Huge Hepatic Angiomyolipoma Mimicking Low Grade Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

A 41-year-old man was diagnosed with a huge symptomatic liver mass and was referred to our hospital for liver biopsy and further evaluation. He presented with right upper quadrant tenderness. Enhanced abdominal computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging revealed a 12.5-cm relatively well-defined heterogeneous enhancing mass in the right inferior liver with a large exophytic component containing a fat component and progressive delayed enhancement. The patient underwent right inferior sectionectomy. The pathological diagnosis was confirmed as angiomyolipoma, 12.3×9.2×5.0 cm in size, with tumor necrosis in 20% of the tissue. Hepatic angiomyolipoma is known as a benign tumor, but in our case, because of the large tumor size and coagulative necrosis, this tumor had malignant potential; surgical resection was deemed to be appropriate, and close follow-up monitoring was essential postoperatively.

Clinical implication of tumor site in terms of node metastasis for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The clinical implication of lymph node (LN) dissection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICCA) is still controversial, and LN metastasis (LNM) based on tumor site has not been confirmed yet. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative-intent surgery at 10 tertiary referral centers were identified and divided into peripheral (PP) and near second confluence level tumor (NC) groups on the basis of the distance from the second confluence and oncological outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Of 179 patients, 121 patients with LND were divided into the NC (n = 89) and PP groups (n = 32) on the basis of 4.5 cm from the second confluence. NC group showed higher LNM rate than PP group (46.1 vs 21.9%, p = 0.016) and NC was a risk factor for LNM (odds ratio: 4.367; 95% confidence interval: 1.234-15.453, p = 0.022). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (38.0% vs. 27.8%, p = 0.777) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates (22.8% vs. 25.8%, p = 0.742) showed no differences between the PP and NC groups. In the NC group, N1 patients showed worse 5-year OS (12.7% vs 39.0%, p = 0.004) and RFS (8.8% vs 28.6%, p = 0.004) than the N0 patients. In the PP group, discordant results in 5-year OS (48.9% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.462) and RFS (41.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.056) were found between the N0 and N1 patients. CONCLUSION: The NC group was an independent risk factor for LNM and LNM worsened prognosis in NC group for ICCA. In the PP group, LND should not be omitted because of high LNM rate and insufficient oncologic evidence.