Explore the 2026 evolution of LI-RADS and HCC diagnostic paradigms. Discover advancements in multi-modal imaging, AI detection, and precision contrast delivery.

The global landscape of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) management has undergone a profound transformation, driven by a deeper understanding of hepatocarcinogenesis and the refinement of non-invasive diagnostic criteria. As the primary malignancy of the liver and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, HCC presents a unique clinical challenge where diagnosis is frequently established through imaging alone, bypassing the traditional requirement for histopathological confirmation in high-risk populations. This paradigm shift is predicated on the distinctive hemodynamic alterations that occur as benign regenerative nodules evolve into overt malignancy, a process that can be captured with high fidelity using multiphasic Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).   

Evolutionary Pathophysiology: The Hemodynamic Basis of HCC Imaging

The justification for non-invasive imaging-based diagnosis lies in the predictable vascular metamorphosis of the liver during the progression of chronic liver disease. In the healthy hepatic parenchyma, the blood supply is dual, with the portal vein providing approximately 75% to 80% of the inflow and the hepatic artery contributing the remaining 20% to 25%. As cirrhosis develops, the microenvironment becomes a nidus for the multistep process of hepatocarcinogenesis, characterized by the transition from regenerative nodules (RN) to low-grade dysplastic nodules (LGDN), high-grade dysplastic nodules (HGDN), early HCC, and eventually progressed HCC.   

A critical hallmark of this progression is the “capillarization” of the sinusoids and the emergence of “unpaired arteries”—newly formed arterial vessels that lack a corresponding bile duct. During the early stages of carcinomatous transformation, the intranodular portal blood supply gradually diminishes. Concurrently, while the normal hepatic arterial supply initially decreases, it is eventually replaced and surpassed by neoangiogenic arterial inflow as the lesion matures into a progressed HCC. This physiological shift creates the classic imaging signature of HCC: intense enhancement during the late arterial phase (Arterial Phase Hyperenhancement, or APHE) and a subsequent decrease in signal relative to the surrounding liver during the portal venous and delayed phases (Washout).   

The biological complexity of these lesions extends to the expression of molecular transporters. The Organic Anion-Transporting Polypeptide (OATP), specifically OATP1B1 and OATP1B3, is responsible for the uptake of hepatobiliary contrast agents into functioning hepatocytes. As hepatocytes undergo malignant transformation, OATP expression typically declines, often preceding the complete shift in arterial vascularity. This phenomenon explains why many early HCCs appear hypointense on the hepatobiliary phase of MRI before they manifest the classic hypervascular profile on dynamic imaging.   

The Global Regulatory Framework: AASLD, EASL, and LI-RADS v2018

To standardize the interpretation and reporting of these complex imaging findings, several major international organizations have established evidence-based guidelines. The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), supported by the American College of Radiology (ACR), has emerged as the comprehensive technical standard, integrated into the clinical guidance of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) since 2018.   

The AASLD and LI-RADS Integration

The AASLD 2018 guidance recommends routine screening for HCC in high-risk patients, typically involving abdominal ultrasound at 6-month intervals. When a nodule larger than 1 cm is detected, the protocol necessitates a transition to multiphasic CT or MRI. LI-RADS provides the granular framework for this evaluation, categorizing observations on a scale from LR-1 (definitely benign) to LR-5 (definitely HCC). This system is specifically validated for use in adult patients with cirrhosis, chronic Hepatitis B (HBV) infection without cirrhosis, or a history of prior HCC.   

One of the most significant updates in the LI-RADS v2018 revision was the alignment of its “Definite HCC” (LR-5) criteria with the AASLD requirements, particularly regarding the categorization of 10-19 mm observations. Under the previous versions, 10-19 mm lesions with APHE and washout required an additional feature to reach the highest level of certainty; v2018 simplified this to align with clinical practice, allowing APHE and washout alone to trigger an LR-5 classification for this size range.   

