Background: The diagnosis of hepatocellular adenoma (HA) has a great impact on the lives of young women and may pose clinical dilemmas to the clinician since there are no standardized protocols to follow. We aimed to establish expert opinions on diagnosis and treatment of HA by collecting data from a nationwide questionnaire in the Netherlands. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 20 Dutch hospitals known to offer hepatologic and surgical experience on liver tumours. Results: 17 hospitals (85%) responded to the questionnaire. Annually, a median of 52 patients presented with a solid liver tumour. In 15 (88%) hospitals, hepatic adenomas were diagnosed with contrast-enhanced, multiphase spiral CT or MRI. In 2 (12%) hospitals, histology was required as part of a management protocol. Surveillance after withdrawal of oral contraceptives was the initial policy in all clinics. MRI, CT or ultrasound was used for follow-up. Criteria for surgical resection were a tumour size >5 cm and abdominal complaints. In 5 (29%) hospitals, patients were dismissed from follow-up after surgery. In complex cases (e.g. large, multiple or centrally localized lesions, a wish for pregnancy), the treatment policy was highly variable. Pregnancy was not discouraged in 15 hospitals, but in 11 (65%) of these, strictly defined conditions were noted: frequent follow-up, peripheral tumour localization that makes surgery easier if necessary, stable tumour size, and a good informed consent. Conclusion: The management of HAs in the Netherlands is rather uniform, except in complex cases in which multiple factors may influence policy. Copyright

Additional Metadata
Keywords Diagnosis, Diagnosis and treatment questionnaire, Hepatocellular adenoma, Oral contraceptives
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1159/000268587, hdl.handle.net/1765/27886
Citation
van Aalten, S.M, Terkivatan, T, de Man, R.A, van der Windt, D.J, Kok, N.F.M, Dwarkasing, R.S, & IJzermans, J.N.M. (2010). Diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular adenoma in the Netherlands: Similarities and differences. Digestive Surgery, 27(1), 61–67. doi:10.1159/000268587