ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Evaluation of the LI-RADS radiation treatment response assessment v2024 in comparison with the modified RECIST.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Evaluation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Radioembolization.Investigative radiology · 2026Trial
- The value ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of MRI-Based Treatment Response Assessment Criteria in Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: A Comparative Analysis of mRECIST, LI-RADS TRA Version 2017, and LI-RADS Radiation TRA Version 2024.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- LI-RADS TRA v2024 succeeds where RECIST and mRECIST fail: viability-based survival prediction in TACE-treated hepatocellular carcinoma.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Role of MRI in Imaging Assessment of Radiation-Based Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesConventional radiologic response criteria inadequately address imaging features and delayed responses after radiation-based therapies, limiting clinical decisions. This study evaluated treatment response to radiation-based locoregional therapies using modified RECIST (mRECIST), LI-RADS treatment response algorithm (LR-TRA) v2017, and radiation LR-TRA v2024, assessed changes in response categories during follow-up, and evaluated their association with overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center retrospective study included consecutive patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial radioembolization or external beam radiation therapy between 2011 and 2023. Two abdominal radiologists independently assessed the first radiologic response 3 months post-treatment using the mRECIST, LR-TRA v2017, and radiation LR-TRA v2024. The changes in the mRECIST and LR-TR categories during follow-up were evaluated. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the association between response categories and OS.
resultsA total of 115 patients were included (66.6 ± 12.9 years; 73.9% [85/115] men). Complete response (CR), partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease (PD) based on the mRECIST were 36.5% (44/115), 26.1% (30/115), 17.4% (20/115), and 20% (26/115), respectively. In LR-TRA v2017, the nonviable, equivocal, and viable rates were 48.7% (56/115), 13% (15/115), and 38.3% (44/115), respectively. In LR-TRA v2024, the nonviable, nonprogressing, and viable rates were 47% (54/115), 51.3% (59/115), and 1.7% (2/115), respectively. During follow-up, the proportion of LR-TR nonprogressing decreased, while that of LR-TR nonviable increased over time. Achieving nonviable disease during follow-up was strongly associated with improved OS (p < 0.001).
conclusionRadiation LR-TRA v2024 effectively reflected a typical delayed response pattern after radiation-based therapy. KEY POINTS: Question Conventional radiologic response criteria do not fully address the imaging features and delayed response pattern after radiation-based therapies, limiting clinical decision making. Findings The new LI-RADS radiation treatment response assessment v2024 (LR-TRA v2024) effectively reflects unique post-treatment imaging features and delayed response to radiation-based treatment, facilitating management and communication. Clinical relevance The new radiation LR-TRA v2024 captured the evolving nature of post-radiation imaging features by incorporating the concept of temporal change and LR-TR nonprogressing disease to allow for a watch-and-wait protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40471267What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.