics Review Committee of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent was obtained from the participant/patient(s) for the publication of this case report.
Author contributions
LY: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Data curation. RH: Data curation, Writing – original draft. SC: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition. JC: Writing – review & editing, Data curation. JL: Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (No.82202095 and 82102147), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (No.2022A1515011650) and Guangdong Province’s Special Fund for Science and Technology Innovation Strategy (“Major project + Task List”) Project (No.221125141604534).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
SerranoCGeorgeS. Leiomyosarcoma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. (2013) 27:957–74. doi: 10.1016/j.hoc.2013.07.002
2
MartinsACACosta NetoDCDSilvaJMoraesYMLeAoCSMartinsC. Adult primary liver sarcoma: systematic review. Rev Col Bras Cir. (2020) 47:e20202647. doi: 10.1590/0100-6991e-20202647
3
AhmedHBariHNisar SheikhUBasheerMI. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma: A case report and literature review. World J Hepatol. (2022) 14:1830–9. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v14.i9.1830
4
KonstantinidisITNotaCJutricZItuartePChowWChuPet al. Primary liver sarcomas in the modern era: Resection or transplantation? J Surg Oncol. (2018) 117:886–91. doi: 10.1002/jso.24979
5
GhoshRHalderANimRKRaySChatterjeeU. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma masquerading as focal nodular hyperplasia of liver: A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. (2023). doi: 10.4103/ijpm.ijpm_735_22
6
LiuWLiangW. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma presenting as a thick-walled cystic mass resembling a liver abscess: A case report. Med (Baltimore). (2018) 97:e13861. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013861
7
ShamseddineAFarajWMukherjiDEl MajzoubNKhalifeMSoubraAet al. Unusually young age distribution of primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma: case series and review of the adult literature. World J Surg Oncol. (2010) 8:56. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-8-56
8
MorrisCJGhantaR. Masquerading primary liver leiomyosarcoma as a hemorrhagic hepatoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2010) 8:e26. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2009.09.021
9
GiulianteFSarnoGArditoFPiercontiF. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma in a young man after Hodgkin’s disease: diagnostic pitfalls and therapeutic challenge. Tumori. (2009) 95:374–7. doi: 10.1177/030089160909500318
10
ChiMDudekAZWindKP. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma in adults: analysis of prognostic factors. Onkologie. (2012) 35:210–4. doi: 10.1159/000337416
11
EspositoFLimCBaranesLSalloumCFerayCCalderaroJet al. Primary leiomyosarcoma of the liver: Two new cases and a systematic review. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. (2020) 24:63–7. doi: 10.14701/ahbps.2020.24.1.63
12
MettaHCortiMTrioneNMasiniDMonestesJRizzoloMet al. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma–a rare neoplasm in an adult patient with AIDS: second case report and literature review. J Gastrointest Cancer. (2014) 45 Suppl:1: 36–9. doi: 10.1007/s12029-013-9525-3
13
ChelimillaHBadipatlaKIhimoyanANiaziM. A rare occurrence of primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma associated with epstein barr virus infection in an AIDS patient. Case Rep gastrointes. (2013) 2013:691862. doi: 10.1155/2013/691862
14
JeribiAAlbanoLBerguignatMMaaroufiADewismeCFavreGet al. Epstein-Barr virus-associated hepatic leiomyosarcoma after renal transplantation: case report. Transplant Proc. (2010) 42:4356–8. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.09.122
15
FujitaHKiriyamaMKawamuraTIiTTakegawaSDohbaSet al. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma in a woman after renal transplantation: report of a case. Surg Today. (2002) 32:446–9. doi: 10.1007/s005950200073
16
LvWFHanJKChengDLTangWJLuD. Imaging features of primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma: A case report and review of literature. Oncol Lett. (2015) 9:2256–60. doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.3006
17
KazawaNYamashitaY. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma (PHLS): A case report and literature review. Int J Radiol Diagn. Imaging. (2020) 3:80–6. doi: 10.33545/26644436.2020.v3.i4b.140
18
ZhaoLZhouYDingJQinZZhouHJingX. Primary hepatic squamous cell carcinoma: case report and systematic review of the literature. Front Oncol. (2023) 13:1229936. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1229936
19
WuPKuoHSunCFengILiWHoC. Clinical characteristics, imaging features, and outcomes of primary hepatic angiosarcoma: A single-center study and literature review. Advances in Digestive Medicine (2024). doi: 10.1002/aid2.13387
20
FrittoliBCastaldoASantarsiereMAscioneRTanziGPonsiglioneAet al. A unique case of lymphoepithelioma-like HCC with osteoclast-like giant cells: CT imaging features with pathologic correlations. Clin J Gastroenterol. (2024) 17:112–7. doi: 10.1007/s12328-023-01871-1
