Abstract
BACKGROUND
Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is a widely accepted palliative therapy modality for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although it is rarely curative, complete radiological response can be achieved in selected patients, leading to prolonged survival. Post-treatment tumoral calcification is an uncommon imaging finding in HCC and is rarely reported after drug-eluting beads TACE (DEB-TACE).
CASE SUMMARY
Two patients with large, solitary HCCs (> 5 cm) were treated with DEB-TACE, and both achieved complete radiological response after two treatment sessions. Approximately 1 year after DEB-TACE, imaging demonstrated progressive peripheral tumoral calcification. Over 6 years of follow-up, both patients remained in remission with preserved liver function.
CONCLUSION
These two cases highlight the potential for complete remission and long-term survival in selected patients with large HCC following DEB-TACE. The appearance of peripheral calcification may represent a late imaging marker of effective tumor necrosis and durable treatment response although prospective studies are warranted to clarify its prognostic value.
Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma, Transarterial chemoembolization, Drug-eluting beads chemoembolization, Complete response, Remission, Tumoral calcification, Case report
Core Tip: Tumoral calcification following transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma is a rare imaging finding, and its clinical significance remains unclear. This case report describes 2 patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma who developed complete radiological response after drug-eluting beads TACE, followed by progressive peripheral calcification and sustained disease-free survival for 6 years. The notable association between post-TACE calcification and long-term remission raises the possibility that calcification may serve as a late imaging biomarker of effective tumor necrosis and durable treatment response.
INTRODUCTION
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most prevalent solid tumors and the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide[1-4]. Surgical resection, liver transplantation, and image-guided ablation remain the only widely accepted potentially curative options[5-8]. However, the majority of patients present at advanced stages or with impaired hepatic reserve, making them ineligible for these treatments[9-11].
For such patients transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial radioembolization, and systemic therapies are recommended, providing palliative benefit and improved survival[12,13]. Among these TACE is the most frequently employed locoregional therapy for unresectable HCC[14,15]. Its safety and efficacy have been validated in multiple randomized controlled trials, and it is endorsed by major clinical guidelines as the standard first-line treatment for intermediate-stage disease[15-17]. In routine practice, however, TACE is applied across the entire disease spectrum, from very early to advanced stages[18-20]. Outcomes remain heterogeneous, largely influenced by tumor burden, liver function, and procedural technique with reported median survivals ranging from 13 to 43 months[20-22].
The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system is the most widely adopted framework for guiding HCC management, integrating tumor burden, liver function, and performance status into evidence-based treatment recommendations and prognostic prediction[6]. Within this system TACE is designated as the standard first-line therapy for intermediate-stage disease, characterized by asymptomatic patients with large or multifocal tumors and preserved liver function without macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread[12]. The updated BCLC system also incorporates the concept of treatment stage migration, allowing TACE in selected early-stage patients unsuitable for resection or ablation as well as its use as a bridging or downstaging strategy to liver transplantation. Consequently, in real-world practice a considerable proportion of TACE procedures are performed beyond the intermediate stage, reflecting the adaptability of the BCLC framework to diverse clinical scenarios[12,23].
Post-treatment tumoral calcification is a rare phenomenon that has been reported following HCC locoregional therapies. It has been described after radioembolization and very rarely after TACE. In conventional TACE, however, the detection of calcification is often obscured by lipiodol deposition[24-27]. To my knowledge progressive calcification following drug-eluting beads TACE (DEB-TACE), particularly in association with durable remission, has not been previously reported. Herein, I report 2 patients with large solitary HCCs who underwent DEB-TACE, achieved complete response (CR), and subsequently developed progressive peripheral calcification with sustained remission over 6 years.
CASE PRESENTATION
Chief complaints
Case 1: A 74-year-old male presented with a liver mass evident on abdominal computed tomography (CT).
Case 2: A 71-year-old male patient presented with a liver mass evident on abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
History of present illness
Case 1 and Case 2 were asymptomatic and both underwent imaging as screening of high risk of HCC in patient liver cirrhosis.
History of past illness
Case 1: The patient had a known case of liver cirrhosis secondary to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.
