Ultrasonography Search

CLOSE

Ultrasonography > Volume 45(2); 2026 > Article
Gu, Rhim, Lee, and Han: Ultrasound-guided ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a review of its past, present, and future

Abstract

Ultrasound (US)-guided ablation has evolved from early ethanol injection into a cornerstone curative strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma. This review traces the technological advancement of US guidance from early pioneering efforts to present standardized techniques and future innovations. It discusses how modern tools—fusion imaging, contrast-enhanced US, and artificial fluid techniques—overcome challenges in tumor visibility and accessibility, emphasizing technique optimization rather than energy modality selection. The review also explores future horizons, including artificial intelligence–driven planning, histotripsy, and immuno-ablation. Ultimately, the authors advocate for a philosophy of “optimized ablation,” prioritizing technical mastery of evolving US technologies to maximize therapeutic efficacy and patient safety beyond simple expansion of treatment territory.

Introduction

The treatment paradigm for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has fundamentally transformed over the past four decades, as minimally invasive therapies—radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), and cryoablation—have been established as standard curative options for early-stage disease. These parenchyma-preserving techniques are particularly important for patients with compromised hepatic function or significant comorbidities, as endorsed by international guidelines such as those from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) [15]. Beyond HCC, thermal ablation is increasingly recognized for the treatment of liver metastases and has demonstrated oncologic non-inferiority to surgical resection with fewer complications in a recent randomized trial [6].
The efficacy and safety of percutaneous ablation depend fundamentally on the precision of image guidance. Although computed tomography (CT)–guided ablation remains clinically useful—particularly because of its high spatial resolution and ability to overcome poor sonic windows—this review focuses on the unique advantages of ultrasound (US) guidance. These include real-time imaging, safety, cost-effectiveness, and broad availability, positioning US as a sophisticated platform for therapeutic guidance rather than merely a diagnostic modality.
This review provides a comprehensive overview of technological advancements in US-guided liver ablation within a “past, present, and future” framework. While incorporating extensive experience from the Asia-Pacific region, driven by the high prevalence of HCC, these insights are presented in the context of universal clinical practice. The review first traces the historical development of US-guided liver ablation and acknowledges key contributions to modern techniques. It then examines current standards of care, focusing on how advanced US techniques address challenges related to tumor conspicuity and accessibility. Finally, it explores future directions—including artificial intelligence (AI), histotripsy, and immuno-ablation—and advocates for an approach of optimized ablation, emphasizing mastery of existing techniques to achieve superior clinical outcomes.

Past: The Evolution of Image-Guided Intervention

Early Development (1950s–1970s): From Blind Biopsy to US-Guided Targeting

The foundations of US-guided liver intervention trace back to the transition from blind to image-guided procedures. Percutaneous liver biopsy, first reported in the 1920s using a percussion-based “blind” approach [7], remained standard practice for decades despite limitations in accuracy and safety. Although Menghini’s “one-second needle biopsy” in 1958 standardized the technique [8], a major advance occurred in the 1970s with the introduction of US-guided aspiration biopsy [9]. This pioneering work established US as a viable modality for percutaneous procedures, prioritizing precision over empirical localization. Concurrently, the development of real-time B-mode scanning and improvements in transducer technology enabled visualization of liver anatomy and focal lesions with unprecedented clarity, laying the groundwork for interventional applications [10].

The Beginnings of Local Therapy (1980s–1990s): Chemical and Thermal Ablation

US-guided local therapy began in 1983 with Sugiura et al.’s description of percutaneous ethanol injection therapy (PEIT) [11]. Although subsequently refined and validated in Japan and Italy [1214], PEIT was largely limited to very small tumors (≤2 cm) and was hindered by technical unpredictability related to intratumoral septa. A major advance occurred in the early 1990s with the introduction of RFA by McGahan et al. [15] and Rossi et al. [16], marking a transition from chemical to thermal ablation and enabling the creation of larger, more predictable coagulation zones. Following promising clinical results reported by Rossi et al. in 1996 [17], the therapeutic armamentarium expanded further with the development of MWA and cryoablation. Fig. 1 summarizes key technological advancements in US-guided liver tumor ablation.

The Pioneering Role of Asia

Asian countries, particularly Korea, Japan, and China, played a pivotal role in accumulating clinical evidence for liver tumor ablation, largely driven by the high prevalence of hepatitis B and C. Japanese investigators made seminal contributions to establishing the efficacy of PEIT and RFA through long-term outcome studies [18,19], while Korean researchers advanced the field through innovations in US-guided techniques [2023]. This accumulated experience led to the development of regional guidelines and professional societies, including the Asian Conference on Tumor Ablation (ACTA) in 2014. Throughout these developments, US remained the primary guidance modality, and refinement of US-guided RFA in Asia contributed substantially to modern ablation practice.

Present: Standardization and Precision in US Guidance

The present era is characterized by technical standardization and increasingly sophisticated US guidance to address clinical challenges. This section outlines strategies for overcoming technical difficulties in US-guided ablation and discusses the advantages and limitations of specific methods. As contemporary guidelines do not prescribe a single “one-size-fits-all” approach, the diversity of available energy sources and techniques is highlighted, with emphasis on tailoring strategies to specific procedural obstacles.

