Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40185923›Full record

GuidelineEuropean radiology2025

ESR Essentials: assessing the radiological response of liver metastases to systemic therapy-practice recommendations by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology.

Marco Dioguardi Burgio, Maxime Ronot, Valérie Vilgrain

Abstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. MRI for restaging pancreatic cancer.Insights into imaging · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Heterogeneous treatment response in metastatic breast cancer: discordance between FDG-PET and CT classification.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Liver metastases beyond classical imaging findings.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marco Dioguardi BurgioUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, Centre de recherche sur l'inflammation, Paris, France. marco.dioguardiburgio@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3243-6699
Maxime RonotUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, Centre de recherche sur l'inflammation, Paris, France.
Valérie VilgrainUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, Centre de recherche sur l'inflammation, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The liver is a common site for metastatic spread, especially in advanced colorectal, breast, and pancreatic cancers. Imaging evaluation of liver metastases after systemic treatments like chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy is essential to distinguish treatment response from disease progression. The widely used response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST 1.1) focus on lesion size changes to evaluate treatment response. However, newer therapies, mainly targeted therapy and immunotherapy, often induce changes beyond size reduction, such as tumour necrosis, fibrosis, cystic transformation, calcifications, and modifications at the liver-tumour interface. These morphological and enhancement changes can be evaluated on CT and MRI and may better reflect the biological response in specific clinical settings. Overall, RECIST 1.1 criteria are recommended for assessing the radiological response of liver metastases after systemic treatment. The use of alternative radiological criteria validated on CT (such as Chun or Choi criteria) is recommended in specific clinical settings (e.g. metastatic colorectal cancer or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours). Additionally, CT and MR modifications that reflect fibrosis, necrosis, calcifications, and haemorrhage can serve as ancillary indicators of tumoural response. These alternative criteria and radiological findings should be systematically assessed, particularly in liver metastases with minimal size changes, to better identify responders. KEY POINTS: RECIST 1.1 is the standard for evaluating tumour response in solid tumours and is recommended for the assessment of liver metastases after systemic therapy. CT attenuation, enhancement, and liver/tumour interface may correlate better with tumoural response compared to size reduction. CT and MR changes suggesting necrosis, fibrosis, calcifications, and haemorrhage can be used as additional indicators of tumoural response.

Indexed as

Liver NeoplasmsEuropeHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsSocieties, MedicalTomography, X-Ray ComputedLiverMetastasisNeoadjuvant therapiesRECIST

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.