Magnetic resonance imaging after hepatocellular carcinoma stereotactic body radiation therapy requires serial assessment

After stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, magnetic resonance response evolved over months, making early enhancement alone unreliable.

KEY POINTS

  • This PRISMA-ScR scoping review searched PubMed, Embase, and references for studies published from January 2012 to February 2025; 8 studies met inclusion criteria.
  • Eligible studies included adults with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with stereotactic, image-guided, highly conformal external-beam radiation therapy delivered in limited fractions with ablative intent.
  • Post-treatment magnetic resonance imaging showed delayed evolution rather than immediate regression. In one cohort, non-progressing lesions transitioned to delayed enhancement in 71.9% and complete non-enhancement in 20.8%, typically stabilizing after 6–9 months.
  • Early enhancement was a major pitfall: one responder series reported central arterial phase hyperenhancement in 40% and washout in 90% within the first year, despite response criteria and size reduction in 90%.
  • Focal liver reaction was frequent and included ring-like or perilesional enhancement, T2 hyperintensity, hepatobiliary-phase hypointensity, capsular retraction, and dose-related parenchymal changes; no treatment-toxicity endpoint was assessed in this imaging-focused review.

CLINICAL TAKEAWAY

Response assessment after stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma should be serial and multiparametric, not based on early arterial enhancement alone. Stable or regressing geographic/rim-like changes favor focal liver reaction, whereas new or increasing nodular or mass-like enhancement with washout, growth, rising T2 or diffusion-weighted signal, or absent apparent diffusion coefficient increase should raise concern. This is a useful review-level synthesis of a small, heterogeneous, mostly retrospective evidence base, so it supports cautious interpretation rather than a new response standard.

SOURCE

Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology