Table 3.

Tumor response

Author, date	Tumor response			Complete response	Partial response	Stable disease	Progressive disease
	Imaging evaluation method	Parameter evaluated	Result #pt
Xiong, 2001 [53]	US	hyperechogenicity	21
Xu, 2003 [54]	US	hypovascularity	12
Yuan, 2003 [55]	CT, US, CDFI	N/A	36	8	28	0	4
Gu, 2004 [21]	CDFI	N/A	N/A
Li, 2004 [22]	CT, US,CDFI, pathological analysis only in the effective	reduction in tumor size, hyperechogenicity, blood flow decrease/disappearance	9
Wu, 2005 [32]	CT or MRI	tumor reduction rate (range 20–70%)	8
Xie, 2008 [56]	US	hyperchogenicity	15
Xiong, 2009 [44]	CT or MRI	absence of perfusion	64
Zhao, 2010 [45]	CT	RECIST	32	2	15	15	5
Orsi, 2010 [57]	PET/CT, CT or MRI	focal uptake of FDG, low attenuation at the ablation site without contrast enhancement at the edges	5
Wang, 2011 [33]	CT	decreased enhancement	35	0	7	28	5
Sung, 2011 [35]	MRI	stack model (unenhanced area)	46
Orgera, 2011 [58]	PET/CT or MRI, US, CT	lack of contrast and enhancement of metabolic activity	3
Li, 2012 [59]	US, CT	hyperechogenicity, and hypovascularity(US), tumor necrosis and reduction (CT)	18
Gao, 2013 [60]	CT or MRI	decrease or disappearance of blood supply in target region and circular enhancement in tumor periphery	30	0	5	25	9
Anzidei, 2014 [24]	CT and MRI	changes in density and intensity, contrast enhancement, non perfused volume (at least 60%)	6
Sofuni, 2014 [61]	CT	WHO criteria	26	0	4	22	4
Marinova, 2016a [23]	US	lack of contrast enhancement	13
Li YJ, 2016 [34]	MRI, CT, US	RECIST	11	0	7	4	5
Li X, 2016 [49]	CT	RECIST	16	1	15	N/A	N/A
Strunk, 2016 [62]	US, CT, MRI	tumor ablation rate (NPV/total volume)	8
Lv, 2016 [48]	CT	RECIST	18	0	10	8	0
Marinova, 2016b [36]	CT and MRI	tumor volume reduction	N/A

FDG flurodeoxyglucose, NPV non perfused volume, CDFI color doppler flow imaging, RECIST response evaluation criteria in solid tumors