Hepatocellular carcinoma

Overview

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignancy of the liver, accounting for approximately 75–85% of all primary liver cancers worldwide. It arises from the malignant transformation of hepatocytes, the primary functional cells of the liver. HCC represents a major global health challenge, ranking as the sixth most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related death globally.

Unlike secondary (metastatic) liver cancer, which spreads to the liver from other organs (such as the colon, breast, or lung), HCC originates within the liver tissue itself. The development of HCC is strongly linked to chronic liver disease and cirrhosis; approximately 80–90% of HCC cases arise in the setting of established cirrhosis. However, a significant minority occurs in non-cirrhotic livers, particularly in the context of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

This article provides a detailed, evidence-based overview of HCC, covering etiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic pathways, staging systems, treatment modalities, surveillance strategies, and prognosis.

Etiology and Risk Factors

The pathogenesis of HCC is multifactorial, typically involving a complex interplay between genetic susceptibility, environmental carcinogens, viral infections, and metabolic insults. The common denominator across most etiologies is chronic inflammation, cellular necrosis, and regenerative hyperplasia, leading to genomic instability and malignant transformation.

Major Risk Factors

The presence of cirrhosis is the single strongest risk factor. Annual incidence of HCC in cirrhotic patients ranges from 1% to 8%, depending on the underlying etiology (highest in HCV and HBV cirrhosis).

Emerging Risk Factors

• Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM): Independent risk factor (2–3x risk), mediated by hyperinsulinemia/IGF-1 signaling and associated MASLD.
• Obesity (BMI >30): Independent driver via adipokine dysregulation (leptin, adiponectin) and chronic inflammation.
• Anabolic Steroid Use: Long-term use linked to hepatic adenomas and malignant transformation.

Pathophysiology: From Cirrhosis to Carcinoma

HCC development follows a stepwise process of multistep hepatocarcinogenesis:

1. Initiation: DNA damage from carcinogens (aflatoxin, alcohol metabolites, viral proteins, oxidative stress).
2. Promotion: Clonal expansion of initiated cells driven by chronic inflammation, cytokines (TNF-α, IL-6), and growth factors (HGF, EGF, VEGF).
3. Progression: Accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations (chromosomal instability, TERT promoter mutations, TP53 mutations, CTNNB1 mutations, AXIN1 mutations, ARID1A/ARID2 mutations).
4. Malignant Conversion: Dysplastic nodules (low-grade → high-grade) → Early HCC → Progressed HCC.

Molecular Subtypes: Modern genomics classifies HCC into distinct molecular subclasses with prognostic and therapeutic implications:

• Proliferation Class: TP53 mutations, chromosome instability, high AFP, poor prognosis, aggressive.
• Non-Proliferation Class: CTNNB1 mutations, TERT promoter mutations, better differentiation, lower AFP.
• Specific Signatures: Immune-exhausted, CTNNB1-activated (immune-cold), Inflammatory/Interferon-rich.

Clinical Presentation: Symptoms

The clinical presentation of HCC is highly variable, ranging from an incidental finding on surveillance imaging in an asymptomatic patient to acute abdominal catastrophe (rupture) or end-stage liver failure symptoms. Crucially, early-stage HCC is frequently asymptomatic. Symptoms often result from the tumor mass effect, local invasion, paraneoplastic syndromes, or decompensation of underlying cirrhosis.

Common Presenting Symptoms

Symptom Onset Timeline

• Surveillance-Detected (Early): Asymptomatic (40–60% in screened populations).
• Symptomatic Presentation (Late): Median tumor size often >5–10 cm; vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread common at diagnosis in unscreened populations.

How Does It Look? (Pathology, Imaging & Gross Appearance)

Understanding the visual characteristics of HCC is fundamental for diagnosis (radiology) and pathological confirmation. The appearance correlates strongly with tumor differentiation, vascular invasion, and underlying liver parenchyma.