European and Asian Perspectives

While Western guidelines (AASLD/EASL) maintain a high threshold for specificity to avoid false-positive diagnoses and unnecessary treatment, Asian guidelines, such as those from the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) and the Korean Liver Cancer Association–National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC), place a greater emphasis on sensitivity. The European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) 2018 guidelines are notable for their inclusion of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as a second-line diagnostic tool and their acceptance of washout in the portal venous phase as a definitive sign of HCC.   

The divergence in these approaches is exemplified by the treatment of hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity. Asian societies allow the combination of APHE and HBP hypointensity to qualify for a definitive HCC diagnosis, whereas Western guidelines restrict HBP findings to “ancillary” status, preventing them from being the sole basis for an LR-5 classification.   

Comparative Modality Performance: Multidetector CT vs. MRI

The selection between multiphasic CT and MRI is a pivotal decision in the diagnostic workup of suspected HCC. Both modalities are cornerstones of non-invasive diagnosis, yet they possess distinct technical profiles that influence their diagnostic yield.

Multidetector Computed Tomography (MDCT)

MDCT is widely utilized due to its speed, lower cost, and high spatial resolution. The standard HCC protocol includes four distinct phases: a non-contrast phase, a late arterial phase (approximately 35 seconds post-injection), a portal venous phase (70–80 seconds), and a delayed phase (3–5 minutes). MDCT is particularly effective for identifying arterial hypervascularity and is less susceptible to motion artifacts compared to MRI. However, its sensitivity for small lesions (< 2 cm) is generally reported to be lower, ranging from 62% to 68% in various meta-analyses.   

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

MRI is widely considered the superior modality for HCC detection and characterization due to its exceptional soft-tissue contrast and multi-parametric capabilities. In addition to dynamic post-contrast sequences, MRI utilizes T1-weighted in-phase/out-of-phase imaging, T2-weighted imaging, and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging (DWI).   

Prospective cohort studies have demonstrated that MRI has significantly higher sensitivity (91.2%) compared to CT (79.6%), with even greater differences observed in sub-2 cm lesions. MRI’s ability to detect ancillary features, such as intralesional fat or iron sparing, further enhances its diagnostic accuracy.   

Technical Refinements: Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and b-Value Optimization

DWI has revolutionized the detection of HCC by providing a functional assessment of water molecule mobility in the tissue. Because malignant tumors typically exhibit high cellularity, the Brownian motion of water is restricted, resulting in high signal intensity on high b-value images and low values on the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) map.   

The selection of the “b-value”—which determines the strength and duration of the diffusion gradients—is critical. Research indicates that using a combination of b-values provides the most comprehensive evaluation. Low b-values (e.g., 0–100 s/mm2) are effective for suppressing the intrahepatic vascular signal, known as the “black blood” effect, which improves the conspicuity of small lesions near vessels. High b-values (e.g., 600–1000 s/mm2) are necessary to reflect the true diffusion information and characterize solid focal liver lesions.   

The ADC is calculated using the formula:

where S(b) is the signal intensity at a specific b-value and S(0) is the baseline signal. Clinical evidence suggests that the optimal combination for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions involves b-values of 0 and 800 s/mm2, or a multi-b-value approach (0, 50, 600, 800, 1000 s/mm2) for more precise ADC mapping.   

The Contrast Media Paradigm: Extracellular vs. Hepatobiliary Agents

The choice of contrast agent for MRI is one of the most debated topics in hepatobiliary radiology. There are two primary classes: Extracellular Agents (ECA) and Hepatobiliary Agents (HBA).

Extracellular Agents (ECA)

ECAs, such as gadobenate dimeglumine (at typical doses) or gadopentetate dimeglumine, remain in the extracellular space. They are the standard for assessing “washout” in the delayed phase (3–5 minutes post-injection), as they do not enter the hepatocytes. This allows for a clear visualization of the “enhancing capsule,” which is a major feature of HCC.   

Hepatobiliary Agents (HBA)

HBAs, most notably gadoxetic acid (Primovist/Eovist), are actively transported into hepatocytes via OATP transporters and excreted into the bile. Approximately 50% of the injected dose of gadoxetic acid is taken up by the liver, allowing for a “Hepatobiliary Phase” (HBP) typically acquired 20 minutes post-injection.   

