Skip to main content

Radiological Assessment and Follow-Up After Radiofrequency Ablation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Radiofrequency Ablation for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  • 731 Accesses

Abstract

Close and regular follow-up is recommended for patients following radiofrequency ablation (RFA) [1]. Baseline ultrasound (US) examinations should be performed within 24 h after ablation to exclude complications. Contrast-enhanced imaging can be performed within 24 h for early evaluation of therapeutic responses or possible complications (e.g., residual tumor tissue) [2]. During follow-up, the effectiveness of RFA should also be assessed by imaging 1 month after treatment to assess the inflammation surrounding the ablation zone. Appropriate imaging modalities could be contrast-enhanced US (ceUS), contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT), or contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (ceMRI). Liver function and serum α-fetoprotein (AFP) should also be measured in the first month after ablation. The combination of laboratory tests and imaging examinations can make definite assessments. Contrast-enhanced imaging should determine whether the tumor was entirely covered by the ablation zone, whether new HCC lesions have occurred, and whether any normal adjacent structures were affected during ablation. Tumors without enhancement in the ablation zone are considered completely ablated, and if any enhancement is observed, tumors should be considered incompletely ablated. A recurrent hepatic tumor can be classified as local tumor progress (LTP) or a distal intrahepatic recurrence. LTP is defined as a recurrent tumor that occurs inside or adjacent to the primary tumor volume following a complete ablation. Distal intrahepatic recurrences are defined as intrahepatic lesions that are separated from the ablation zone by more than 1 cm. Distant recurrences can include intrahepatic recurrences and extrahepatic metastases. RFA effectiveness should be assessed according to whether the technique was successfully implemented. Technical success is defined when the tumor was treated according to protocol and was completely covered by the ablation zone. Otherwise, the treatment is defined as a technical failure. Technique effectiveness refers to complete ablation of a macroscopic tumor at a prospectively defined time point (frequently 1 month post-treatment). For cases of complete ablation and no recurrence at 1 month post-treatment, follow-ups should include abdominal US, serum AFP, and liver function measurements. They should be performed every month for 3 months, then every 3 months until 2 years post-treatment. After 2 years post-treatment, follow-ups should be performed every 6 months. Contrast-enhanced imaging should be performed to confirm the diagnosis of suspicious lesions that are detected upon abdominal US or if serum AFP levels become elevated again. ceCT or ceMRI should be repeated every 6–12 months during follow-up [3].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Llovet JM, Bruix J. Novel advancements in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2008. J Hepatol. 2008;48 Suppl 1:S20–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gallotti A, D’onofrio M, Ruzzenente A, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) immediately after percutaneous ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiol Med. 2009;114:1094–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goldberg SN, Grassi CJ, Cardella JF, et al. Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria. Radiology. 2005;235:728–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim SK, Lim HK, Kim YH, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma treated with radiofrequency ablation: spectrum of imaging findings. Radiographics. 2003;23:107–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nielsen K, van Tilborg AA, Scheffer HJ, et al. PET-CT after radiofrequency ablation of colorectal liver metastases: suggestions for timing and image interpretation. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:2169–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim YS, Rhim H, Lim HK, et al. Coagulation necrosis induced by radiofrequency ablation in the liver: histopathologic and radiologic review of usual to extremely rare changes. Radiographics. 2011;31:377–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lim HK, Choi D, Lee WJ, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma treated with percutaneous radiofrequency ablation: evaluation with follow-up multiphase helical CT. Radiology. 2001;221:447–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dromain C, de Baere T, Elias D, et al. Hepatic tumors treated with percutaneous radio-frequency ablation: CT and MR imaging follow-up. Radiology. 2002;223:255–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Park Y, Choi D, Rhim H, et al. Central lower attenuating lesion in the ablation zone on immediate follow-up CT after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: incidence and clinical significance. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:391–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kierans AS, Elazzazi M, Braga L, et al. Thermoablative treatments for malignant liver lesions: 10-year experience of MRI appearances of treatment response. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:523–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sainani NI, Gervais DA, Mueller PR, et al. Imaging after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatic tumors: part 2, abnormal findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:194–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shah PA, Cunningham SC, Morgan TA, et al. Hepatic gas: widening spectrum of causes detected at CT and US in the interventional era. Radiographics. 2011;31:1403–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim KW, Lee JM, Klotz E, et al. Safety margin assessment after radiofrequency ablation of the liver using registration of preprocedure and postprocedure CT images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:W565–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Purandare NC, Rangarajan V, Shah SA, et al. Therapeutic response to radiofrequency ablation of neoplastic lesions: FDG PET/CT findings. Radiographics. 2011;31:201–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goto E, Tateishi R, Shiina S, et al. Hemorrhagic complications of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for liver tumors. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;44:374–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang IS, Rhim H, Kim SH, et al. Biloma formation after radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: incidence, imaging features, and clinical significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:1131–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Choi D, Lim HK, Kim MJ, et al. Liver abscess after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinomas: frequency and risk factors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1860–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ogawa T, Kawamoto H, Kobayashi Y, et al. Prevention of biliary complication in radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma-Cooling effect by endoscopic nasobiliary drainage tube. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73:385–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maeda T, Hong J, Konishi K, et al. Tumor ablation therapy of liver cancers with an open magnetic resonance imaging-based navigation system. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1048–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yu H, Jang HJ, Kim TK, et al. Pseudoenhancement within the local ablation zone of hepatic tumors due to a nonlinear artifact on contrast-enhanced ultrasound. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:653–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sparchez Z, Radu P, Anton O, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound in assessing therapeutic response in ablative treatments of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2009;18:243–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Eisele RM, Schumacher G, Lopez-Hänninen E, et al. Role of B-mode ultrasound screening in detection of local tumor recurrence in the first year after radiofrequency ablation in the liver. Cancer Detect Prev. 2007;31:316–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harvey CJ, Blomley MJ, Eckersley RJ, et al. Hepatic malignancies: improved detection with pulse-inversion US in late phase of enhancement with SH U 508A-early experience. Radiology. 2000;216:903–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Leen E, Averkiou M, Arditi M, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound assessment of the vascular effects of novel therapeutics in early stage trials. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1442–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bargellini I, Bozzi E, Campani D, et al. Modified RECIST to assess tumor response after transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: CT-pathologic correlation in 178 liver explants. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:e212–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ming Kuang MD, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kuang, M. (2016). Radiological Assessment and Follow-Up After Radiofrequency Ablation. In: Chen, M., Zhang, Y., Lau, W. (eds) Radiofrequency Ablation for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7258-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7258-7_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7257-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7258-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics