For Press

FAIRFAX, VA (Oct. 12, 2026)—Interventional radiologists (IRs) provide patients with primary and secondary liver cancer with high-quality, high-impact care in a more cost-efficient way than other specialties, according to a study published online in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology today. 

The study, funded by the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), reviewed Medicare data from 2016–2021 covering approximately 110,000 patients per year.  The authors found that IRs treated nearly 51% of Medicare patients with liver cancer, with the volume increasing over time as routine oncologic care increasingly relies on IR for essential support services (such as image-guided biopsy, venous access and drainage) and for therapeutic solutions, such as percutaneous ablation and transarterial therapies. 

“Liver cancer demands complex, multidisciplinary care and IRs have a central and transformative role to play on this care team,” said SIR Secretary Nishita Kothary, MD, FSIR, an interventional radiologist and professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Kothary was co-author of the paper. 

IRs are increasingly specializing in oncology and delivering therapeutic treatments for the cancer itself, such as trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE), trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE), and percutaneous thermal and non-thermal ablation.

“IOs harness minimally invasive, image-guided techniques to deliver targeted therapies that can be curative, adjunct to systemic therapies, or even serve as a bridge to organ transplantation,” said Kothary. “These therapies can have fewer side-effects than systemic therapies and a faster recovery time, making the treatment less onerous on the patient’s quality of life.”

Primary liver cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with approximately 900,000 new cases reported annually, 43,000 of which are in the United States. Metastatic liver cancer is an equally formidable problem, as it is a common metastasis from many common cancers, including colorectal and breast cancers. With so many lives affected, these high-efficacy, low-side-effect and lower-cost treatments can have a huge impact. 

Physician payments and patient out-of-pocket costs rose dramatically during the study period, with oncology accounting for the steepest increases (72% over the 5-year period). However, the overall cost burden of IR to the healthcare system was comparably lower. IR accounted for 7.4% of total payments while performing 11.7% of the Work Relative Value Units (wRVUs), a standard, Medicare-derived metric used to measure the time, skill, and intensity a physician invests in a patient service. By comparison, oncologists accounted for 52.5% of total payments while performing 13.7% of wRVUs, and radiation oncologists accounted for 5.4% of payments while performing 4.5% of wRVUs. 

“IR delivers the same quality of care at a fraction of the cost of oncologists, which is potentially more valuable to patients, payors and healthcare systems, especially when you consider the fact that recovery times are faster and hospital stays are often not required following an IR treatment,” said SIR Treasurer C. Matthew Hawkins, MD, MBA, FSIR, an interventional radiologist and professor at the Emory University School of Medicine. He is co-author on the paper. “As payors and regulators push for more cost-effective care, the urgency for IRs to be present at the table in discussions of cancer care policy, cost and resource allocation only grows.” 

“IR can offer cost-efficient care for hepatobiliary disease with comparable or improved clinical efficacy as compared to alternative treatment options offered by other specialties,” Hawkins said. “IRs must be a part of the discussion, especially as we move to a system of alternative payment models to control costs of care.”