The HBP provides a significant advantage in sensitivity. Because most HCCs lack functioning hepatocytes and OATP transporters, they appear markedly hypointense against the hyperintense, contrast-filled liver parenchyma. However, the use of HBAs complicates the definition of “washout.” Because the background liver begins to enhance early (the transitional phase), a lesion might appear hypointense relative to the liver simply because the liver is becoming brighter, rather than the lesion losing contrast. This is termed “pseudo-washout”. To maintain high specificity, LI-RADS v2018 mandates that “washout” for gadoxetic acid must be assessed only in the portal venous phase.   

LI-RADS v2018 Diagnostic Architecture: Major and Ancillary Features

The LI-RADS diagnostic table is the engine of HCC categorization. It relies on five “Major Features” to differentiate LR-3, LR-4, and LR-5 observations.

Major Features Deep Dive

1. Non-rim APHE: This is the sine qua non of HCC. The enhancement must be greater than the liver and must be global or “mass-like,” not restricted to the periphery (which would suggest LR-M).   

2. Non-peripheral Washout: Hypoenhancement in the portal venous or delayed phase. It reflects the relative lack of portal venous supply and the rapid transit of blood through the tumor.   

3. Enhancing Capsule: A smooth, uniform rim of enhancement around the lesion. It is most visible in the portal venous or delayed phases and represents the fibrous tissue and compressed vessels at the tumor margin.   

4. Size: The maximum diameter of the observation in any plane. Larger size is intrinsically associated with a higher probability of malignancy.   

5. Threshold Growth: Defined as a diameter increase of ≥ 50% within 6 months. This reflects rapid biological progression.   

Ancillary Features and Category Adjustment

Ancillary features (AF) are optional tools that radiologists use to refine the categorization. They are grouped into those favoring malignancy in general, those favoring HCC in particular, and those favoring benignity.   

• Favoring Malignancy (General): Restricted diffusion on DWI, mild-to-moderate T2 hyperintensity, corona enhancement (peritumoral hypervascularity in the late arterial/early venous phase), and transitional phase hypointensity.   

• Favoring HCC (Particular): Nodule-in-nodule architecture (a smaller sub-nodule with different signal characteristics within a larger nodule), mosaic architecture (multiple internal compartments with varying enhancement), and fat or blood products within the mass.   

• Favoring Benignity: Size stability for ≥ 2 years, size reduction over time, marked T2 hyperintensity (classic for cysts/hemangiomas), and isointensity on the hepatobiliary phase.   

The rules for AF application are strict: they can be used to upgrade an observation by one category up to LR-4, but they cannot be used to upgrade a lesion to LR-5. This restriction is essential to preserve the near-100% specificity required for the LR-5 category to guide definitive treatment like transplantation or resection.   

Treatment Response Assessment: From mRECIST to LR-TR v2024

Once HCC is diagnosed and treated with locoregional therapy (LRT), the imaging priority shifts to assessing tumor viability. The gold standard for many years was the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), which defines viable tumor as any portion showing APHE.   

Limitations of mRECIST and the Introduction of LR-TR

The traditional mRECIST system can be prone to false positives, as it may misinterpret treatment-induced inflammatory enhancement as viable tumor. The LI-RADS Treatment Response (LR-TR) algorithm, introduced in 2017, was designed to address this by incorporating a multi-faceted definition of viability. LR-TR includes “washout” and “enhancement similar to pre-treatment” as criteria for the “LR-TR Viable” category.   

Research comparing the two systems after conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization (cTACE) indicates that LR-TR offers significantly higher specificity (93%) than mRECIST (86%), meaning it is less likely to erroneously suggest that a necrotic tumor is still alive.   

