The classifications of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) currently used are based on prognostic factors obtained from studies performed years ago when most tumors were diagnosed at advanced stages and the survival rates were substantially poor. Recent investigations have reviewed the survival of early tumors properly selected to receive radical therapies and the natural outcome of nonsurgical HCC patients. These data enable a new staging system to be proposed, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging classification, that comprises four stages that select the best candidates for the best therapies currently available. Early stage (A) includes patients with asymptomatic early tumors suitable for radical therapies--resection, transplantation or percutaneous treatments. Intermediate stage (B) comprises patients with asymptomatic multinodular HCC. Advanced stage (C) includes patients with symptomatic tumors and/or an invasive tumoral pattern (vascular invasion/extrahepatic spread). Stage B and C patients may receive palliative treatments/new agents in the setting of phase II investigations or randomized controlled trials. End-stage disease (D) contain patients with extremely grim prognosis (Okuda stage III or PST 3-4) that should merely receive symptomatic treatment.

Staging and treatment indication are relevant topics in the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and for optimal results, they have to take into account liver function, tumor stage, and physical status. For any staging system to be meaningful it has to link staging with treatment indication; this should be based on robust scientific data. Currently, the sole proposal that serves both aims is the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) approach. It takes into account the relevant parameters of all important dimensions and divides patients into very early/early, intermediate, advanced, and end-stage. Early-stage HCC patients should be considered for potentially curative options such as resection, ablation, and transplantation. Patients at intermediate stage benefit from chemoembolization, whereas patients at an advanced stage, or who cannot benefit from options of higher priority, have sorafenib as the standard treatment. Finally, patients at end-stage should merely receive palliative care.

Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is standard of care for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma that is amenable to embolisation; however, median progression-free survival is still approximately 7 months. We aimed to assess whether adding durvalumab, with or without bevacizumab, might improve progression-free survival.In this multiregional, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (EMERALD-1), adults aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma amenable to embolisation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 at enrolment, and at least one measurable intrahepatic lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) were enrolled at 157 medical sites including research centres and general and specialist hospitals in 18 countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by TACE method, region, and portal vein invasion, using an interactive voice response or web response system, to TACE plus either durvalumab plus bevacizumab (1500 mg intravenous durvalumab once every 4 weeks, then 1120 mg durvalumab plus 15 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab once every 3 weeks), durvalumab plus placebo (same regimen using placebo instead of bevacizumab), or placebo alone (same regimen using placebo instead of durvalumab and instead of bevacizumab). Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment assignment until data analysis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, by blinded independent central review (BICR), and per RECIST version 1.1, with durvalumab plus bevacizumab versus placebo alone in the intention-to-treat population (ITT; ie, all participants assigned to treatment). Key secondary endpoints were progression-free survival by BICR per RECIST version 1.1 with durvalumab plus placebo versus placebo alone, overall survival, and time to deterioration in select patient-reported outcomes. Participants continue to be followed up for overall survival, and overall survival and patient-reported outcomes will be reported in a later publication. Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set, which included all participants assigned to treatment who received any study treatment (ie, any durvalumab, bevacizumab, or placebo) by treatment received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03778957, and is closed to accrual.Between Nov 30, 2018, and July 19, 2021, 887 patients were screened, of whom 616 were randomly assigned to durvalumab plus bevacizumab (n=204), durvalumab plus placebo (n=207), or placebo alone (n=205; ITT population). Median age was 65·0 years (IQR 59·0-72·0), 135 (22%) of 616 participants were female, 481 (78%) were male, 375 (61%) were Asian, 176 (29%) were White, 22 (4%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, nine (1%) were Black or African American, one (<1%) was native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 33 (5%) were other races. As of data cutoff (Sept 11, 2023) median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·9 months (95% CI 27·4-30·4), median progression-free survival was 15·0 months (95% CI 11·1-18·9) with durvalumab plus bevacizumab, 10·0 months (9·0-12·7) with durvalumab, and 8·2 months (6·9-11·1) with placebo. Progression-free survival hazard ratio was 0·77 (95% CI 0·61-0·98; two-sided p=0·032) for durvalumab plus bevacizumab versus placebo, and 0·94 (0·75-1·19; two-sided p=0·64) for durvalumab plus placebo versus placebo. The most common maximum grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension in participants who received durvalumab and bevacizumab (nine [6%] of 154 participants), anaemia in participants who received durvalumab and placebo (ten [4%] of 232 participants), and post-embolisation syndrome in participants who received placebo alone (eight [4%] of 200 participants). Study treatment-related adverse events that led to death occurred in none of 154 participants who received durvalumab and bevacizumab, three (1%) of 232 who received durvalumab and placebo (n=1 for arterial haemorrhage, liver injury, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome), and three (2%) of 200 who received placebo alone (n=1 for oesophageal varices haemorrhage, upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and dermatomyositis).Durvalumab plus bevacizumab plus TACE has the potential to set a new standard of care. With additional follow-up of the EMERALD-1 study, future analyses, including the final overall survival data and patient-reported outcomes, will help to further characterise the potential clinical benefits of durvalumab plus bevacizumab plus TACE in hepatocellular carcinoma amenable to embolisation.AstraZeneca.Copyright © 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.

