The increasing number of liver tumours treated by percutaneous ablation leads all radiologists to be confronted with the difficult interpretation of post-ablation imaging. Radiofrequency and microwave techniques are most commonly used. Recently, irreversible electroporation treatments that do not induce coagulation necrosis but cellular apoptose and respect the collagen architecture of bile ducts and vessels have been introduced and lead to specific post-ablation features and evolution. Ablations cause ‘normal’ changes in ablation and periablation zones. It is necessary to know these post-ablation features to avoid the misinterpretation of recurrence or complication that would lead to unnecessary treatments. Another challenge for the radiologist is to detect as early as possible the residual unablated tumour or the disease progression (local progression and tumour seeding) that will require a new treatment. Finally, the complications, frequent or rarer, should be recognised to be managed adequately. The purpose of this article is therefore to describe the large spectrum of normal and pathological aspects related to the treatment of hepatic tumour by percutaneous thermal ablation and irreversible electroporation ablation.

Objectives: To develop and validate European entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for sub-specialised hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal (HB/GI) diagnostic imaging. Materials and methods: Both European Society of Radiology and national curricula in HB/GI diagnostic radiology were thoroughly reviewed, resulting in preliminary EPAs drafted by a pilot group of expert radiologists in 2 different countries. Each EPA was fully described with 7 components (Specification/limitations; Potential risks of failing; Relevant domains of competence; Required experience, knowledge, skills, attitude and behaviour; Assessment information sources to assess progress and ground a summative entrustment decision; Entrustment for which level of supervision is to be reached; and Expiration date). The modified Delphi method with 3 Delphi rounds was chosen for validation. Content validity index (CVI) and median values were used for validation. Results: There were 15 preliminary EPAs, some of them divided according to 2 levels: resident and fellow level. The 37 members of the Delphi group were based in 2 different European countries with a background experience of 10 represented countries. Subsequent to the first Delphi round, 6 EPAs were accepted (CVI ≥ 0.8, median ≥ 4), 6 needed major revisions (CVI 0.7–0.79, median ≥ 4), 3 were rejected (CVI < 0.7) and 1 was added. After the second Delphi round, both the 6 revised EPAs and the additional one met the validation criteria (CVI ≥ 0.8, median ≥ 4). Finally, 13 EPAs were validated during the 3^rd Delphi round with an agreement percentage of 95–100%. Conclusion: This study creates and validates EPAs for sub-specialised HB/GI diagnostic imaging. Critical relevance statement: Thirteen EPAs for sub-specialised hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal diagnostic imaging were created with a strong methodology, and as a first example set in sub-specialised diagnostic imaging, they provide a template for others to be created. Key points: • The competence-based teaching in medical studies has recently been reintroduced through EPAs. • Thirteen EPAs have been developed for hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal sub-specialised diagnostic imaging. • These EPAs were validated using a Delphi modified method and provide a template for other to be created. Graphical