Clinical Positioning in Current Guidelines

Thermal ablation is globally endorsed as a standard curative modality by major guidelines, including those of the European Association for the Study of the Liver and the AASLD [1,5]. For small HCCs (<2 cm), RFA achieves excellent long-term survival, with reported 5-year overall survival rates of 65%–70% [19,24,25]. High-quality evidence indicates that RFA provides survival outcomes comparable to hepatic resection for single nodules <3 cm, with fewer complications despite higher rates of local tumor progression [2631]. Consistent with these findings, Asian guidelines—including those of the Korean Liver Cancer Association–National Cancer Center, ACTA, and the Japanese Society of Hepatology—recommend RFA as a primary treatment option for small HCCs (<3 cm), advocate combined transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and ablation for tumors measuring 3–5 cm, and recognize MWA and cryoablation as comparable alternatives [2,3,32].

Selection of Energy Source

As thermal ablation has become firmly established as a cornerstone of curative treatment, both RFA and MWA are widely used under US guidance. Mechanistically, MWA employs dielectric heating to achieve higher temperatures more rapidly, thereby reducing susceptibility to the heat-sink effect. In contrast, RFA offers highly predictable ablation zone geometry supported by well-established protocols [19,33,34]. These complementary physical characteristics likely explain why comparable clinical outcomes are reported across studies despite inherent technical differences. Although MWA offers advantages such as faster heating, larger ablation zones, and reduced heat-sink effects [35], often making it preferable for tumors ≥2 cm [32], RFA remains a robust option supported by extensive long-term survival data. Comparative studies of RFA and MWA for HCCs <5 cm have demonstrated similar oncologic outcomes and complication rates [3539]. Accordingly, current guidelines emphasize tailoring energy source selection to anatomical factors, procedural context, and tumor characteristics rather than asserting modality superiority.
Cryoablation is increasingly recognized as an alternative to heat-based ablation. Recent studies suggest that cryoablation achieves survival and recurrence outcomes comparable to those of RFA [38,40]; however, large-scale randomized controlled trials remain limited. Further investigation is required to define its optimal clinical role, particularly in scenarios where advantages such as reduced procedure-related pain and lower risk of collateral thermal injury may offer benefits. Long-term validation of therapeutic efficacy also remains necessary.

Advanced US Guidance Techniques

Although conventional B-mode US remains the primary guidance modality, its effectiveness is limited in a substantial proportion of cases. Approximately 30% of small HCCs are considered inconspicuous or invisible on B-mode US due to coarse liver echotexture or deep lesion location [20]. To address these limitations, several advanced guidance techniques have been developed to enhance procedural precision and feasibility, as summarized in Table 1.

Fusion imaging

Real-time fusion imaging (FI), which co-registers live US with pre-acquired CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or US datasets, is increasingly adopted in modern ablation practice. Its utility can be divided into pre-procedural targeting and intra-procedural margin assessment.
For targeting, FI overcomes limitations of B-mode US by allowing direct reference to pre-acquired CT or MRI, facilitating localization of inconspicuous tumors. In a Korean prospective study, FI enabled visualization of nearly 40% (30/216) of HCCs not visible on B-mode US and allowed successful ablation in approximately 30% (60/216) of patients initially considered untreatable, with a technical success rate of 97.1% [20].
For assessment, US-US overlay fusion mitigates visibility challenges caused by ablation-induced gas bubbles [41]. These bubbles often obscure tumor boundaries, complicating margin assessment. Overlay techniques enable side-by-side or superimposed (“overlay”) comparisons to verify whether the hyperechoic ablation zone fully encompasses the tumor with an adequate safety margin (e.g., >5 mm). Clinical data indicate significant improvements in achieving sufficient margins (89.3% vs. 47.0%) and reductions in local tumor progression compared with conventional guidance [41].

Artificial ascites and pleural effusion

Creation of artificial fluid collections serves dual purposes: establishing a sonic window for tumors obscured by the lung or ribs and providing hydrodissection to physically displace adjacent organs from the thermal field (Fig. 2) [42]. This approach offers thermal protection, reduces procedure-related pain, and improves visualization by enhancing acoustic transmission to both tumor and surrounding structures. However, prior upper abdominal surgery may limit feasibility because of adhesions.

Contrast-enhanced US

Contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) employs gas-filled microbubbles to provide sensitive information on blood flow and tissue perfusion, enhancing contrast between tumors and surrounding liver parenchyma [43,44]. Contrast agents are broadly classified as pure blood-pool agents or Kupffer-phase agents. While blood-pool agents enable dynamic vascular imaging, Kupffer-phase agents accumulate within Kupffer cells, providing prolonged parenchymal enhancement during the post-vascular phase and a stable imaging window lasting up to one hour.
CEUS plays key roles in both pre-procedural detection and intra-procedural margin verification. For detection, CEUS improves visualization of inconspicuous tumors. A study evaluating Kupffer-phase agents demonstrated significantly higher HCC detection rates compared with B-mode US (93.2% vs. 83.5%, P=0.04) [45]. This enhanced conspicuity facilitates precise targeting and translates into improved therapeutic outcomes. In a prospective randomized trial of poorly visualized lesions, CEUS guidance significantly increased the complete ablation rate after a single session (94.7% vs. 65.0%, P=0.04) and reduced the number of treatment sessions compared with conventional guidance [46].
CEUS is also valuable for intra-procedural and immediate post-ablation assessment by enabling the detection of residual viable tumor tissue and permitting immediate re-ablation when necessary. A retrospective study reported a significantly lower residual tumor rate with immediate post-procedural CEUS compared with standard protocols (0% vs. 16.7%, P=0.02) [47].
Integration of CEUS with CT/MRI FI further enhances targeting precision. A recent prospective study demonstrated improved tumor visibility and procedural feasibility in 85.5% of cases involving small lesions inconspicuous on B-mode US [48]. Improvements were consistent across contrast agent types, with visibility scores of grade 3 or higher achieved in 87.7% of cases using blood-pool agents and 90% using Kupffer-phase agents, resulting in a technical success rate of 99.6%.