1. Gross Pathology (Macroscopic Appearance)

At surgical resection or autopsy, HCC exhibits three classic growth patterns, often coexisting in the same liver (multicentric origin vs. intrahepatic metastasis):

The Capsule: A fibrous pseudocapsule (compressed liver parenchyma + reticulin fibers) is a hallmark of well-to-moderately differentiated nodular HCC. It is a key radiological target (capsule appearance on MRI/CT) and a surgical landmark for non-anatomic resection.

Intratumoral Features:

• Necrosis: Common in tumors >3 cm (outgrows blood supply).
• Hemorrhage: Fresh or organizing; can cause acute rupture.
• Bile Staining: Greenish hue indicates bile production (differentiated).
• Fat/Steatosis: Yellowish areas (lipid droplets in hepatocytes).
• Calcification: Rare (<5%), psammomatous or coarse.

2. Microscopic Pathology (Histology)

Diagnosis relies on H&E staining, often supplemented by immunohistochemistry (IHC).

Histological Grading (Edmondson-Steiner Grade)

Key Histological Diagnostic Criteria (The “Hallmarks”)

1. Trabecular Thickening: >2–3 cell layers thick (normal liver = 1–2 cells).
2. Loss of Reticulin Framework: Reticulin stain shows loss of the normal reticulin network within the tumor nodule (compressed at periphery = capsule).
3. Pseudoglandular/Acinar Formation: Malignant hepatocytes attempting to form bile canaliculi.
4. Increased N:C Ratio: Nuclear crowding.
5. Unpaired Arteries: Arteries directly adjacent to tumor cells without intervening portal triad (arterialization).
6. Invasion: Vascular invasion (micro/macro) and bile duct invasion.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Panel

Used to confirm hepatic origin and differentiate from metastasis (e.g., colorectal, neuroendocrine, cholangiocarcinoma) or benign mimics (macroregenerative nodule, focal nodular hyperplasia, hepatic adenoma).

3. Radiological Appearance (Imaging Phenotype)

Imaging is the cornerstone of non-invasive diagnosis. Li-RADS (Liver Reporting and Data System) standardizes reporting for at-risk patients.

The “Hallmark” Enhancement Pattern (Arterial Phase Hyperenhancement + Washout)

This pattern reflects the tumor’s blood supply: Neovascularization from hepatic artery (loss of portal venous supply).

Li-RADS Categories (v2018) for Observations in At-Risk Livers

Specific Imaging Features by Subtype

• Early HCC (<2 cm): May show only APHE without washout or capsule (LR-3/LR-4). HBP hypointensity is critical here.
• Infiltrative HCC: Ill-defined peripheral enhancement, geographic spread, PVT common. Hard to measure RECIST.
• Fibrolamellar HCC (FL-HCC): Large, calcified central scar (T2 hyperintense, unlike FNH), heterogeneous enhancement, no cirrhosis, young adults. Note: Does not follow typical Li-RADS washout.
• Combined HCC-CCA: Rim APHE + delayed central enhancement (targetoid) + washout. LR-M.

Ancillary Imaging Features (MRI Specific)

• Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI): Restricted diffusion (high b-value, low ADC) = high cellularity/malignancy.
• T2 Hyperintensity: “Light bulb” bright = HCC (vs. metastasis often darker).
• Iron Sparing: Signal increase on T2* / out-of-phase in siderotic liver = HCC (tumor lacks Kupffer cells/iron).
• Fat in Tumor (not just background liver): Signal drop on opposed-phase = HCC (steatotic HCC).

Diagnostic Pathway

Diagnosis follows a structured algorithm integrating clinical risk, imaging, and biomarkers.

1. Surveillance (The Standard of Care)

Target Population: All cirrhotic patients (Child-Pugh A/B), selected Child-Pugh C (transplant candidates), Chronic HBV carriers (Asian males >40, females >50, Africans >20, family history, high viral load), MASLD cirrhosis.

Critical Point: Surveillance reduces HCC mortality by 37–40%** by enabling curative treatment at early stages. Adherence remains <50% globally.

