Table 3 Tumor response

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