Technical Strategies for Complete Ablation

Single-electrode strategy

For small, well-defined tumors (<2 cm), a single-electrode approach with central targeting is often sufficient. Achieving a circumferential ablative margin >5 mm, however, typically requires an ablation zone with a short-axis diameter of approximately 3 cm. Unlike modern MWA systems, single-needle RFA frequently cannot achieve this dimension in a single application, which has been associated with higher local tumor progression rates compared with MWA (30.4% vs. 16.4%) in a recent randomized trial [49]. Consequently, overlapping ablations are often required to ensure adequate safety margins.

Multiple electrodes and no-touch technique

To reduce local recurrence and address microscopic satellite nodules in tumors >2 cm, the no-touch RFA technique using multiple electrodes has been developed [2123,50]. Rather than directly puncturing the tumor, electrodes are placed in surrounding normal liver parenchyma under US guidance (Fig. 3). Energy delivery may occur in monopolar, bipolar, or switching modes [51,52]. Monopolar mode directs current from active electrodes to a dispersive grounding pad, whereas bipolar mode concentrates current between paired electrodes without a grounding pad. Switching algorithms further optimize large ablations: single-switching monopolar mode alternates energy delivery based on impedance, while dual-switching monopolar mode delivers synchronous energy to electrode pairs. Fig. 4 illustrates a case using three electrodes with both dual-switching monopolar and sequential-switching bipolar modes. This strategy aims to achieve wider ablative margins (≥1 cm) encompassing the primary tumor and potential microsatellites while minimizing tumor seeding along the needle tract. Immediately after ablation, hyperechoic gas bubbles may obscure tumor boundaries; allowing an appropriate waiting period facilitates bubble dissipation and improves margin assessment confidence [53].

Perivascular tumors and alternative modalities

Tumors in contact with vessels ≥3 mm in diameter may be less amenable to thermal ablation because of the heat-sink effect, whereby blood flow dissipates thermal energy [54,55]. In such cases, cryoablation may be considered. Under US guidance, the ice ball produced during cryoablation appears as a clearly delineated hyperechoic margin with posterior acoustic shadowing, enabling real-time monitoring [56]. Retrospective studies suggest that cryoablation can be safely performed for selected perivascular tumors, with potentially fewer complications than RFA in some series [57], although high-quality randomized evidence remains limited. Cryoablation is also subject to flow-related limitations, including a cold-sink effect when tumors abut large vessels, which may impair iceball formation and reduce treatment efficacy. Therefore, while cryoablation can be considered an alternative in specific high-risk scenarios, its benefits should be weighed against these limitations and the current strength of available evidence.

Combined TACE and ablation for larger tumors

For HCCs >3 cm, local recurrence rates after ablation alone range from 30% to 50% [58], prompting development of combined treatment strategies. Combining TACE with RFA or MWA significantly improves local control and survival compared with ablation alone for tumors measuring 3–5 cm [5961]. Accordingly, current guidelines recommend combined TACE and ablation for patients with 3–5 cm HCCs who are not candidates for surgical resection [32].

Future: Digital Transformation and New Horizons

The future of US-guided ablation lies in increased precision, automation, novel energy sources, and integration with systemic therapies. Rather than indiscriminately adopting new technologies, emphasis should remain on refining current techniques—a philosophy termed optimized ablation.

AI and Digital Solutions in Ultrasonography

AI algorithms are being developed to enhance multiple aspects of US-guided ablation procedures.

Planning

AI-based systems are under development for automated tumor segmentation, patient selection, and outcome prediction using US imaging. Machine learning algorithms can analyze pre-procedural imaging to guide personalized treatment planning by predicting responses to locoregional therapy [62], potentially reducing operator dependence and improving standardization across institutions.

Guidance

Augmented reality platforms are emerging for real-time navigation during ablation procedures. These systems project three-dimensional representations of vascular structures and tumor locations onto the operative field, potentially enhancing electrode placement accuracy. AI-enhanced FI and robotic-assisted ablation tools represent promising innovations that may overcome current technical limitations [63].

Assessment

Beyond visual inspection, three-dimensional quantitative margin assessment software is increasingly needed. Technologies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved BioTraceIO platform provide real-time visualization of ablation extent through AI-driven analysis of standard US images [64]. This technology addresses the challenge of poor visibility and control of the tissue destruction zone. The development of US-based assessment tools, rather than reliance on CT-based evaluation, represents an important future direction.

Emerging Energy Sources

Irreversible electroporation

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is gaining attention as a non-thermal ablation technique for liver tumors near major vessels and bile ducts because it does not rely on thermal injury [65]. Under US guidance, IRE produces a characteristic hypoechoic region with gradual echogenicity changes during ablation [66], although US monitoring is less intuitive than the well-demarcated ice ball in cryoablation. Despite theoretical advantages, IRE remains limited by procedural complexity (often requiring general anesthesia and neuromuscular blockade), procedure duration, and cost. Future research should define optimal selection criteria and standardize protocols to validate its clinical role.