2. Diagnostic Algorithm (Li-RADS Based)

1. Positive Surveillance (US nodule ≥1 cm or AFP rise): → Diagnostic Multiphasic CT or MRI (Liver Protocol).
2. Imaging Result:

• LR-5 (Non-invasive diagnosis): → Staging → Treatment. Biopsy NOT required (risk of seeding ~1-3%, sampling error).
• LR-4: → Second contrast study (if CT done, do MRI) OR Biopsy. If transplant listing: Biopsy often required.
• LR-3: → Short-term follow-up (3 months) OR Biopsy.
• LR-M: → Biopsy Mandatory (suspect CCA/Metastasis).

1. Biopsy Indications:

• LR-3/LR-4 not suitable for follow-up.
• LR-M lesions.
• Extrahepatic disease without liver primary diagnosis.
• Neoadjuvant therapy planned (requires tissue confirmation).
• Non-cirrhotic liver (no Li-RADS applicability).

1. Biopsy Technique: Core Needle (18G/16G) preferred over FNA (architecture needed for grading/vascular invasion). Coaxial technique reduces seeding risk. Contraindicated if coagulopathy uncorrectable (INR >1.5, Plt <50k) or lesion inaccessible.

3. Tumor Markers

• Alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP):
• Sensitivity ~60% (cutoff 20 ng/mL), Specificity ~90%.
• AFP >400 ng/mL + Arterial Mass = Diagnostic (historical criteria).
• Limitations: Elevated in active hepatitis, regeneration, pregnancy, germ cell tumors, gastric cancer. Normal AFP does not exclude HCC (40% of early HCC AFP-negative).
• AFP-L3% (Lectin-reactive AFP): More specific for HCC (hepatic origin). >10–15% suggests HCC.
• DCP (PIVKA-II): Des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin. Complementary to AFP. Better for early detection and AFP-negative HCC. Used in GALAD score (Gender, Age, AFP-L3, AFP, DCP) for risk stratification.

Staging Systems: Beyond TNM

Staging in HCC is unique because it must integrate Tumor Burden AND Liver Function AND Performance Status to guide therapy. TNM (AJCC 8th Ed) is anatomic but insufficient alone.

1. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Staging – Global Standard for Treatment Allocation

• Milan Criteria (Transplant): Single ≤5 cm OR ≤3 nodules all ≤3 cm. No PVT, No Mets. 5-yr post-transplant survival ~70-75%.
• Up-to-7 Criteria (Expanded Transplant): Sum of (Size largest nodule in cm + Number of nodules) ≤ 7. Similar outcomes to Milan in selected centers.

2. Child-Pugh Score (Liver Function Reserve)

• ALBI Grade (Albumin-Bilirubin Grade) is increasingly used as objective continuous alternative.

3. AJCC 8th Edition TNM (Anatomic)

• T1: Single ≤2 cm (T1a) or >2 cm without vascular invasion (T1b).
• T2: Single >2 cm with vascular invasion OR Multiple ≤5 cm.
• T3: Multiple >5 cm (T3a) or Major vascular invasion (Portal/hepatic vein – T3b).
• T4: Direct invasion adjacent organs (not GB) or Visceral peritoneum perforation.
• N1: Regional LN Mets. M1: Distant Mets.
• Prognostic Stage Groups: I, II, IIIA, IIIB, IVA, IVB.

Treatment Modalities: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Treatment selection is dictated by BCLC Stage, Liver Function (Child-Pugh/ALBI), Anatomic Resectability, Patient Fitness, and Patient Preference. Decisions are made in Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MDT).

1. Curative Intent Therapies (BCLC 0/A)

A. Surgical Resection (Partial Hepatectomy)

• Ideal Candidate: Single tumor, Preserved Liver Function (Child-Pugh A, MELD <10, no clinically significant portal hypertension – CSPH), sufficient Future Liver Remnant (FLR >20% normal, >30-40% injured).
• Anatomic vs. Non-Anatomic: Anatomic (segmentectomy) preferred for >2cm to clear portal territory; Non-anatomic (wedge) for small/peripheral to spare parenchyma.
• Laparoscopic/Robotic: Standard for minor resections (≤2 segments); non-inferior oncologic outcomes, faster recovery.
• Outcomes: 5-yr OS 50–70%. Recurrence Rate 70% at 5 yrs (De novo in cirrhotic field vs. true metastatic).
• Adjuvant Therapy: No standard proven adjuvant systemic therapy (IMbrave050 adjuvant atezo/bev trial negative for RFS primary endpoint; CheckMate 9DW ongoing).