The 2024 Treatment Response Upgrade

The most recent innovation in this field is the release of the LI-RADS CT/MRI Nonradiation Treatment Response Assessment (TRA) version 2024. This update introduced several paradigm shifts:

1. Separation of Modalities: Recognizing that radiation therapy (e.g., SBRT, Y-90) and non-radiation therapy (e.g., TACE, ablation) have different imaging signatures, separate algorithms were established.   

2. Simplified Viability Criterion: For non-radiation therapies, the algorithm now uses a single feature—”mass-like enhancement in any phase”—to identify viability.   

3. Surgical Margin Assessment: For the first time, the TRA algorithm is officially permitted for evaluating the surgical margins after resection.   

Comparative studies of v2024 have shown that it detects local recurrence significantly earlier than the standard v2018 diagnostic algorithm (median 5.1 months vs. 12 months) and at a smaller median size (1.5 cm vs. 2.1 cm). This allows for much more timely “salvage” interventions, potentially improving long-term patient outcomes.   

Precision Delivery: The Role of SATPRO and SATMix in Modern Imaging

The technical success of any HCC diagnostic or response assessment protocol is heavily dependent on the precision and consistency of contrast media delivery. Sub-optimal arterial phases, often caused by inconsistent injection rates or timing, can result in “non-categorizable” (LR-NC) observations, which delay diagnosis and treatment.   

Innovations in contrast delivery systems, such as those provided by SATMED Health, are addressing these technical hurdles. SATMED Health is a leading provider of medical imaging solutions focused on value-based medicine and technological disruption in radiology.   

SATPRO: Precision Syringe Systems

SATPRO represents a range of high-performance contrast media syringes and consumables designed for seamless integration with major platforms, including those from GE Healthcare, Siemens Healthineers, Philips Healthcare and United Imaging. In the context of HCC imaging, SATPRO systems ensure:   

Reduces scatter radiation exposure by up to 70% — supporting ALARA radiation safety principles

• Improves image clarity — no artifacts in fluoroscopy or angiography
• Provides sterile radiation shield — single-use for optimal infection control
• Protects patients and operators during prolonged interventional procedure
• Lightweight, easy placement — as disposable scatter radiation drape or shield
• Compatible with C-arm, angiography systems — and other imaging equipment
• Bismuth core — for effective low-energy radiation absorption without lead.

SATMix: Optimized Contrast Dilution

SATMix is a specialized innovation focused on the dilution and management of contrast agents. In many hepatic imaging scenarios, particularly in thin patients or those with cardiac dysfunction, using concentrated contrast can lead to artifacts or sub-optimal enhancement timing. SATMix allows for the precise mixing of saline and contrast, which can be critical for:   

• • 24-Hour Ethiodized oil (commonly branded as Lipiodol) is an iodine-containing poppy seed oil used primarily as a diagnostic radiopaque contrast agent for imaging lymph vessels and the uterus/fallopian tubes, and for targeting liver tumors. 

  • Oil Resistance: Constructed from specialized A-grade medical polymers validated for 24-hour resistance to Lipiodol®, preventing material degradation, cracks, and leaks common in standard polycarbonate sets.

  • Closed-System 4-Port Stopcock: Features a unique 3-way, 4-port design that enables “on-table mixing.” Clinicians can remix or refill the emulsion without ever disconnecting from the microcatheter, significantly reducing the risk of air embolism and hazardous drug exposure.

  • Superior Emulsion Stability: Engineered to produce more stable emulsions compared to open systems, ensuring the anticancer drug is effectively trapped within the tumor rather than being released systemically.

  • Tactile Precision: Includes 1 mL and 3 mL injection syringes with rotary finger grips and integrated back-stops to prevent accidental plunger ejection under high pressure.

  • 66% Cost Reduction: By utilizing a direct-to-factory supply chain, SATMix eliminates intermediary markups, allowing high-volume centers to provide specialized kits for all patients regardless of budget constraints.

Furthermore, SATMED Health’s commitment to sustainability—demonstrated by multi-use syringe systems that reduce plastic waste by up to 80%—aligns with the global push for “Green Radiology” without compromising the diagnostic precision required for HCC management.   