Histotripsy

Histotripsy is a non-invasive, non-thermal, purely mechanical method of tissue destruction that is guided and monitored by US. Pulsed acoustic energy induces cavitation bubble clouds from gases naturally present in tissue; rapid bubble formation and collapse generate mechanical forces sufficient to disrupt tissue at cellular and subcellular levels. The U.S. FDA granted marketing authorization for the Edison Histotripsy System in October 2023 based on the HOPE4LIVER trials, which reported a 95% technical success rate and a 7% complication rate comparable to other local therapies [67]. As a US-guided and US-monitored modality, histotripsy represents a natural evolution of US-based interventional oncology. Preliminary studies suggest that histotripsy may trigger immune responses in which untreated tumors are recognized and attacked, potentially providing systemic effects beyond local tumor destruction [68]. Real-world experience reported in 2024 suggests that histotripsy can be performed safely across multiple tumor types, with serious complications occurring rarely [69]. Table 2 summarizes the local ablation modalities for HCC reviewed above.

Immuno-Ablation: Expanding the Role

A promising frontier is combining local ablation with systemic immunotherapy. With recent advances in immunotherapy-based systemic treatments, the role of ablative therapy may extend beyond traditional indications. Rather than being replaced by systemic options, ablative therapy may serve as a complementary partner in combination strategies to enhance outcomes compared with either approach alone [70,71].
Mechanistically, ablation can induce immunogenic cell death, releasing tumor antigens and creating an in situ vaccine effect. Local treatment of HCC may enhance antitumor immunity through the release of inflammatory factors and tumor-specific neoantigens from dying tumor cells [72,73]. In combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors, local treatment may contribute to systemic antitumor responses (the “abscopal effect”).
Clinical evidence supporting this rationale is emerging through two approaches. First, concurrent combination therapy—administering immunotherapy simultaneously with ablation—was evaluated in a phase 1/2 study of tremelimumab (anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 [anti–CTLA-4]) combined with ablation for unresectable HCC, demonstrating safety and feasibility [72]. Second, sequential adjuvant therapy—administering immunotherapy after curative-intent ablation—was evaluated in the IMbrave050 trial, which assessed atezolizumab plus bevacizumab following resection or ablation in high-risk patients and reported an initial improvement in recurrence-free survival compared with surveillance; however, updated analyses indicated that the benefit was not sustained with longer follow-up [74,75]. Although these strategies differ in timing and target populations, both support the rationale for integrating immunotherapy with local treatment.
Multiple ongoing clinical trials (Table 3) are investigating the efficacy and safety of combining locoregional therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors. As US-guided ablation becomes incorporated into combination protocols, the role of US in response assessment and guidance of subsequent interventions will become increasingly important. Clinical validation remains in early stages, and definitive survival benefits await larger randomized trial results.

Conclusion: Optimized ablation

US-guided local ablation therapy has evolved from a simple approach for small tumors into a sophisticated, highly technical, and indispensable component of contemporary HCC management. Progress has been driven by continuous innovation in ablation energy sources and, critically, in the US guidance systems used to deploy them.
The philosophy of optimized ablation emphasizes that, rather than simply expanding treatment territory, priority should be placed on mastering current technologies—FI, advanced US guidance techniques, and understanding of tumor biology—to achieve superior clinical outcomes. Current standard-of-care techniques, including FI, contrast-enhanced US, and artificial fluid creation, enable the safe and effective treatment of complex tumors that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to approach using conventional B-mode US guidance.
Future advances, including AI-enhanced procedural planning, novel US-guided modalities such as histotripsy, and integration with systemic immunotherapy, are expected to further improve safety, efficacy, and scope. Even as AI capabilities advance, the role of the expert interventional oncologist, who performs and evaluates the accuracy of the procedure, will remain essential.
The message is clear: while embracing future technologies built on past innovations, optimized practice of current techniques will be a key determinant of patient outcomes. As these technologies continue to evolve, the role of US in guiding liver ablation is expected to become further consolidated, maintaining its position as a cornerstone of image-guided tumor ablation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Rhim H. Data acquisition: Gu K, Rhim H. Data analysis or interpretation: Gu K, Lee MW, Han S. Drafting of the manuscript: Gu K, Rhim H. Critical revision of the manuscript: Rhim H, Lee MW, Han S. Approval of the final version of the manuscript: all authors.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2025;82:315-374.
crossref pmid
2. Kudo M, Kawamura Y, Hasegawa K, Tateishi R, Kariyama K, Shiina S, et al. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma in Japan: JSH consensus statements and recommendations 2021 update. Liver Cancer 2021;10:181-223.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
3. Shiina S, Tateishi R, Choi JI, Kim SY, Meng Z, Shen L, et al. Asian conference on tumor ablation guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Cancer 2025;14:651-678.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
4. Han S, Sung PS, Park SY, Kim JW, Hong HP, Yoon JH, et al. Local ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: 2024 expert consensus-based practical recommendations of the Korean Liver Cancer Association. Korean J Radiol 2024;25:773-787.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
5. Singal AG, Llovet JM, Yarchoan M, Mehta N, Heimbach JK, Dawson LA, et al. AASLD practice guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2023;78:1922-1965.
crossref pmid pmc
6. van der Lei S, Puijk RS, Dijkstra M, Schulz HH, Vos DJ, De Vries JJ, et al. Thermal ablation versus surgical resection of small-size colorectal liver metastases (COLLISION): an international, randomised, controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2025;26:187-199.
crossref pmid
7. Grant A, Neuberger J. Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice. British Society of Gastroenterology. Gut 1999;45 Suppl 4:IV1-IV11.
crossref pmid pmc
8. Menghini G. One-second needle biopsy of the liver. Gastroenterology 1958;35:190-199.
crossref pmid
9. Goldberg BB, Pollack HM. Ultrasonic aspiration biopsy techniques. J Clin Ultrasound 1976;4:141-151.
crossref pmid
10. McGahan JP. The history of interventional ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 2004;23:727-741.
crossref pmid pdf
11. Sugiura N, Takara K, Ohto M, Okuda K, Hirooka N. Ultrasound image-guided percutaneous intratumor ethanol injection for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Acta Hepatol Jpn 1983;24:920.

