Natural history of hepatic hemangioma: a follow-up analysis of 534 patients

Figures & data

Table 1. Basic information of 534 patients with hepatic hemangioma.

Category	Male (n = 214)	Female (n = 320)
Age (years)	47.94 ± 11.31	46.69 ± 10.15
Gender (Male/Female)	214 (40.07%)	320 (59.93%)
Number of hemangioma
Single	189 (41.27%)	269 (58.73%)
Multiple	25 (32.89%)	51 (67.11%)
Hemangioma location
Left lobe of liver	28 (43.08%)	37 (56.92%)
Right lobe of liver	168 (40.78%)	244 (59.22%)
Whole liver	18 (31.58%)	39 (68.42%)
Hemangioma Size (cm)	4.40 ± 1.90	4.05 ± 1.86

Table 2. Clinical information of 16 patients undergoing surgical treatment of hepatic hemangioma.

Number	Gender	Age (y)	Reason for Treatment	Tumor Size (cm)	Growth Change (cm/months)	Hepatobiliary Related Diseases	Surgical Approach	Symptom Relief
1	Female	48	Abdominal pain	9.8	3.4/26	No	Enucleation	Yes
2	Female	51	Abdominal distention	12.0	4.8/34	No	Right hepatectomy	Yes
3	Female	56	Abdominal discomfort	10.3	2.5/8	No	Enucleation	Yes
4	Male	61	Abdominal distention	11.2	5.1/41	No	Enucleation	Yes
5	Male	52	Other gastrointestinal lesions	9.5	3.2/12	Yes	Enucleation	No
6	Female	63	Health examination	8.5	2.1/8	No	Enucleation	Yes
7	Male	44	Abdominal distention	13.3	3.0/11	Yes	Left hepatectomy	Yes
8	Female	39	Abdominal distention	15.1	6.2/45	No	Right hepatectomy	Yes
9	Female	46	Abdominal pain	12.7	2.9/32	No	Enucleation	Yes
10	Female	54	Ascites	8.2	1.2/14	Yes	Right hepatectomy	Yes
11	Female	57	Abdominal pain	11.2	3.1/26	No	Enucleation	Yes
12	Male	62	Other gastrointestinal lesions	10.8	2.8/32	No	Enucleation	No
13	Female	46	Abdominal distention	14.2	4.4/28	No	Right hepatectomy	Yes
14	Male	53	Abdominal distention	13.0	2.4/7	No	Enucleation	Yes
15	Female	71	Other gastrointestinal lesions	11.5	1.9/14	Yes	Right hepatectomy	Yes
16	Female	49	Health examination	12.4	3.6/35	No	Left hepatectomy	Yes

Figure 1. The size of liver hemangioma in different age groups. A. Total patients. B. Male patients. C. Female patients.

Table 3. Hemangiomas in different age groups and gender groups.

	Number of patients			Tumors Size (cm)				Change of Size (cm/years)
Age (years)	All	Male	Female	All	Male	Female	P^a	Male	Female	P^c
<30	28	10	18	4.23 ± 1.84	3.50 ± 2.05	4.63 ± 1.62	0.119	0.32 (−0.04,0.57)	0.42 (−0.07,0.79)	0.689
30–40	96	44	52	4.50 ± 2.12	3.92 ± 1.63	4.99 ± 2.37	0.011	0.31 (−0.30,1.08)	0.51(−0.33,1.41)	0.619
40–50	217	73	144	4.06 ± 1.71	4.46 ± 1.76	3.86 ± 1.66	0.017	0.34 (−0.63,1.76)	−0.34 (−0.82,0.26)	<0.001
50–60	117	47	70	4.01 ± 1.91	4.63 ± 1.92	3.60 ± 1.81	0.004	0.36 (−0.90,1.54)	−0.39 (−0.87,0.40)	0.003
>60	76	40	36	4.41 ± 1.95	4.76 ± 2.24	4.02 ± 1.50	0.094	0.38 (−0.89,1.49)	−0.37 (−1.05,0.12)	0.053
P^b				0.231	0.121	<0.001		0.980	<0.001

P^a value represents the result of comparison with different sexes by LSD t test.

P^b value represents the result of comparison between different age groups with one way ANOVA test.

P^c value represents the results of the Mann-Whitney U test, indicating whether there is a difference in tumor size changes between different sexes and ages.

Figure 2. The growth changes of hepatic hemangioma in different age groups. The amount of change is expressed in cm/years, and the statistical description uses the median and inter-quartile range. A. Male patients. B. Female patients.

Figure 3. Distribution of hepatic hemangioma in 121 cases with ‘significant enlargement’. Significant enlargement was defined as an increase in size >1 cm during follow up with a final diameter >2 cm.