Clinical Outcomes and Future Directions: cTACE and Beyond

Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization (cTACE) remains the global standard for unresectable intermediate-stage HCC (BCLC Stage B). The technical efficacy of cTACE is often measured by the “Lipiodol retention” pattern, which acts as an imaging biomarker for successful drug delivery.   

Outcomes in cTACE

Modern cTACE techniques, often involving super-selective catheterization, have achieved median overall survival rates exceeding 30 months in well-selected cohorts. Achieving a Complete Response (CR) on initial follow-up imaging (usually 4–8 weeks post-procedure) is one of the strongest predictors of survival. In specialized cases, such as the management of spontaneously ruptured HCC, cTACE has also proven effective in providing immediate hemostasis and stabilizing the patient for potential definitive therapy.   

 Emerging Technologies: Radiogenomics and AI

The future of HCC diagnosis is moving toward “Radiogenomics”—the correlation of imaging features with genetic expression. For example, the presence of a “capsule” on imaging has been linked to lower expression of certain aggressive molecular pathways, while “infiltrative” appearance (LR-M) is often associated with a higher mutation burden and poorer prognosis.   

Deep learning and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are also being integrated into the diagnostic pipeline. These tools can automate the segmentation of liver volumes, detect subcentimeter nodules that may be overlooked by the human eye, and potentially predict the LR-5 status of a lesion based on textural features that are imperceptible to radiologists.   

Conclusion: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Education and Care

The diagnosis and management of hepatocellular carcinoma is a high-stakes clinical endeavor that requires the seamless integration of physiological understanding, technical expertise, and standardized reporting. The LI-RADS v2018 framework, coupled with the v2024 update for treatment response, provides a robust language for radiologists and oncologists to communicate with precision.

As imaging technology continues to advance, the choice between CT and MRI—and between extracellular and hepatobiliary agents—must be tailored to the individual patient’s risk profile and clinical stage. This diagnostic precision is further enhanced by innovative delivery systems like SATPRO and SATMix from(https://www.satmed-health.com/), which ensure that the technical quality of every scan meets the rigorous standards required for definitive non-invasive diagnosis.   

For healthcare providers and patients alike, education is the most powerful tool in the fight against HCC. By adhering to international guidelines and leveraging the latest technological advancements, the medical community can move toward a future where early detection and effective treatment are accessible to all high-risk populations. Additional resources and technical manuals for further education can be accessed through the(https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS).   

Reference List

Heimbach, J. K., Kulik, L. M., Finn, R. S., Sirlin, C. B., Abecassis, M. M., Roberts, L. R.,… & Gores, G. J. (2018). AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology, 67(1), 358–380.

European Association for the Study of the Liver. (2018). EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Hepatology, 69(1), 182–236.

MDPI Diagnostics. (2023). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge: The role of multi-modal imaging. Diagnostics, 13(4), 625.

Efremidis, S. C., & Hytiroglou, P. (2002). The multistep process of hepatocarcinogenesis in cirrhosis with imaging correlation. European Radiology, 12(4), 753–764.

Radiological Society of North America. (2014). Key concepts of HCC development, growth, and spread: Imaging correlates and relevance for radiologists. Radiology, 273(3).

Department of Radiology, MSKCC. (2015). Alteration of hepatic vasculature during hepatocarcinogenesis: Hemodynamic changes and neoangiogenesis. Journal of Hepatic Malignancy, 11(2).

American College of Radiology. (2018). LI-RADS® CT/MRI v2018 core: Standardizing terminology and reporting. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS

Korean Liver Cancer Association & National Cancer Center. (2022). 2022 KLCA-NCC Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical and Molecular Hepatology, 28(4), 583–705.

American College of Radiology. (2024). Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: Manual and individual chapters. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS

Kim, T. H., Kim, S. Y., Tang, A., & Lee, J. M. (2018). Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 update. Clinical and Molecular Hepatology, 24(3), 255.