12. Shiina S, Yasuda H, Muto H, Tagawa K, Unuma T, Ibukuro K, et al. Percutaneous ethanol injection in the treatment of liver neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;149:949-952.
crossref pmid
13. Livraghi T, Festi D, Monti F, Salmi A, Vettori C. US-guided percutaneous alcohol injection of small hepatic and abdominal tumors. Radiology 1986;161:309-312.
crossref pmid
14. Ebara M, Ohto M, Sugiura N, Kita K, Yoshikawa M, Okuda K, et al. Percutaneous ethanol injection for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma: study of 95 patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1990;5:616-626.
crossref pmid
15. McGahan JP, Browning PD, Brock JM, Tesluk H. Hepatic ablation using radiofrequency electrocautery. Invest Radiol 1990;25:267-270.
crossref pmid
16. Rossi S, Fornari F, Pathies C, Buscarini L. Thermal lesions induced by 480 kHz localized current field in guinea pig and pig liver. Tumori 1990;76:54-57.
crossref pmid pdf
17. Rossi S, Di Stasi M, Buscarini E, Quaretti P, Garbagnati F, Squassante L, et al. Percutaneous RF interstitial thermal ablation in the treatment of hepatic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:759-768.
crossref pmid
18. Ebara M, Okabe S, Kita K, Sugiura N, Fukuda H, Yoshikawa M, et al. Percutaneous ethanol injection for small hepatocellular carcinoma: therapeutic efficacy based on 20-year observation. J Hepatol 2005;43:458-464.
crossref pmid
19. Shiina S, Tateishi R, Arano T, Uchino K, Enooku K, Nakagawa H, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: 10-year outcome and prognostic factors. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:569-577.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
20. Ahn SJ, Lee JM, Lee DH, Lee SM, Yoon JH, Kim YJ, et al. Real-time US-CT/MR fusion imaging for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2017;66:347-354.
crossref pmid
21. Lee DH, Lee MW, Kim PN, Lee YJ, Park HS, Lee JM. Outcome of no-touch radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology 2021;301:229-236.
crossref pmid
22. Park SJ, Cho EJ, Lee JH, Yu SJ, Kim YJ, Yoon JH, et al. Switching monopolar no-touch radiofrequency ablation using Octopus electrodes for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized clinical trial. Liver Cancer 2021;10:72-81.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
23. Suh YS, Choi JW, Yoon JH, Lee DH, Kim YJ, Lee JH, et al. No-touch vs. conventional radiofrequency ablation using twin internally cooled wet electrodes for small hepatocellular carcinomas: a randomized prospective comparative study. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:1974-1984.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
24. Lee MW, Kang D, Lim HK, Cho J, Sinn DH, Kang TW, et al. Updated 10-year outcomes of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation as first-line therapy for single hepatocellular carcinoma < 3 cm: emphasis on association of local tumor progression and overall survival. Eur Radiol 2020;30:2391-2400.
crossref pmid pdf
25. Lencioni R, Cioni D, Crocetti L, Franchini C, Pina CD, Lera J, et al. Early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: long-term results of percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation. Radiology 2005;234:961-967.
crossref pmid pmc
26. Feng K, Yan J, Li X, Xia F, Ma K, Wang S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2012;57:794-802.
crossref pmid
27. Kang TW, Kim JM, Rhim H, Lee MW, Kim YS, Lim HK, et al. Small hepatocellular carcinoma: radiofrequency ablation versus nonanatomic resection: propensity score analyses of long-term outcomes. Radiology 2015;275:908-919.
crossref pmid
28. Kim GA, Shim JH, Kim MJ, Kim SY, Won HJ, Shin YM, et al. Radiofrequency ablation as an alternative to hepatic resection for single small hepatocellular carcinomas. Br J Surg 2016;103:126-135.
crossref pmid pdf
29. Lee HW, Lee JM, Yoon JH, Kim YJ, Park JW, Park SJ, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing radiofrequency ablation and hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg Treat Res 2018;94:74-82.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
30. Ng KK, Chok KS, Chan AC, Cheung TT, Wong TC, Fung JY, et al. Randomized clinical trial of hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg 2017;104:1775-1784.
crossref pmid pdf
31. Takayama T, Hasegawa K, Izumi N, Kudo M, Shimada M, Yamanaka N, et al. Surgery versus radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial (SURF Trial). Liver Cancer 2022;11:209-218.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
32. Korean Liver Cancer Association (KLCA); National Cancer Center (NCC) Korea. 2022 KLCA-NCC Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Liver Cancer 2022;23:1-120.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
33. Facciorusso A, Di Maso M, Muscatiello N. Microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Hyperthermia 2016;32:339-344.
crossref pmid
34. Ahmed M, Brace CL, Lee FT, Goldberg SN. Principles of and advances in percutaneous ablation. Radiology 2011;258:351-369.
crossref pmid pmc