Locoregional therapies, including yttrium-90 (Y) radioembolization, play an important role in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of the LEGACY study was to evaluate objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) in patients with solitary unresectable HCC treated with Y glass microspheres. LEGACY is a multi-center, single-arm, retrospective study conducted at 3 sites that included all eligible, consecutive HCC patients treated with radioembolization between 2014-2017. Eligibility criteria included: solitary HCC ≤8 cm, Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, and ECOG performance status 0-1. Primary endpoints were ORR and DoR based on mRECIST in the treated area (localized mRECIST) as evaluated by blinded, independent, central review (BICR). Radioembolization was performed with intent of ablative-level dosimetry in a selective fashion when possible. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) and multivariate Cox proportional hazards. Among the 162 patients included, 60.5% were ECOG 0; the median tumor size was 2.7 cm (range: 1-8) according to BICR. Radioembolization served as neoadjuvant therapy for transplantation or resection in 21.0% (34/162) and 6.8% (11/162) of patients, respectively, and as primary treatment for all others. Median follow-up time was 29.9 months by reverse KM. ORR (best response) was 88.3% (CI:82.4-92.4), with 62.2%(CI:54.1-69.8) exhibiting a DoR ≥6 months. Three-year OS was 86.6% for all patients and 92.8% for those neoadjuvant patients resected or transplanted. Conclusion: In this multi-center study of radioembolization, clinical meaningful response rates and prolonged DoR were observed in the treatment of unresectable, solitary HCC ≤8 cm.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Curative treatment options for patients with early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) include resection, liver transplantation, and percutaneous ablation therapy. However, even patients with solitary HCC are not always amenable to these treatments. The authors prospectively investigated the clinical outcomes of patients who received stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for solitary HCC.A phase 2 study involving SBRT and optional transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) was conducted in patients with Child-Pugh grade A or B and underlying, solitary HCC (greatest tumor dimension, ≤4 cm) who were unsuitable candidates for resection and radiofrequency ablation. The prescription dose was 35 to 40 grays in 5 fractions. The primary endpoint was 3-year local tumor control.From 2007 to 2012, 101 patients were enrolled, and 90 were evaluable with a median follow-up of 41.7 months (range, 6.8-96.2 months). Thirty-two patients were treatment-naïve, 20 were treated for newly diagnosed intrahepatic failure, and 38 were treated for residual or recurrent HCC as salvage therapy. Thirty-two patients did not receive TACE, 48 received insufficient TACE, and 10 attained full lipiodol accumulation. The 3-year local control rate was 96.3%, the 3-year liver-related cause-specific survival rate was 72.5%, and the overall survival rate was 66.7%. Grade 3 laboratory abnormalities were observed in 6 patients, and 8 patients had Child-Pugh scores that worsened by 2 points.SBRT achieved high local control and overall survival with feasible toxicities for patients with solitary HCC, despite rather stringent conditions. SBRT can be effective against solitary HCC in treatment-naive, intrahepatic failure, residual disease, and recurrent settings, taking advantage of its distinctive characteristics. Cancer 2016;122:2041-9. © 2016 American Cancer Society.© 2016 American Cancer Society.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most frequent liver malignancy and a leading cause of cancer death in the world. In unresectable HCC patients, transcatheter arterial (chemo-) embolization (TAE/TACE) has shown a disease response in 15–55% of cases. Though multiple TAE/TACE courses can be administered in principle, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) has emerged as an alternative option in the case of local relapse following multiple TAE/TACE courses. Methods: This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial of SBRT versus standard TAE/TACE for the curative treatment of the intermediate stage of HCC after an incomplete response following TAE/TACE (NCT02323360). The primary endpoint is 1-year local control (LC): 18 events were needed to assess a 45% difference (HR: 0.18) in favor of SBRT. The secondary endpoints are 1-year Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Distant Recurrence-Free Survival (DRFS), Overall Survival (OS) and the incidence of acute and late complications. Results: At the time of the final analysis, 40 patients were enrolled, 19 (49%) in the TAE/TACE arm and 21 (51%) in the SBRT arm. The trial was prematurely closed due to slow accrual. The 1- and 2-year LC rates were 57% and 36%. The use of SBRT resulted in superior LC as compared to TAE/TACE rechallenge (median not reached versus 8 months, p = 0.0002). PFS was 29% and 16% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. OS was 86% and 62% at 1 year and 2 years, respectively. In the TAE arm, PFS was 13% and 6% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. In the SBRT arm, at 1 and 2 years, PFS was 37% and 21%, respectively. OS at 1 and 2 years was 75% and 64% in the SBRT arm and 95% and 57% in the TACE arm, respectively. No grade >3 toxicity was recorded. Conclusions: SBRT is an effective treatment option in patients affected by inoperable HCC experiencing an incomplete response following ≥1 cycle of TAE/TAC.

Donafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor and a deuterated sorafenib derivative, has shown efficacy in phase Ia and Ib hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) studies. This study compared the efficacy and safety of donafenib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC.

Most patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recur within the liver following systemic therapy.To determine whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) improves outcomes in patients with locally advanced HCC compared with sorafenib alone.This multicenter phase 3 randomized clinical trial randomized patients with HCC 1:1 to sorafenib or SBRT followed by sorafenib, stratified by performance status, liver function, degree of metastases, and macrovascular invasion. Eligible patients had HCC unsuitable for or refractory to standard local-regional therapies and were candidates for first-line systemic therapy. Data were collected from April 2013 to March 2021, and data were analyzed from July 2022 to August 2023.Personalized SBRT, 27.5 to 50 Gy in 5 fractions.The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events, and quality of life.Of 193 patients randomized, 177 were eligible. Accrual was stopped early due to a change in standard-of-care systemic therapy. Of 177 included patients, 150 (84.7%) were male, and the median (IQR) age was 66 (60-72) years. Macrovascular invasion was seen in 131 (74.0%). As of July 1, 2022, the median OS was 12.3 months (90% CI, 10.6-14.3) with sorafenib vs 15.8 months (90% CI, 11.4-19.2) following SBRT and sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 90% CI, 0.59-1.01; 1-sided P = .06). Adjusting for stratification factors, OS was improved with SBRT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99; 2-sided P = .04). Median PFS was improved from 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.4-6.3) with sorafenib to 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.5-11.9) with SBRT and sorafenib (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.75; 2-sided P < .001). Treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 37 of 88 (42%) and 39 of 83 (47%) of patients treated with sorafenib vs SBRT and sorafenib, respectively (P = .52). There were 2 treatment-related deaths in the sorafenib group (death not otherwise specified and liver failure) and 1 in the SBRT and sorafenib group (lung infection). At 6 months, improved quality of life was seen in 2 of 20 (10%) and 6 of 17 (35%) of patients treated with sorafenib and SBRT and sorafenib, respectively.In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, among patients with locally advanced HCC, SBRT was associated with a clinically important but not statistically significant improved overall survival compared with sorafenib alone.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01730937.

To report the efficacy and safety of postoperative adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with microvascular invasion (MVI).

The survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after curative resection is usually poor. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in HBV-related HCC patients with an intermediate (a single tumor larger than 5 cm without microvascular invasion) or high risk (a single tumor with microvascular invasion, or two or three tumors) of recurrence. In this randomized phase 3 trial, 280 eligible patients were assigned to adjuvant TACE (= 140) or no adjuvant treatment (control; = 140) groups. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Multivariable Cox-proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent impact of TACE on patients' outcomes. Patients who received adjuvant TACE had a significantly longer RFS than those in the control group [56.0% vs. 42.1%, = 0.01; HR, 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.93]. Patients in the adjuvant TACE group had 7.8% higher 3-year OS rate than the control group (85.2% vs. 77.4%; = 0.04; HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97). The impact of adjuvant TACE on RFS and OS remained significant after controlling for other known prognostic factors (HR, 0.67; = 0.01 for RFS; and HR, 0.59; = 0.04 for OS). There was no grade 3 or 4 toxicity after adjuvant TACE. For patients with HBV-related HCC who had an intermediate or high risk of recurrence after curative hepatectomy, our study showed adjuvant TACE significantly reduced tumor recurrence, improved RFS and OS, and the procedure was well tolerated..©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.

Numerous studies have demonstrated limited survival benefits of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) alone in the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond up-to-seven criteria. The advent of immunotherapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has opened new avenues for HCC treatment. However, TACE combined with ICIs has not been investigated for patients with intermediate-stage HCC beyond the up-to-seven criteria. The study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this treatment strategy for such patients.