B. Liver Transplantation (LT)

• Gold Standard for Early HCC in Decompensated Cirrhosis (Child B/C) or CSPH.
• Criteria: Milan (Standard), UCSF / Up-to-7 / Toronto (Expanded – center specific).
• Downstaging/Bridging: TACE/TARE/Ablation/Systemic used to keep patients within criteria while waiting (Dropout rate 15-30%/yr).
• Living Donor LT (LDLT): Overcomes organ shortage; allows planned timing.
• Outcomes: 5-yr OS 70-75% (Milan). Recurrence ~10-15% (mostly extrahepatic).

C. Ablation (Percutaneous Image-Guided)

• Indication: BCLC 0/A, Not surgical candidates (poor liver function, comorbidities, location), or patient refusal. Best for <3 cm (ideally <2 cm).
• Modalities:
• Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA): Heat. Gold standard. “Heat sink” effect near vessels >3mm reduces efficacy.
• Microwave Ablation (MWA): Higher temps, larger zones, less heat sink, faster. Increasingly preferred.
• Cryoablation / Irreversible Electroporation (IRE): Niche (near bile ducts/vessels).
• Outcomes: Complete response >90% for <2cm. 5-yr OS comparable to resection for <2cm in Child-Pugh A (per recent RCTs). Lower morbidity/mortality than resection.

2. Locoregional Therapies (BCLC B – Intermediate Stage)

Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) – Standard of Care

• Mechanism: Selective catheterization of tumor-feeding arteries → Injection of Chemotherapy (Doxorubicin/Cisplatin) emulsified in Lipiodol (cDEM-TACE) OR Drug-Eluting Beads (DEB-TACE) → Embolization (Gelfoam/Particles).
• Indication: Multinodular, preserved liver function (Child A/B7), no PVT (or branch PVT only), no extrahepatic spread.
• Assessment: mRECIST (viable/enhancing tumor only) at 1-3 months. Up-to-7 criteria response predicts survival.
• Session Interval: Every 4–8 weeks. Stop if: Complete response, Progression (vascular invasion, extrahepatic, Child-Pugh deterioration), Refractory (2 sessions no response).
• Complications: Post-embolization syndrome (fever, pain, nausea – 80%), Liver failure (Child B risk), Biloma, Cholecystitis.

Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE / SIRT – Yttrium-90)

• Mechanism: Beta-emitting microspheres (Glass/Resin) → Permanent lodging in tumor arterioles → Cross-fire radiation (2.5–11 mm).
• Advantages: No embolization (safer in PVT), Outpatient, Treats whole lobe (lobar infusion).
• Indication: PVT (Main/Right/Left branch), Large solitary >5-8cm, TACE-refractory, Bridging/Downstaging for transplant.
• Workup: MAA Scan (Technetium-99m) → Calculate Lung Shunt Fraction (<20% safe, <30Gy lung dose) & Tumor-to-Liver Uptake Ratio.
• Evidence: SARAH, SIRveNIR, LEGACY trials: Non-inferior to Sorafenib/TACE in selected populations; better QoL. Not standard 1st line for BCLC B without PVT per guidelines (cost/access), but strong option.

3. Systemic Therapy (BCLC C – Advanced Stage)

Paradigm Shift (2018–Present): From Single-Agent TKI to Combination Immunotherapy.

Critical Safety Note: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) can cause flare of hepatitis / liver decompensation in Child-Pugh B/C. Use with extreme caution outside clinical trials. Bevacizumab contraindicated** with high bleeding risk (untreated varices, recent bleed, coagulopathy, main PVT with cavernous transformation).