35. Chong CC, Lee KF, Cheung SY, Chu CC, Fong AK, Wong J, et al. Prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial of microwave versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (McRFA trial). HPB (Oxford) 2020;22:1121-1127.
crossref pmid
36. Tan W, Deng Q, Lin S, Wang Y, Xu G. Comparison of microwave ablation and radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Hyperthermia 2019;36:264-272.
crossref pmid pdf
37. Luo W, Zhang Y, He G, Yu M, Zheng M, Liu L, et al. Effects of radiofrequency ablation versus other ablating techniques on hepatocellular carcinomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2017;15:126.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
38. Gupta P, Maralakunte M, Kumar MP, Chandel K, Chaluvashetty SB, Bhujade H, et al. Overall survival and local recurrence following RFA, MWA, and cryoablation of very early and early HCC: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2021;31:5400-5408.
crossref pmid pdf
39. Yu Q, Liu C, Navuluri R, Ahmed O. Percutaneous microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021;46:4467-4475.
crossref pmid pdf
40. Kim R, Kang TW, Cha DI, Song KD, Lee MW, Rhim H, et al. Percutaneous cryoablation for perivascular hepatocellular carcinoma: therapeutic efficacy and vascular complications. Eur Radiol 2019;29:654-662.
crossref pmid pdf
41. Minami Y. Precise liver tumor ablation: the clinical potential of US-US overlay fusion guidance. Ultrasonography 2024;43:407-412.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
42. Kondo Y, Yoshida H, Tateishi R, Shiina S, Kawabe T, Omata M. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of liver cancer in the hepatic dome using the intrapleural fluid infusion technique. Br J Surg 2008;95:996-1004.
crossref pmid pdf
43. Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, Cosgrove DO, Kudo M, Nolsoe CP, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver - update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013;39:187-210.
crossref pmid
44. Lee JY, Minami Y, Choi BI, Lee WJ, Chou YH, Jeong WK, et al. The AFSUMB consensus statements and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound using Sonazoid. Ultrasonography 2020;39:191-220.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
45. Masuzaki R, Shiina S, Tateishi R, Yoshida H, Goto E, Sugioka Y, et al. Utility of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with Sonazoid in radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;26:759-764.
crossref pmid
46. Minami Y, Kudo M, Chung H, Kawasaki T, Yagyu Y, Shimono T, et al. Contrast harmonic sonography-guided radiofrequency ablation therapy versus B-mode sonography in hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective randomized controlled trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:489-494.
crossref pmid
47. Lekht I, Gulati M, Nayyar M, Katz MD, Ter-Oganesyan R, Marx M, et al. Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in evaluation of thermal ablation zone. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016;41:1511-1521.
crossref pmid pdf
48. Lee Y, Yoon JH, Han S, Joo I, Lee JM. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography-CT/MRI fusion guidance for percutaneous ablation of inconspicuous, small liver tumors: improving feasibility and therapeutic outcome. Cancer Imaging 2024;24:4.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
49. Sugimoto K, Imajo K, Kuroda H, Murohisa G, Shiozawa K, Sakamaki K, et al. Microwave ablation vs. single-needle radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of HCC up to 4 cm: a randomized-controlled trial. JHEP Rep 2025;7:101269.
crossref pmid pmc
50. Han S, Lee MW, Lee YJ, Hong HP, Lee DH, Lee JM. No-touch radiofrequency ablation for early hepatocellular carcinoma: 2023 Korean Society of Image-Guided Tumor Ablation guidelines. Korean J Radiol 2023;24:719-728.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
51. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Han JK, Choi BI. Dual switching monopolar radiofrequency ablation using a separable clustered electrode: comparison with consecutive and switching monopolar modes in ex vivo bovine livers. Korean J Radiol 2013;14:403-411.
crossref pmid pmc
52. Cha DI, Lee MW, Song KD, Ko SE, Rhim H. Ablative outcomes of various energy modes for no-touch and peripheral tumor-puncturing radiofrequency ablation: an ex vivo simulation study. Korean J Radiol 2022;23:189-201.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
53. Han S, Lee MW, Gu K, Rhim H. Impact of an immediate short waiting period on ultrasound-based ablative margin assessment following radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ultrasonography 2025;44:354-362.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
54. Lee S, Kang TW, Cha DI, Song KD, Lee MW, Rhim H, et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs. surgery for perivascular hepatocellular carcinoma: propensity score analyses of long-term outcomes. J Hepatol 2018;69:70-78.
crossref pmid
