Response Assessment of Treated Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, including in India. The incidence of HCC has been rising due to lifestyle diseases such as obesity, diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD), as well as viral hepatitis infections. Various locoregional therapies (LRTs) are used to treat HCC, including thermal ablation, transarterial therapies, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and transarterial radioembolization (TARE). Traditional response evaluation criteria like WHO and RECIST, which rely on size-based measurements, may not accurately assess treatment response to LRTs. To address this limitation, modified response evaluation criteria for solid tumors (mRECIST) and the LI-RADS treatment response algorithm (LR-TRA) have been developed. mRECIST assesses patient-level response, while LR-TRA provides lesion-level response assessment specifically for HCC treated with LRTs. This article discusses the imaging protocols for diagnosing HCC and the imaging appearances of treated lesions after different LRTs. It explains the criteria for categorizing treatment response, such as LR-TR viable, LR-TR non-viable, and LR-TR equivocal. It also highlights the challenges and future directions in response assessment, including the incorporation of ancillary findings, the assessment of patients receiving a combination of locoregional and systemic therapies, and the potential use of biomarkers like serum AFP, AFP-L3, and PIVKA-II. In conclusion, locoregional therapies have expanded the treatment options for HCC, and accurate response assessment is crucial for optimizing patient management. mRECIST and LR-TRA provide valuable tools for evaluating treatment response, and future updates are expected to address specific challenges and incorporate newer approaches like iRECIST and quantitative imaging assessment. Additionally, the use of biomarkers may complement imaging-based response assessment in the future.

Keywords

HCC - LR-TRA - mRECIST - response

Publication History

Article published online:
26 July 2023

• References

• 1 Mondal D, Das K, Chowdhury A. Epidemiology of liver diseases in India. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken) 2022; 19 (03) 114-117
• 2 M Cunha G, Fowler KJ, Roudenko A. et al. How to use LI-RADS to report liver CT and MRI observations. Radiographics 2021; 41 (05) 1352-1367
• 3 Garcia-Monaco RD, Chung JW, Vilgrain V. et al. Summary of key guidelines for locoregional treatment of HCC in Asia, Europe, South and North America. Br J Radiol 2022; 95 (1138): 20220179
• 4 CT/MRI LI-RADS® v2018 CORE. American College of Radiology Committee on LI-RADS® (Liver). Accessed October 23, 2022 at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/LI-RADS/LI-RADS-2018-Core.pdf
• 5 Kampalath R, Tran-Harding K, Do RKG, Mendiratta-Lala M, Yaghmai V. Evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment response after locoregional therapy. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2021; 29 (03) 389-403
• 6 Miszczuk MA, Chapiro J, Geschwind JH. et al. Lipiodol as an imaging biomarker of tumor response after conventional transarterial chemoembolization: prospective clinical validation in patients with primary and secondary liver cancer. Transl Oncol 2020; 13 (03) 100742
• 7 Letzen BS, Malpani R, Miszczuk M. et al. Lipiodol as an intra-procedural imaging biomarker for liver tumor response to transarterial chemoembolization: post-hoc analysis of a prospective clinical trial. Clin Imaging 2021; 78: 194-200
• 8 Gerena M, Molvar C, Masciocchi M. et al. LI-RADS treatment response assessment of combination locoregional therapy for HCC. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46 (08) 3634-3647
• 9 Lo EC, N Rucker A, Federle MP. Hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: imaging for diagnosis, tumor response to treatment and liver response to radiation. Semin Radiat Oncol 2018; 28 (04) 267-276
• 10 Kielar A, Fowler KJ, Lewis S. et al. Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma and the new LI-RADS treatment response algorithm. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018; 43 (01) 218-230
• 11 Patella F, Pesapane F, Fumarola E. et al. Assessment of the response of hepatocellular carcinoma to interventional radiology treatments. Future Oncol 2019; 15 (15) 1791-1804
• 12 Ram R, Kampalath R, Shenoy-Bhangle AS, Arora S, Kielar AZ, Mendiratta-Lala M. LI-RADS treatment response lexicon: review, refresh and resolve with emerging data. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46 (08) 3549-3557
• 13 Parikh ND, Cuneo K, Mendiratta-Lala M. Radiation Therapies for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken) 2021; 17 (05) 341-346
• 14 Bae JS, Lee JM, Yoon JH. et al. Evaluation of LI-RADS version 2018 treatment response algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma in liver transplant candidates: Intraindividual comparison between CT and hepatobiliary agent-enhanced MRI. Radiology 2021; 299 (02) 336-345
• 15 Bashir MR, Mendiratta-Lala M. CT versus MRI in treatment response assessment with LI-RADS: The choice is unclear. Radiology 2021; 299 (02) 346-348
• 16 Park H, Park JY. Clinical significance of AFP and PIVKA-II responses for monitoring treatment outcomes and predicting prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. BioMed Res Int 2013; 2013: 310427
• 17 Chen VL, Sharma P. Role of biomarkers and biopsy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Liver Dis 2020; 24 (04) 577-590
• 18 Sagar VM, Herring K, Curbishley S. et al. The potential of PIVKA-II as a treatment response biomarker in hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective United Kingdom cohort study. Oncotarget 2021; 12 (24) 2338-2350