4. Radiation Therapy

• Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT): High dose (e.g., 30-50Gy in 3-5 fractions). Local control >85-90% at 2 yrs.
• Indications: Bridge to transplant, Inoperable early HCC (central location near hilum/vessels where ablation risky), Oligoprogression on systemic therapy, Symptomatic PVT/IVC thrombus, Bone/Brain Mets (palliation).
• Proton Therapy: Dosimetric advantage for large tumors/poor liver function.

5. Palliative & Supportive Care (BCLC D & All Stages)

• Symptom Management: Pain (WHO ladder), Ascites (Diuretics/LVP), Encephalopathy (Lactulose/Rifaximin), Variceal Bleeding (BBV/Band Ligation).
• Nutrition: High protein (1.2-1.5 g/kg), nocturnal snacks, Branched-Chain Amino Acids (BCAA).
• Psychosocial: Advanced Care Planning, Hospice referral.

Follow-Up and Surveillance After Treatment

Recurrence is the norm. Intensive surveillance detects recurrence at curable stages.

Recurrence Patterns:

• Early (<2 yrs): Usually Intrahepatic (Metastatic spread from index tumor or occult mets at treatment). Aggressive biology.
• Late (>2 yrs): Often De Novo (New primary in cirrhotic field). Better prognosis, amenable to repeat curative therapy.

Prognosis and Survival Statistics

Prognosis is heterogeneous, driven by Tumor Stage at Diagnosis, Liver Function, and Treatment Access.

Prognostic Scores for Advanced HCC (Systemic Therapy):

• ALBI Grade (Grade 1 vs 2 vs 3).
• mALBI (Modified ALBI).
• APRI / FIB-4 (Non-invasive fibrosis surrogates).
• IMbrave150 / HIMALAYA Subgroup Analyses: Better outcomes in Non-viral etiology, Low Tumor Burden, No PVT, Normal AFP.

Prevention Strategies

Primary Prevention (Reduce Incidence)

1. HBV Vaccination: Universal birth dose + 3-dose series. >95% effective in preventing chronic infection/HCC. Taiwan program reduced childhood HCC incidence by >75%.
2. HCV Elimination: DAAs (Direct-Acting Antivirals) cure >95%. SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) reduces HCC risk by 70-75%, but does not eliminate risk if cirrhosis established → Surveillance continues lifelong.
3. Aflatoxin Control: Post-harvest drying/storage, dietary diversification, biocontrol (Aflasafe).
4. Alcohol Reduction: Screening/Brief Intervention (SBI), Taxation, Minimum Unit Pricing.
5. Metabolic Health: Weight loss (10% body weight → fibrosis regression), Diabetes control, Exercise. Bariatric surgery reduces HCC risk in obese cirrhotics.
6. Chemoprevention (Investigational/Adjunct):

• Aspirin: Observational data suggests dose/duration-dependent risk reduction (20-40%). RCTs ongoing.
• Statins: Lipophilic statins associated with reduced HCC incidence in cirrhosis (30-50%).
• Metformin: Conflicting data.
• Not standard of care solely for prevention yet.

Secondary Prevention (Early Detection)

• Surveillance (US ± AFP q6mo) in high-risk groups (See Diagnostic Pathway). Single most effective intervention to reduce mortality.

Special Populations & Clinical Scenarios

1. HCC in Non-Cirrhotic Liver

• Etiology: Chronic HBV (integration without cirrhosis), MASLD (metabolic inflammation), HCA malignant transformation, FL-HCC.
• Challenge: No surveillance protocol → Larger size at diagnosis (median 8-10 cm).
• Biology: Distinct molecular signatures (CTNNB1, TERT, HNF1A). Often well-differentiated.
• Treatment: Resection is primary curative option (no portal hypertension/FLR constraints usually). Excellent outcomes if R0 resection achieved.