55. Kang TW, Lim HK, Lee MW, Kim YS, Rhim H, Lee WJ, et al. Aggressive intrasegmental recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after radiofrequency ablation: risk factors and clinical significance. Radiology 2015;276:274-285.
crossref pmid
56. Song KD. Percutaneous cryoablation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Mol Hepatol 2016;22:509-515.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
57. Ko SE, Lee MW, Rhim H, Kang TW, Song KD, Cha DI, et al. Comparison of procedure-related complications between percutaneous cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation for treating periductal hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Hyperthermia 2020;37:1354-1361.
crossref pmid
58. Kim YS, Lim HK, Rhim H, Lee MW, Choi D, Lee WJ, et al. Ten-year outcomes of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation as first-line therapy of early hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of prognostic factors. J Hepatol 2013;58:89-97.
crossref pmid
59. Ni JY, Liu SS, Xu LF, Sun HL, Chen YT. Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation in combination with transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:3872-3882.
crossref pmid pmc
60. Shibata T, Isoda H, Hirokawa Y, Arizono S, Shimada K, Togashi K. Small hepatocellular carcinoma: is radiofrequency ablation combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization more effective than radiofrequency ablation alone for treatment? Radiology 2009;252:905-913.
crossref pmid
61. Wang X, Hu Y, Ren M, Lu X, Lu G, He S. Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinomas compared with radiofrequency ablation alone: a time-to-event meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:93-102.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
62. Hsieh C, Laguna A, Ikeda I, Maxwell AW, Chapiro J, Nadolski G, et al. Using machine learning to predict response to image-guided therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 2023;309:e222891.
crossref pmid pmc
63. Lastrucci A, Iosca N, Wandael Y, Barra A, Lepri G, Forini N, et al. AI and interventional radiology: a narrative review of reviews on opportunities, challenges, and future directions. Diagnostics (Basel) 2025;15:893.
crossref pmid pmc
64. Sato M, Tateishi R, Zohar Y, Sato J, Watadani T, Moriyama M, et al. Retrospective evaluation of a novel ultrasound-based imaging analysis software for predicting radiofrequency ablation areas. PLoS One 2025;20:e0317469.
crossref pmid pmc
65. Seror O. Ablative therapies: advantages and disadvantages of radiofrequency, cryotherapy, microwave and electroporation methods, or how to choose the right method for an individual patient? Diagn Interv Imaging 2015;96:617-624.
crossref pmid
66. Lin MX, Kuang M, Xu M, Zhuang BW, Tian WS, Ye JY, et al. Ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound for evaluation of irreversible electroporation ablation: in vivo proof of concept in normal porcine liver. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016;42:2639-2649.
crossref pmid
67. Mendiratta-Lala M, Wiggermann P, Pech M, Serres-Creixams X, White SB, Davis C, et al. The #HOPE4LIVER single-arm pivotal trial for histotripsy of primary and metastatic liver tumors. Radiology 2024;312:e233051.
crossref pmid pmc
68. Qu S, Worlikar T, Felsted AE, Ganguly A, Beems MV, Hubbard R, et al. Non-thermal histotripsy tumor ablation promotes abscopal immune responses that enhance cancer immunotherapy. J Immunother Cancer 2020;8:e000200.
crossref pmid pmc
69. Wehrle CJ, Burns K, Ong E, Couillard A, Parikh ND, Caoili E, et al. The first international experience with histotripsy: a safety analysis of 230 cases. J Gastrointest Surg 2025;29:102000.
crossref pmid
70. Zhong BY, Fan W, Guan JJ, Peng Z, Jia Z, Jin H, et al. Combination locoregional and systemic therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025;10:369-386.
crossref pmid
71. Xie GL, Zhong ZH, Ye TW, Xiao ZQ. Radiofrequency ablation combined with immunotherapy to treat hepatocellular carcinoma: a comprehensive review. BMC Surg 2025;25:47.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
72. Duffy AG, Ulahannan SV, Makorova-Rusher O, Rahma O, Wedemeyer H, Pratt D, et al. Tremelimumab in combination with ablation in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2017;66:545-551.
crossref pmid pmc
73. Sangro B, Sarobe P, Hervas-Stubbs S, Melero I. Advances in immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;18:525-543.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
74. Qin S, Chen M, Cheng AL, Kaseb AO, Kudo M, Lee HC, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance in patients with resected or ablated high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave050): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2023;402:1835-1847.
crossref pmid
75. Yopp A, Kudo M, Chen M, Cheng AL, Kaseb AO, Lee HC, et al. LBA39 Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave050: phase III study of adjuvant atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) vs active surveillance in patients (pts) with resected or ablated high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Ann Oncol 2024;35(Suppl 2):S1230.
crossref

