Hepatocellular carcinoma Liver Imaging Reporting and Data Systems treatment response assessment: Lessons learned and future directions

Hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC)is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide,with rising clinical and economic burden as incidence increases.There are a multitude of evolving treatment options,including locoregional therapies which can be used alone,in combination with each other,or in combination with systemic therapy.These treatment options have shown to be effective in achieving remission,controlling tumor progression,improving disease free and overall survival in patients who cannot undergo resection and providing a bridge to transplant by debulking tumor burden to downstage patients.Following locoregional therapy(LRT),it is crucial to provide treatment response assessment to guide management and liver transplant candidacy.Therefore,Liver Imaging Reporting and Data Systems(LI-RADS)Treatment Response Algorithm(TRA)was created to provide a standardized assessment of HCC following LRT.LIRADS TRA provides a step by step approach to evaluate each lesion independently for accurate tumor assessment.In this review,we provide an overview of different locoregional therapies for HCC,describe the expected post treatment imaging appearance following treatment,and review the LI-RADS TRA with guidance for its application in clinical practice.Unique to other publications,we will also review emerging literature supporting the use of LI-RADS for assessment of HCC treatment response after LRT.

Practice patterns and outcomes of equivocal bone scans for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer: Results from SEARCH

Objective:To review follow-up imaging after equivocal bone scans in men with castration resistant prostate cancer(CRPC)and examine the characteristics of equivocal bone scans that are associated with positive follow-up imaging.Methods:We identified 639 men from five Veterans Affairs Hospitals with a technetium-99m bone scan after CRPC diagnosis,of whom 99(15%)had equivocal scans.Men with equivocal scans were segregated into“high-risk”and“low-risk”subcategories based upon wording in the bone scan report.All follow-up imaging(bone scans,computed tomography[CT],magnetic resonance imaging[MRI],and X-rays)in the 3 months after the equivocal scan were reviewed.Variables were compared between patients with a positive vs.negative follow-up imaging after an equivocal bone scan.Results:Of 99 men with an equivocal bone scan,43(43%)received at least one follow-up imaging test,including 32/82(39%)with low-risk scans and 11/17(65%)with high-risk scans(p=0.052).Of follow-up tests,67%were negative,14%were equivocal,and 19%were positive.Among those who underwent follow-up imaging,3/32(9%)low-risk men had metastases vs.5/11(45%)high-risk men(p=0.015).Conclusion:While 19%of all men who received follow-up imaging had positive follow-up imaging,only 9%of those with a low-risk equivocal bone scan had metastases versus 45%of those with high-risk.These preliminary findings,if confirmed in larger studies,suggest follow-up imaging tests for low-risk equivocal scans can be delayed while high-risk equivocal scans should receive follow-up imaging.