Case 2: The patient had a known case of liver cirrhosis secondary to hepatitis C virus.
Personal and family history
Case 1 and Case 2 were unremarkable.
Physical examination
General and abdominal examinations were unremarkable for both cases.
Laboratory examinations
Case 1: Liver function test results, complete blood count, and coagulation profile were all within normal limits apart from a low count of platelets (70/µL). Seum alpha fetoprotein was within normal limits.
Case 2: Complete blood count, coagulation profile, and liver function test results were all within normal limits. Seum alpha fetoprotein was elevated (420 ng/mL).
Imaging examinations
Case 1: The patient underwent CT with intravenous contrast. It showed a 6.5 cm segment 8 hepatic mass. The mass showed well defined delineate intense arterial phase enhancement with subsequent washout in the portal venous and delayed phases within the peripheral capsule. Findings revealed a liver imaging and report and data system (LI-RADS) category 5 lesion (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Baseline computed tomography of the abdomen. A: Arterial phase computed tomography (CT) showed a large, well-defined hypervascular hepatic mass; B: Delayed phase CT demonstrated washout of the mass with an enhancing peripheral rim (tumor capsule).
Case 2: The patient underwent abdominal MRI. It showed a 6 cm segment 7 hepatic mass. It showed intense arterial phase enhancement with subsequent washout in the portal venous and delayed phases. Findings revealed an LI-RADS category 5 lesion (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Baseline magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen. A: Arterial phase T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging showed a large, well-defined, arterially enhancing hepatic mass; B: Delayed phase T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated washout of the lesion.
FINAL DIAGNOSIS
Case 1
A case of large solitary HCC with preserved liver function and no vascular invasion or extrahepatic metastasis (early stage).
Case 2
A case of large solitary HCC with preserved liver function and no vascular invasion or extrahepatic metastasis (early stage).
TREATMENT
Case 1
TACE, as a bridging and downstaging therapy prior to liver transplantation, was recommended after discussion with the HCC tumor board. The first session of DEB-TACE was performed using 150 mg doxorubicin loaded into two vials of 100-300 µm drug-eluting microspheres (DC Bead). Due to a partial response (PR), a second DEB-TACE session was performed using 75 mg doxorubicin loaded into one vial of 100-300 µm drug-eluting microspheres (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Digital subtraction angiography images during the first drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization session in Case 1. A: Right hepatic artery non-selective angiogram; B: Selective hepatic angiogram showed a hypervascular mass; C: Superselective angiogram demonstrated complete stasis of the vascular supply of the tumor after embolization.
Case 2
After discussion with the HCC tumor board, TACE was recommended as a bridging and downstaging therapy prior to liver transplantation. The first session of DEB-TACE was performed using 150 mg doxorubicin loaded into two vials of 100-300 µm drug-eluting microspheres (DC Bead). Due to a PR, a second DEB-TACE session was performed using 75 mg doxorubicin loaded into one vial of 100-300 µm drug-eluting microspheres (Figure 4).
Figure 4.
Digital subtraction angiography images during the first drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization session in Case 2. A: Celiac angiogram showed a large hypervascular hepatic mass; B: Right hepatic lobar angiogram showed tumor supply by multiple right hepatic artery branches; C: Post-embolization angiogram demonstrated complete stasis of tumor supply.
OUTCOME AND FOLLOW-UP
Case 1
The first follow-up CT after 6 weeks of TACE revealed PR (Figure 5). The second follow-up CT after the second session revealed CR (Figure 6). The 1-year follow-up CT demonstrated CR with peripheral faint hyperdensities, suggesting early calcification (Figure 7). The patient was deemed ineligible for liver transplantation due to advanced age. He was actively monitored with clinical, laboratory, and imaging examinations. The 6-year follow-up CT demonstrated sustained CR with progressive peripheral hyperdensities encircling the tumor, consistent with concentric calcifications (Figure 8).
Figure 5.
Six-week follow-up computed tomography of the abdomen after the first drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in Case 1. A: Arterial phase computed tomography (CT) showed a residual hypervascular nodule at the periphery of the non-enhancing treated mass, indicating partial response; B: Delayed phase CT confirmed washout of the residual soft tissue nodule.