Fig. 1.

Timeline of ultrasound-guided liver ablation.

US, ultrasound; PEIT, percutaneous ethanol injection therapy; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; CEUS, contrast-enhanced US.
usg-25264f1.jpg
Fig. 2.

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with advanced ultrasound guidance techniques in a 60-year-old man.

A. Axial gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows a 1-cm enhancing nodule in liver segment 7 (arrow), indicating recurrent HCC. B. On B-mode ultrasonography with fusion MRI guidance, the recurrent tumor (arrow on MRI) is not clearly visible. C. A subtle hypoechoic lesion is revealed in liver segment 7 (arrow) after the administration of artificial pleural effusion. D. In the portal venous phase after Kupffer phase agent injection, the tumor is visualized as a hypoechoic nodule between the echogenic active metal tips of two radiofrequency electrodes (arrows) inserted using the no-touch technique. E. Immediate post-ablation computed tomography demonstrates the ablation zone fully covering the entire tumor (arrow) with a sufficient ablative margin, indicating technical success.
usg-25264f2.jpg
Fig. 3.

Schematic illustration of ablation zones created by a single electrode versus multiple electrodes using the no-touch technique.

RFA, radiofrequency ablation.
usg-25264f3.jpg
Fig. 4.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) using the no-touch technique in a 67-year-old man.

A. Arterial phase gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance image shows a 2.5-cm hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma nodule in liver segment 3 (arrow). B. On B-mode ultrasound, the tumor appears as a 2.4-cm hypoechoic ovoid nodule located at the capsule of liver segment 3 (arrow). C. Three radiofrequency electrodes were inserted along the deeper margin of the tumor for the no-touch technique. The echogenic spots (arrows) represent the active tips of the electrodes. D. Immediate post-RFA computed tomography demonstrates the technical success of RFA with a sufficient ablative margin around the ablated tumor (arrow).
usg-25264f4.jpg
Table 1.
Overview of advanced ultrasound guidance techniques for liver ablation
Technique Primary mechanism Key clinical roles and advantages Indications
Fusion imaging (FI) Real-time co-registration of pre-acquired images with live US images Visualization: targeting of inconspicuous tumors on B-mode US - Small, isoechoic tumors
Feasibility: increases technical success rate for challenging cases - Coarse background liver echotexture
- Tumors in deep locations
Contrast-enhanced US Dynamic vascular imaging using microbubble contrast agents Detection: improves detection rate of small tumors (especially when combined with FI) - Pre-procedural planning for margin delineation
Assessment: immediate identification of residual viable tumor - Intra-procedural monitoring
Safety: no nephrotoxicity or ionizing radiation - Immediate post-ablation assessment
Artificial fluid (ascites/pleural effusion) Creation of better sonic windows by injecting fluid (5% DW) Visualization: overcomes blind spots caused by lung or rib shadow - Hepatic dome: obscured by lung or rib shadow
Protection: displaces adjacent organs vulnerable to thermal injury (gallbladder, bowel) - Subcapsular location: adjacent to viscera or diaphragm

US, ultrasound; DW, dextrose water.

Table 2.
Comparison of US-guided modalities used in liver ablation
Modality Mechanism Key advantage Limitations US monitoring feature
PEIT Chemical dehydration Low cost Poor predictability, pain Hyperechoic, irregular fluid accumulation
Simple technique
RFA Thermal coagulation Extensive, long-term evidence Heat-sink effect Hyperechoic gas bubbles with posterior shadowing
Well-defined ablation zone Longer ablation time than MWA
MWA Dielectric heating Faster ablation with higher temperatures Risk of collateral damage Hyperechoic gas bubbles (more spherical)
Wider ablation zone Larger needle diameter
Cryoablation Freezing-thawing Less pain Longer procedure time Distinct iceball with hyperechoic margin and posterior shadowing
Less collateral damage Less evidence for this technique
IRE Non-thermal electroporation No heat sink effect Complex procedure Hypoechoic area with gradual echo increase
Safe near major vessels and bile ducts High cost
Histotripsy Mechanical fractionation (acoustic cavitation) Non-thermal Limited availability and evidence Dynamic bubble clouds
Non-invasive Breathing motion control
Potential immune stimulation

US, ultrasound; PEIT, percutaneous ethanol injection therapy; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; MWA, microwave ablation; IRE, irreversible electroporation.

Table 3.
Ongoing major clinical trials investigating combination of ablation and immunotherapy for HCC
Trial name (NCT No.) Phase Setting Intervention arms Primary endpoint Status
EMERALD-2 (NCT03847428) III Adjuvant Durvalumab+bevacizumab vs. durvalumab vs. placebo (post-ablation/resection) RFS Active, not recruiting
KEYNOTE-937 (NCT03867084) III Adjuvant Pembrolizumab vs. placebo (post-ablation/resection) RFS/OS Active, not recruiting
IMbrave050a) (NCT04102098) III Adjuvant Atezolizumab+bevacizumab vs. active surveillance (post-ablation/resection) RFS Active, not recruiting
NCT04639180 III Adjuvant Camrelizumab+rivoceranib vs. placebo (post-ablation/resection) RFS Active, not recruiting
AB-LATE02 (NCT04727307) II Neoadjuvant and adjuvant Atezolizumab+bevacizumab+RFA RFS Recruiting
DUMELEP (NCT06045975) II Neoadjuvant and adjuvant Durvalumab+tremelimumab+ablation Local recurrence Recruiting

HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; RFS, recurrence-free survival; OS, overall survival; RFA, radiofrequency ablation.

a)IMbrave050 has reported interim results but remains active for long-term follow-up.

TOOLS
METRICS
0
Crossref
0
Scopus
778
View
47
Download
Editorial Office
A-304 Mapo Trapalace, 53 Mapo-daero, Mapo-gu, Seoul 04158, Korea
TEL : +82-2-763-5627   FAX : +82-2-763-6909   E-mail : office@e-ultrasonography.org
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers
Copyright © Korean Society of Ultrasound in Medicine.                 Developed in M2PI
Zoom in Close layer