Cerny, M., Chernyak, V., Olivié, D., et al. (2018). LI-RADS version 2018 ancillary features at MRI. RadioGraphics, 38(7), 1973–2001.

ESGAR. (2018). Consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents. European Radiology, 28(7).

Radiology Ireland. (2018). LI-RADS 2018: A pictorial update and review of revisions. https://www.radiology.ie/images/Display_No.18–LIRADS_2018-_A_Pictorial_Update.pdf

Lee, S., Kim, Y. Y., Shin, J., & Chernyak, V. (2020). Comparison of LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018 for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical and Molecular Hepatology, 26(3), 340–351.

Naves, G. G., Dantas, P. P., Júnior, A. E. D. S., et al. (2026). CT and MRI LI-RADS treatment response assessment 2024: Core concepts for clinical practice. RadioGraphics, 46(4).

Hwang, J. A., Kim, Y. K., Min, J. H., et al. (2018). Comparative performance of HBA-MRI and ECA-MRI in sub-2cm HCC detection. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 47(5).

SMS Medical College. (2024). Comparative study of CT and MRI in the early detection and staging of HCC: A prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study. Healthcare Bulletin.

Termedia. (2021). Diagnostic efficiency of MRI versus CT in the detection of primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncology Reports, 80(54125).

Roberts, L. R., Sirlin, C. B., Zaiem, F., et al. (2015). Hepatocellular carcinoma: Diagnostic performance of multidetector CT and MR imaging—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology, 275(1), 87–109.

2 Minute Medicine. (2015). MRI superior to CT for liver cancer diagnosis: Meta-analysis of 40 studies. https://www.2minutemedicine.com/mrisuperiortoctforlivercancerdiagnosis/

Dawit, H., Lam, E., McInnes, M. D. F., et al. (2024). LI-RADS CT and MRI ancillary feature association with hepatocellular carcinoma and malignancy: An individual participant data meta-analysis. Radiology, 310(2), e231501.

Kaya, B., & Koc, Z. (2013). Diffusion-weighted MRI and optimal b-value for characterization of liver lesions. Acta Radiologica, 55(9), 1044–1052.

Termedia Oncology. (2021). Potential diagnostic value of high b-value computed diffusion-weighted imaging in hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Oncology Imaging, 80(1).

Gluskin, J. S., Chegai, F., Monti, S., et al. (2016). Hepatocellular carcinoma and diffusion-weighted MRI: Detection and evaluation of treatment response. Journal of Cancer, 7(11), 1565–1570.

Bracco. (2021). Editorial comment: Comparison of gadobenate-enhanced MRI and gadoxetate-enhanced MRI for HCC detection using LI-RADS version 2018. American Journal of Roentgenology, 217(4).

Kim, Y. Y., Kim, M. J., Kim, S. Y., et al. (2021). LI-RADS treatment response algorithm for detecting incomplete necrosis in HCC: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 3(1157).

Kim, H., Park, S. H., & Lee, J. M. (2022). Systematic comparison of LR-TR with mRECIST for diagnosing viable HCC after locoregional therapy. Clinical and Molecular Hepatology, 28(3).

Chiu, S. H., Yoon, L., Altmayer, S., et al. (2025). LI-RADS CT/MRI nonradiation treatment response assessment version 2024 for detecting local recurrence of surgically resected hepatocellular carcinoma. American Journal of Roentgenology.

SATMED Health. (2026). About us: Revolutionizing radiology consumables and contrast media delivery systems. https://www.satmed-health.com/about-us/

SATMED Health. (2026). Sustainability in radiology: Reduced-plastic innovations and value-based medicine. https://www.satmed-health.com/blog/

Lencioni, R. (2016). 20 years of Lipiodol-TACE: From the first randomized controlled trial to the present. Frontiers in Oncology, 11(1186674).

Koreamed. (2019). Outcome of conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) in the management of spontaneously ruptured HCC. Korean Journal of Radiology.

Pahwa, S., et al. (2021). Radiogenomics and emerging advanced imaging protocols: Perfusion CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in HCC. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 32(5).