21
MitraSRathiSDebiUDhimanRKDasA. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma: histopathologist’s perspective of a rare case. J Clin Exp Hepatol. (2018) 8:321–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2018.04.015
22
VellaSCortisKPisaniDPocockJAldrighettiL. Case of primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma successfully treated with laparoscopic right hepatectomy. BMJ Case Rep. (2020) 13:e233567. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2019-233567
23
ZhuKLCaiXJ. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma successfully treated by transcatheter arterial chemoembolization: A case report. World J Clin cases. (2019) 7:525–31. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i4.525
24
FeretisTKostakisIDDamaskosCGarmpisNMantasDNonniAet al. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma: a case report and review of the literature. Acta Med (Hradec Kralove). (2018) 61:153–7. doi: 10.14712/18059694.2018.135
25
XiePZhuangH. FDG PET/CT findings of primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma in an immunocompetent pediatric patient. Clin Nucl Med. (2017) 42:323–4. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001555
26
SheraIMoreRBPatelSK. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma A space occupying lesion in the liver: an enigma for diagnosis. J Gastroenterol Pancreatol Liver Disord. (2017) 4:1–3. doi: 10.15226/2374-815X/4/5/001102
27
IidaTMaedaTAmariYYurugiTTsukamotoYNakajimaF. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma in a patient with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. CEN Case Rep. (2017) 6:74–8. doi: 10.1007/s13730-017-0247-4
28
GiakoustidisDGiakoustidisAGoulopoulosTArabatziNKainantidisAZaraboukasT. Primary gigantic leiomyosarcoma of the liver treated with portal vein embolization and liver resection. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. (2017) 21:228–31. doi: 10.14701/ahbps.2017.21.4.228
29
GuptaS. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma - a case report with review of literature. Ijcr. (2016) 2:53–7. doi: 10.32677/IJCR.2016.v02.i03.003
30
MajumderSDedaniaBRezaizadehHJoyalTEinsteinM. Tumor rupture as the initial manifestation of primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma. Gastrointest Cancer Res. (2014) 7:33–4.
31
TsaiPSYehTCShihSL. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma in a 5-month-old female infant. Acta Radiol Short Rep. (2013) 2:2047981613498722. doi: 10.1177/2047981613498722
32
TakeharaKAokiHTakeharaYYamasakiRTanakayaKTakeuchiH. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma with liver metastasis of rectal cancer. World J gastroentero. (2012) 18:5479–84. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i38.5479
33
ShivathirthanNKitaJIsoYHachiyaHKyunghwaPSawadaTet al. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma: Case report and literature review. World J Gastrointest Oncol. (2011) 3:148–52. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v3.i10.148
34
LiangXXiao-MinSJiang-PingXJie-YuYXiao-JunZZhi-RenFet al. Liver transplantation for primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma: a case report and review of the literatures. Med Oncol. (2010) 27:1269–72. doi: 10.1007/s12032-009-9372-z
35
SurendrababuNRRaoASamuelR. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma in an infant. Pediatr Radiol. (2006) 36:366. doi: 10.1007/s00247-005-0041-x
36
El MesbahiOBenhadjiKParadisVBelghitiJMissetJRaymondE. A bulky single mass of the liver that revealed a primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma. Oncologie. (2006) 8:927–30. doi: 10.1007/s10269-006-0516-x
37
RokutandaNMakitaFOhwadaSSakamotoIYoshimuraSTogoNet al. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma with giant cyst formation: A case report. Kita Kanto Igaku. (2005) 55:165–8. doi: 10.2974/kmj.55.165
38
KanazawaNIzumiNTsuchiyaKSakuraiKHamanoKItakuraJet al. A case of primary leiomyoma of the liver in a patient without evidence of immunosuppression. Hepatol Res. (2002) 24:80. doi: 10.1016/s1386-6346(02)00014-1
39
TsujiMTakenakaRKashiharaTHadamaTTeradaNMoriH. Primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma in a patient with hepatitis C virus-related liver cirrhosis. Pathol Int. (2000) 50:41–7. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1827.2000.00999.x
Summary
Keywords
liver, leiomyosarcoma, diagnostic imaging, tomography (X-ray computed), magnetic resonance imaging
Citation
Yan L, Huang R, Chen S, Chen J and Li J (2024) Imaging findings of primary hepatic leiomyosarcoma: a case report and literature review. Front. Oncol. 14:1490717. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1490717
Received
03 September 2024
Accepted
30 October 2024
Published
21 November 2024
Volume
14 - 2024
Edited by
Artur Rebelo, University Hospital in Halle, Germany
Reviewed by
Panagis M. Lykoudis, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Ender Dulundu, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Türkiye
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Yan, Huang, Chen, Chen and Li.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jinglei Li, lijinglei@gdph.org.cn
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.