Introduction
Taking lessons from the experiences gained from patients who had been followed up due to the diagnosis of hemangioma in other health institutions but were found to have malignant tumors in our institution.
Method
The recordings of 15 patients treated between January 2003 and May 2016 were examined retrospectively.
Results
The median age of patients, 8 of whom were male, was 56 years (35–80 years). Ultrasonography (n:6), MR (n:6), and CT (n:3) had been used for the final diagnosis in another center. In our department, 13 of patients had MR and 2 of them were diagnosed with malignant tumor based on CT taken in the other center. In other words, ultrasonography findings of the other center were not confirmed by MR examination performed in our department and it was seen that CT and MR images of other patients were inadequate and/or misinterpreted. Ten of patients were carried out surgical intervention and 3 and 2 patients who had no chance for resection were administered chemotherapy and chemoembolization, respectively. One of patients was not performed indication of surgical resection because of the presence of metastatic liver tumor of unknown primary. Diagnostic error caused approximately 6- month treatment retardation in median (minimum 0–maximum 96). The final diagnoses were hepatocellular carcinoma in 11 patients, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma in one each patient, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, angiosarcoma, and metastatic liver tumor of unknown- primary.
Conclusion
Performance of high-quality MR or CT imaging and accurate interpretation of findings have the vital importance in the diagnosis of liver lesions. Performing control imaging after 4–6 months despite typical radiological findings will decrease margin of error.