Figure 6.
Four-week follow-up computed tomography of the abdomen after the second drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in Case 1. A: Arterial phase computed tomography (CT) showed a non-enhancing mass, consistent with complete response; B: Portal venous phase CT demonstrated normal hepatic parenchymal enhancement with a necrotic treated mass.
Figure 7.
One-year follow-up computed tomography of the abdomen after the second drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in Case 1. A: Pre-contrast computed tomography (CT) demonstrated faint linear peripheral calcification of the treated hepatic mass; B: Arterial phase CT showed a non-enhancing mass, consistent with complete response.
Figure 8.
Six-year follow-up computed tomography of the abdomen after the second drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in Case 1. A: Pre-contrast computed tomography (CT) demonstrated progressive peripheral concentric calcification encircling the treated hepatic mass; B: Arterial phase CT showed a non-enhancing mass, consistent with sustained complete response.
Case 2
The first follow-up MRI, performed 8 weeks after TACE, demonstrated PR (Figure 9). The subsequent CT after the second TACE session revealed CR (Figure 10). The 1-year follow-up CT demonstrated CR with peripheral faint hyperdensities, consistent with early calcification (Figure 11). The patient declined liver transplantation as the tumor had achieved CR. He was enrolled in routine clinical, laboratory, and imaging follow-up. The 6-year follow-up CT demonstrated sustained CR with progressive peripheral concentric calcifications (Figure 12). Serum alpha-fetoprotein normalized after the second TACE session and remained within normal limits.
Figure 9.
Eight-week follow-up magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen after the first drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in Case 2. A: Arterial phase magnetic resonance imaging showed a residual hypervascular nodule at the periphery of the treated mass, indicating partial response; B: Delayed phase magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated washout of the residual soft tissue nodule.
Figure 10.
Six-week follow-up computed tomography of the abdomen after the second drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in Case 2. A: Arterial phase computed tomography (CT) showed a non-enhancing treated mass, consistent with complete response; B: Portal venous phase CT demonstrated normal hepatic parenchymal enhancement with a necrotic treated mass.
Figure 11.
One-year follow-up computed tomography of the abdomen after the second drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in Case 2. A: Pre-contrast computed tomography (CT) demonstrated faint linear peripheral calcification of the treated hepatic mass; B: Arterial phase CT showed a non-enhancing mass, consistent with complete response.
Figure 12.
Six-year follow-up computed tomography of the abdomen after the second drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in Case 2. A: Pre-contrast computed tomography (CT) demonstrated dense, progressive peripheral concentric calcification surrounding the treated hepatic mass; B: Arterial phase CT showed a non-enhancing mass, consistent with sustained complete response.
DISCUSSION
Although traditionally considered a palliative option, TACE can achieve curative intent in carefully selected patients. A prospective cohort demonstrated durable management of early-stage HCC using super-selective TACE[28], and several retrospective series have reported overall survival comparable with radiofrequency ablation in patients within the Milan criteria when ablation or surgery is contraindicated[29,30].
The optimal therapeutic objective of TACE is complete tumor necrosis[31,32]. Radiological CR, which is the strongest predictor of long-term survival[33,34], can even predict outcomes following subsequent curative treatments, such as transplantation when TACE is used as a bridge therapy[35]. Imaging characteristics of HCC can predict the likelihood of response: Well-circumscribed capsulated hypervascular HCCs ≤ 5 cm supplied by a dominant arterial feeder respond best, whereas ill-defined, infiltrative, hypovascular tumors > 5 cm seldom demonstrate CR[36,37].
Assessment of HCC treatment response using response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (RECIST) based on tumor shrinkage often underestimate response in HCC as they disregard tumor necrosis[31,32]. The modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria based on contrast-enhanced CT or MRI to measure viable, enhancing tumor tissue are now the most widely accepted method and are endorsed by international guidelines[18,31]. The response is categorized as CR defined by the disappearance of all enhancing lesions or PR defined as at least a 30% reduction in enhancing tumor diameter[38]. Multiple studies show that objective response by mRECIST, particularly CR, is strongly associated with improved overall survival, making it a reliable prognostic factor and validated endpoint in HCC trials[34,35].