2. Fibrolamellar Carcinoma (FLC)

• Demographics: Adolescents/Young Adults (15-35), No Cirrhosis, No viral hepatitis, Normal AFP.
• Genetics: DNAJB1-PRKACA fusion (diagnostic).
• Imaging: Large, calcified central scar (T2 bright), Heterogeneous enhancement.
• Treatment: Surgical Resection only curative option. Chemo/IO largely ineffective. Poor response to standard systemic therapy.

3. Combined HCC-Cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA)

• Pathology: Both hepatocytic and biliary differentiation within same tumor (Types A, B, C).
• Imaging: LR-M features (Rim APHE, Targetoid restriction, Delayed central enhancement).
• Behavior: Aggressive. High nodal metastasis rate.
• Treatment: Surgery if resectable (Lymphadenectomy recommended). Systemic: Gem/Cis (biliary regimen) or HCC regimens (limited data).

4. Pediatric HCC

• Rare. Associated with genetic syndromes (Tyrosinemia, Glycogen Storage Disease, Alagille, Familial Adenomatous Polyposis).
• Treatment: Surgical resection primary. Chemo (Cisplatin/Doxorubicin) neoadjuvant/adjuvant. Transplant for unresectable.

5. Pregnancy

• Rare but increased diagnosis due to imaging.
• Diagnosis: MRI without contrast (Gadolinium contraindicated). US limited.
• Management: MDT decision. Early pregnancy + Advanced HCC → Termination often advised for maternal survival. Late pregnancy + Early HCC → Delay treatment until delivery (if safe) or treat in 2nd/3rd trimester (Surgery/TACE possible with fetal shielding/monitoring).

Patient Education & Shared Decision Making

• Understanding “Cure” vs. “Control”: Curative intent (Resection/Transplant/Ablation) aims for no evidence of disease (NED), but recurrence is common. Locoregional/Systemic aims for disease control/symptom palliation.
• Liver Function is Paramount: A “small tumor” in Child-Pugh C liver may be untreatable; a “large tumor” in Child-Pugh A liver may be resectable.
• Clinical Trials: Strongly encouraged at every stage (Neoadjuvant, Adjuvant, Advanced, Refractory). Access to novel agents (bispecifics, CAR-T, ADCs, novel TKIs).
• Nutrition: High Protein, High Calorie. Avoid fasting. Muscle mass (Sarcopenia) predicts toxicity/survival.
• Vaccinations: HAV, HBV (if immune), Pneumococcal, Influenza, COVID-19, RSV (if eligible). Live vaccines contraindicated post-transplant/on high-dose steroids.
• Medication Review: Avoid hepatotoxins. Caution with NSAIDs (renal/GI bleed risk). Statins generally safe/beneficial in cirrhosis.

Emerging Horizons & Future Directions

1. Neoadjuvant / Conversion Therapy: Downstaging unresectable → Resectable (CheckMate 9DW, EMERALD-2, KEYNOTE-937).
2. Adjuvant Therapy: Preventing recurrence post-resection/ablation (IMbrave050 negative primary endpoint, but subgroup analyses continue; CheckMate 9DW, EMERALD-2 pending).
3. Bispecific Antibodies: Tebotelimab (PD-1/LAG-3), Ivonescimab (PD-1/VEGF bispecific) – promising early phase data.
4. Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs): Targeting Glypican-3 (GPC3), TROP2, Claudin 18.2.
5. Cell Therapy: CAR-T (GPC3, AFP), TCR-T, TIL therapy.
6. Liquid Biopsy / ctDNA: Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) for:

• Molecular Residual Disease (MRD) detection post-surgery/ablation (lead time 6-12 months vs imaging).
• Real-time monitoring of resistance mutations (e.g., FGFR, VEGFR).
• Early detection screening (multi-cancer early detection – MCED tests).

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI):

• Radiomics/Deep Learning: Automated Li-RADS classification, Microvascular Invasion (MVI) prediction on pre-op MRI, Response prediction to TACE/Systemic therapy.
• Digital Pathology: Automated grading, Immune microenvironment quantification.