The prognosis, however, depends not only on controlling the tumor burden but also on preserving underlying liver function. Achieving high objective response rates and minimizing collateral hepatic injury are equally important for improving survival and maintaining quality of life[39-42]. Super-selective DEB-TACE fulfils both aims by delivering higher intratumoral drug concentration, enhancing better local control, and reducing systemic toxicity and non-target embolization of the healthy liver[43,44].
Post-treatment tumor calcification has been described in several malignancies, including colorectal liver metastases and ovarian cancers in which it often reflects dystrophic calcification of necrotic tissue and has been associated with favorable prognosis[45].
In HCC calcification following locoregional therapy is exceedingly rare. Calcification after transarterial radioembolization has been reported and was associated with better prognosis, suggesting its potential role as an early surrogate marker of CR[26]. Conversely, only a single case report has described dystrophic calcification after DEB-TACE, likely related to treatment-induced tissue injury[25]. In my cases DEB-TACE likely induced extensive coagulative necrosis leading to peripheral calcification that was unmasked by the absence of lipiodol.
Although the exact pathogenesis remains uncertain, tumoral calcification after TACE is generally considered a manifestation of dystrophic calcification within necrotic tissue rather than a process specific to DEB-TACE. Necrotic cells release phosphate ions that combine with calcium salts in an alkaline environment, and in the absence of normal blood supply and cellular inhibitory mechanisms, these salts precipitate and deposit. This mechanism explains the peripheral sickle-like or ring-like calcification pattern observed that may serve as a surrogate marker of effective therapy as demonstrated in my cases[25,46,47].
The association between calcification and long-term remission in my cases suggests that calcification may represent a late imaging marker of effective tumor necrosis. However, both patients had already achieved CR based on mRECIST prior to the appearance of calcification, and CR remains the most reliable predictor of outcome[33,34]. Thus, calcification should be considered a hypothesis-generating observation rather than a validated biomarker, underscoring the need for prospective studies to clarify whether it has independent prognostic significance.
This report has some limitations. It describes only 2 highly selected patients with favorable prognostic features, limiting its generalizability. As a case report it cannot establish causality between calcification and outcome. Nevertheless, the rarity of calcification after DEB-TACE and the unusually long survival observed in my patients make these cases valuable for raising awareness of this potential imaging marker.
CONCLUSION
While TACE is generally regarded as a palliative option, my cases demonstrated that with appropriate patient selection and technique CR and durable remission are achievable even in large HCCs. The appearance of peripheral tumoral calcification following DEB-TACE may represent a late imaging marker of effective tumor necrosis and durable disease control although this observation remains hypothesis-generating and requires validation in larger cohorts. These findings suggest that calcification after DEB-TACE could serve as a potential imaging biomarker of treatment success. Further prospective studies are warranted to clarify its prognostic value and validate its clinical significance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks the interventional radiology nursing and technologist team at King Saud University Medical City for their assistance during patient procedures and follow-up care.
Footnotes
Informed consent statement: Informed written consent was obtained from the patients for publication of this report and any accompanying images.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest to disclosure.
CARE Checklist (2016) statement: The author has read the CARE Checklist (2016) and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to CARE Checklist (2016).
Provenance and peer review: Unsolicited article; Externally peer reviewed.