1. Personalized Surveillance: Risk scores (aMAP, GALAD, HEPAMET) to tailor US vs MRI intervals.

Summary of Key Takeaways

1. HCC is a complication of chronic liver disease. 90% arise in cirrhosis. Treat the liver, not just the tumor.
2. Surveillance (US q6mo) saves lives. It is the only proven method to shift diagnosis to early, curable stages.
3. Diagnosis is often non-invasive. Li-RADS LR-5 on multiphasic CT/MRI = Definitive HCC diagnosis. Biopsy reserved for indeterminate (LR-3/4) or non-HCC suspicion (LR-M).
4. Staging drives therapy. BCLC integrates Tumor, Liver Function, and PS. MDT discussion is mandatory.
5. Curative options exist for Early Stage: Resection (good liver), Transplant (bad liver/within criteria), Ablation (small/poor surgical candidates).
6. Systemic Therapy has transformed. Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab and Durvalumab/Tremelimumab are new 1st line standards (Child-Pugh A). TKIs remain vital 2nd line/alternatives.
7. Recurrence is the rule, not exception. Lifelong surveillance post-treatment is essential.
8. Multidisciplinary Care is non-negotiable. Hepatology, Surgery, Oncology, Radiology (IR), Pathology, Palliative Care, Nutrition, Psychology.

References

1. Abou-Alfa, G.K. et al. (2024) ‘Hepatocellular Carcinoma’, in DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. 12th edn. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 891–945.
2. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) (2023) Clinical Practice Guidance: Surveillance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Adults. Available at: https://www.aasld.org/ (Accessed: 20 May 2024).
3. Bruix, J. et al. (2022) ‘EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on management of hepatocellular carcinoma’, Journal of Hepatology, 76(3), pp. 679–723. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.008.
4. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) (2022) EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Available at: https://easl.eu/ (Accessed: 20 May 2024).
5. Finn, R.S. et al. (2020) ‘Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma’, New England Journal of Medicine, 382(20), pp. 1894–1905. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915745. (IMbrave150).
6. Hoshida, Y. et al. (2024) ‘Molecular classification and therapeutic targets in hepatocellular carcinoma’, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 21(2), pp. 105–122. doi: 10.1038/s41571-023-00845-3.
7. Kudo, M. (2023) ‘Liquid biopsy for hepatocellular carcinoma: circulating tumour DNA and extracellular vesicles’, Journal of Hepatology, 78(3), pp. 642–655. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.11.012.
8. Llovet, J.M. et al. (2021) ‘Hepatocellular carcinoma’, Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 7(1), p. 6. doi: 10.1038/s41572-020-00240-3.
9. Marrero, J.A. et al. (2018) ‘Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases’, Hepatology, 68(2), pp. 723–750. doi: 10.1002/hep.29913. (Note: Superseded by 2023 Guidance, but foundational).
10. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) (2024) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Hepatobiliary Cancers. Version 2.2024. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/ (Accessed: 20 May 2024).
11. Reig, M. et al. (2022) ‘BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update’, Journal of Hepatology, 76(3), pp. 681–693. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.018.
12. Sangro, B. et al. (2023) ‘Durvalumab plus tremelimumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HIMALAYA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study’, The Lancet, 402(10403), pp. 581–594. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01125-5.
13. Singal, A.G. et al. (2024) ‘Surveillance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma’, Gastroenterology, 166(4), pp. 769–785. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.11.015.
14. Vogel, A. et al. (2023) ‘Systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: current landscape and future directions’, Journal of Hepatology, 78(5), pp. 1082–1099. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.01.015.
15. World Health Organization (WHO) / International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2024) Global Cancer Observatory: Liver Cancer Fact Sheet. Available at: https://gco.iarc.fr/ (Accessed: 20 May 2024).
16. Yopp, A.C. et al. (2023) ‘Downstaging and transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma’, Clinical Liver Disease, 21(4), pp. 212–217. doi: 10.1002/cld.1156.
17. Zhang, Y. et al. (2024) ‘Artificial intelligence in hepatocellular carcinoma: from diagnosis to treatment response prediction’, Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 21(5), pp. 289–304. doi: 10.1038/s41575-023-00732-1.