Peer-review model: Single blind
Specialty type: Oncology
Country of origin: Saudi Arabia
Peer-review report’s classification
Scientific Quality: Grade B, Grade C, Grade C
Novelty: Grade B, Grade B, Grade B
Creativity or Innovation: Grade B, Grade B, Grade B
Scientific Significance: Grade A, Grade B, Grade C
P-Reviewer: Cui P, PhD, Senior Scientist, China; Jia KF, PhD, China; Li DH, MD, Chief Physician, Professor, China S-Editor: Qu XL L-Editor: Filipodia P-Editor: Wang WB
References
- 1.Chen Z, Xie H, Hu M, Huang T, Hu Y, Sang N, Zhao Y. Recent progress in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Cancer Res. 2020;10:2993–3036. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Villanueva A. Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1450–1462. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1713263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Dimitroulis D, Damaskos C, Valsami S, Davakis S, Garmpis N, Spartalis E, Athanasiou A, Moris D, Sakellariou S, Kykalos S, Tsourouflis G, Garmpi A, Delladetsima I, Kontzoglou K, Kouraklis G. From diagnosis to treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: An epidemic problem for both developed and developing world. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:5282–5294. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i29.5282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hatanaka T, Yata Y, Naganuma A, Kakizaki S. Treatment Strategy for Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Transarterial Chemoembolization, Systemic Therapy, and Conversion Therapy. Cancers (Basel) 2023;15:1798. doi: 10.3390/cancers15061798. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS, Sirlin CB, Abecassis MM, Roberts LR, Zhu AX, Murad MH, Marrero JA. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2018;67:358–380. doi: 10.1002/hep.29086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018;69:182–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Agnello F, Salvaggio G, Cabibbo G, Maida M, Lagalla R, Midiri M, Brancatelli G. Imaging appearance of treated hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Hepatol. 2013;5:417–424. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v5.i8.417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Yacoub JH, Hsu CC, Fishbein TM, Mauro D, Moon A, He AR, Bashir MR, Burke LMB. Therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: overview, clinical indications, and comparative outcome evaluation-part one: curative intention. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021;46:3528–3539. doi: 10.1007/s00261-021-03069-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Sun Z, Shi Z, Xin Y, Zhao S, Jiang H, Li J, Li J, Jiang H. Contrast-Enhanced CT Imaging Features Combined with Clinical Factors to Predict the Efficacy and Prognosis for Transarterial Chemoembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Acad Radiol. 2023;30 Suppl 1:S81–S91. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2022.12.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, Zhu AX, Finn RS, Abecassis MM, Roberts LR, Heimbach JK. Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;68:723–750. doi: 10.1002/hep.29913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Park Y, Kim BK, Park JY, Kim DY, Ahn SH, Han KH, Yeon JE, Byun KS, Kim HS, Kim JH, Kim SU. Feasibility of dynamic risk assessment for patients with repeated trans-arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:363. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5495-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Zhong BY, Jin ZC, Chen JJ, Zhu HD, Zhu XL. Role of Transarterial Chemoembolization in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Clin Transl Hepatol. 2023;11:480–489. doi: 10.14218/JCTH.2022.00293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Yacoub JH, Mauro D, Moon A, He AR, Bashir MR, Hsu CC, Fishbein TM, Burke LMB. Therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: overview, clinical indications, and comparative outcome evaluation. Part two: noncurative intention. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021;46:3540–3548. doi: 10.1007/s00261-021-03074-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Alan AM, Alan O, Asadov R, Demirtas CO, Kani HT, Yumuk PF, Ozdogan OC, Baltacioglu F, Gunduz F. Evaluation of the effectiveness of drug-eluting transarterial chemoebolization in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Forum. 2023;4:53–60. doi: 10.14744/hf.2022.2022.0048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chang Y, Jeong SW, Young Jang J, Jae Kim Y. Recent Updates of Transarterial Chemoembolilzation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:8165. doi: 10.3390/ijms21218165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Liu YS, Lin CY, Chuang MT, Lin CY, Tsai YS, Wang CK, Ou MC. Five-year outcome of conventional and drug-eluting transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018;18:124. doi: 10.1186/s12876-018-0848-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Wang ZX, Wang EX, Bai W, Xia DD, Mu W, Li J, Yang QY, Huang M, Xu GH, Sun JH, Li HL, Zhao H, Wu JB, Yang SF, Li JP, Li ZX, Zhang CQ, Zhu XL, Zheng YB, Wang QH, Li J, Yuan J, Li XM, Niu J, Yin ZX, Xia JL, Fan DM, Han GH On Behalf Of China Hcc-Tace Study Group. Validation and evaluation of clinical prediction systems for first and repeated transarterial chemoembolization in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A Chinese multicenter retrospective study. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26:657–669. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i6.657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Omata M, Lesmana LA, Tateishi R, Chen PJ, Lin SM, Yoshida H, Kudo M, Lee JM, Choi BI, Poon RT, Shiina S, Cheng AL, Jia JD, Obi S, Han KH, Jafri W, Chow P, Lim SG, Chawla YK, Budihusodo U, Gani RA, Lesmana CR, Putranto TA, Liaw YF, Sarin SK. Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver consensus recommendations on hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int. 2010;4:439–474. doi: 10.1007/s12072-010-9165-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sangiovanni A, Colombo M. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: beyond international guidelines. Liver Int. 2016;36 Suppl 1:124–129. doi: 10.1111/liv.13028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wang S, Zhang X, Chen Q, Jin ZC, Lu J, Guo J. A Novel Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Sarcopenia Based TACE-Predict Model of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2023;10:659–671. doi: 10.2147/JHC.S407646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Park JW, Chen M, Colombo M, Roberts LR, Schwartz M, Chen PJ, Kudo M, Johnson P, Wagner S, Orsini LS, Sherman M. Global patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma management from diagnosis to death: the BRIDGE Study. Liver Int. 2015;35:2155–2166. doi: 10.1111/liv.12818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bolondi L, Burroughs A, Dufour JF, Galle PR, Mazzaferro V, Piscaglia F, Raoul JL, Sangro B. Heterogeneity of patients with intermediate (BCLC B) Hepatocellular Carcinoma: proposal for a subclassification to facilitate treatment decisions. Semin Liver Dis. 2012;32:348–359. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1329906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Reig M, Forner A, Rimola J, Ferrer-Fàbrega J, Burrel M, Garcia-Criado Á, Kelley RK, Galle PR, Mazzaferro V, Salem R, Sangro B, Singal AG, Vogel A, Fuster J, Ayuso C, Bruix J. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update. J Hepatol. 2022;76:681–693. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Patnana M, Menias CO, Pickhardt PJ, Elshikh M, Javadi S, Gaballah A, Shaaban AM, Korivi BR, Garg N, Elsayes KM. Liver Calcifications and Calcified Liver Masses: Pattern Recognition Approach on CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211:76–86. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.19704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Kumar V, Shah M, Gala D, Singh MK, Jeanty H, Thomas R, Forlemu AN, Gayam VR, Etienne D. Hepatic Dystrophic Calcification Secondary to Transarterial Chemoembolization: Case Report and Review of Literature. Cureus. 2023;15:e35765. doi: 10.7759/cureus.35765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kim HC, Joo I, Lee M, Kim YJ, Paeng JC, Chung JW. Radioembolization-induced Tumor Calcifications as a Surrogate Marker of Tumor Response in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2020;40:4191–4198. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.14419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Dioguardi Burgio M, Sartoris R, Libotean C, Zappa M, Sibert A, Vilgrain V, Ronot M. Lipiodol retention pattern after TACE for HCC is a predictor for local progression in lesions with complete response. Cancer Imaging. 2019;19:75. doi: 10.1186/s40644-019-0260-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Zane KE, Nagib PB, Jalil S, Mumtaz K, Makary MS. Emerging curative-intent minimally-invasive therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Hepatol. 2022;14:885–895. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v14.i5.885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lee M, Shin HP. Efficacy of Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) for Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Medicina (Kaunas) 2023;59:2174. doi: 10.3390/medicina59122174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Hashem E, Sait S, Thomas DN, Watson C, Moeen S, Peddu P. Transarterial chemoembolisation for very early and early stage hepatocellular carcinoma: single-centre experience. Clin Radiol. 2023;78:e113–e122. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2022.09.120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Nicolini D, Agostini A, Montalti R, Mocchegiani F, Mincarelli C, Mandolesi A, Robertson NL, Candelari R, Giovagnoni A, Vivarelli M. Radiological response and inflammation scores predict tumour recurrence in patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization before liver transplantation. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:3690–3701. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i20.3690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Müller L, Stoehr F, Mähringer-Kunz A, Hahn F, Weinmann A, Kloeckner R. Current Strategies to Identify Patients That Will Benefit from TACE Treatment and Future Directions a Practical Step-by-Step Guide. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2021;8:403–419. doi: 10.2147/JHC.S285735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Yun BY, Lee HW, Min IK, Kim SU, Park JY, Kim DY, Ahn SH, Kim BK. Prognosis of Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison between Trans-Arterial Chemoembolization and Radiofrequency Ablation. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:2527. doi: 10.3390/cancers12092527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Kim BK, Kim SU, Kim KA, Chung YE, Kim MJ, Park MS, Park JY, Kim DY, Ahn SH, Kim MD, Park SI, Won JY, Lee DY, Han KH. Complete response at first chemoembolization is still the most robust predictor for favorable outcome in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2015;62:1304–1310. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.01.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lei J, Zhong J, Luo Y, Yan L, Zhu J, Wang W, Li B, Wen T, Yang J Liver Surgery Group. Response to transarterial chemoembolization may serve as selection criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma liver transplantation. Oncotarget. 2017;8:91328–91342. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.20511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Zhang W, Xu AH, Wang W, Wu YH, Sun QL, Shu C. Radiological appearance of hepatocellular carcinoma predicts the response to trans-arterial chemoembolization in patients undergoing liver transplantation. BMC Cancer. 2019;19:1041. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-6265-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Alharbi SR. Sultan's Score: A Novel Predictive Score to Predict Complete Response Following Drug-Eluting Bead Chemoembolization. Cureus. 2025;17:e76822. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kim DJ, Clark PJ, Heimbach J, Rosen C, Sanchez W, Watt K, Charlton MR. Recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma: importance of mRECIST response to chemoembolization and tumor size. Am J Transplant. 2014;14:1383–1390. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.An H, Bhatia I, Cao F, Huang Z, Xie C. CT texture analysis in predicting treatment response and survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial chemoembolization using random forest models. BMC Cancer. 2023;23:201. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-10620-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.D'Avola D, Granito A, Torre-Aláez M, Piscaglia F. The importance of liver functional reserve in the non-surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2022;76:1185–1198. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Yin C, Armstrong S, Shin R, Geng X, Wang H, Satoskar RS, Fishbein T, Smith C, Banovac F, Kim AY, He AR. Bridging and downstaging with TACE in early and intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma: Predictors of receiving a liver transplant. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2023;7:295–305. doi: 10.1002/ags3.12622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Wang T, Du YN, Sun J, Song H, Jiang Y, Liu F, Lv X. Drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization could improve the hepatic hemodynamics of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2023;14:302–311. doi: 10.21037/jgo-23-76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Kudo M, Han KH, Ye SL, Zhou J, Huang YH, Lin SM, Wang CK, Ikeda M, Chan SL, Choo SP, Miyayama S, Cheng AL. A Changing Paradigm for the Treatment of Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Asia-Pacific Primary Liver Cancer Expert Consensus Statements. Liver Cancer. 2020;9:245–260. doi: 10.1159/000507370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Omata M, Cheng AL, Kokudo N, Kudo M, Lee JM, Jia J, Tateishi R, Han KH, Chawla YK, Shiina S, Jafri W, Payawal DA, Ohki T, Ogasawara S, Chen PJ, Lesmana CRA, Lesmana LA, Gani RA, Obi S, Dokmeci AK, Sarin SK. Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int. 2017;11:317–370. doi: 10.1007/s12072-017-9799-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Zhou Y, Zhang J, Dan Pu, Bi F, Chen Y, Liu J, Li Q, Gou H, Wu B, Qiu M. Tumor calcification as a prognostic factor in cetuximab plus chemotherapy-treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 2019;30:195–200. doi: 10.1097/CAD.0000000000000726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Zimmermann A. Secondary Alterations of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. In: Tumors and Tumor-Like Lesions of the Hepatobiliary Tract. Cham: Springer, 2017: 121-149. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Ortega MA, De Leon-Oliva D, Gimeno-Longas MJ, Boaru DL, Fraile-Martinez O, García-Montero C, de Castro AV, Barrena-Blázquez S, López-González L, Amor S, García-Honduvilla N, Buján J, Guijarro LG, Castillo-Ruiz E, Álvarez-Mon MÁ, Albillos A, Álvarez-Mon M, Diaz R, Saez MA. Vascular Calcification: Molecular Networking, Pathological Implications and Translational Opportunities. Biomolecules. 2024;14:275. doi: 10.3390/biom14030275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]












