The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) based therapies has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the variable treatment response and the uncertain benefit in patients with advanced liver cirrhosis emphasise the urgent need for prognostic and predictive biomarkers guiding patient selection. The soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) is strongly associated with inflammation, liver cirrhosis and various types of cancer. In this study, we investigated suPAR as a potential novel biomarker in patients with unresectable HCC.

This multicenter retrospective study, conducted at three German tertiary care centers, included 90 patients with unresectable HCC and suPAR measurements prior to and during atezolizumab/bevacizumab therapy. Patients with liver cirrhosis without HCC (n = 235) and non-cirrhotic patients with other gastrointestinal tumours (n = 155) were selected as control cohorts.

Median suPAR levels were significantly higher in patients with liver cirrhosis compared to non-cirrhotic cancer patients. A strong association with parameters of liver function, but not with HCC characteristics, was observed. In patients with HCC receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab, suPAR was the most accurate independent predictor of hepatic decompensation and overall survival (OS). In addition, suPAR was able to stratify the risk of hepatic decompensation within the different Child-Pugh classes.

SuPAR represents a promising novel biomarker in patients with HCC treated with ICI-based therapies and bears the potential to guide the selection of antitumoral systemic therapies in patients with advanced liver cirrhosis.

Significant advances have occurred in the locoregional and systemic therapy landscape for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with the most notable being the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations. ICI combinations have significantly improved the overall survival of patients with unresectable HCC, affording median survival over 2 years and long-term survival exceeding 5 years in a subset of patients. Accordingly, there has been increased interest in the earlier application of systemic therapies, including (neo)adjuvant therapy in the perioperative setting or in combination with intra-arterial therapies. However, recent data failed to demonstrate improved recurrence-free survival with use of adjuvant ICI therapy. Conversely, 2 trials showed improved progression-free survival when ICI therapies were combined with transarterial chemoembolization, although data regarding the impact on overall survival are still immature. These improved outcomes raise several new questions, including which patients with liver-localized HCC should receive systemic therapy, how should this be sequenced or combined with other available therapies, and how to manage those patients with marked responses, including consideration of liver transplantation. These questions are often determined on a case-by-case basis and best made in a multidisciplinary manner considering several factors, including tumor burden, degree of liver dysfunction, performance status, and patient's long-term goals of care.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. A substantial proportion of patients are diagnosed with advanced or intermediate-advanced stage disease at presentation and are often ineligible for curative surgery. The mainstay of treatment of this unique intermediate-advanced stage patients who have a liver-limited disease but unresectable due to large tumor burden, number of lesions or technical difficulties, have traditionally been locoregional therapies. However, the response has not been satisfactory in the majority of patients. With the advent of immune therapies and the remarkable progress it has made over the past decade, the management of intermediate-advanced HCC has undergone a paradigm change. Till 2020, sorafenib, a multi-targeted inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor and rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma was the one approved immune therapy. However, since 2021, nine more drugs have been approved, based on studies showing improved survival in advanced-stage HCC patients. However, the challenge clinicians face now is to determine the best choice/combination of available drugs to achieve long-term success and survival while maintaining preserved liver function. In light of emerging literature concerning immune therapies, including the relevant randomized controlled trial by Han et al, this editorial aims to review the currently available treatment strategies for the intermediate-advanced stage HCC.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of primary liver cancer. Photon radiotherapy shows efficacy in treating HCC but carries risks of high exit dose and radiation-induced liver disease. Additionally, HCCs with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) have a poor prognosis and are associated with higher risk of death. In recent years, proton beam therapy (PBT) has emerged as a novel treatment with the ability to downstage HCC for liver transplant (LT).

This review will provide an overview of dosimetric benefits of PBT, efficacy of PBT in treating HCC, downstaging HCC-PVTT for LT, and a comparison of PBT with other non-surgical techniques. A search of PubMed until 3 September 2024 was conducted using free search and the following keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma, proton beam therapy, portal vein tumor thrombosis, local ablative therapy, trans-arterial chemoembolization, stereotactic body radiotherapy, Y-90 radioembolization.

Various clinical trials using PBT have shown promising tumor local control and overall survival rates. PBT is mostly safe and efficacious for downstaging HCC-PVTT for LT. PBT has also been shown to be non-inferior to various other treatment modalities. Future research should focus on combinations of PBT with other modalities.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezobeva) has changed the treatment landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but its efficacy and safety in patients with impaired liver function are still debated. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of baseline liver function and liver decompensation during treatment on clinical outcomes.

In this multicenter study, we included 247 patients with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezobeva. We analyzed data on survival, tumor progression, and liver decompensation and introduced time to decompensation as a new safety endpoint.

The reported overall survival (OS) was 18.30 months, time to progression 13.07 months, and progression-free survival (PFS) 9.83 months. Although OS was better in Child Pugh A compared with Child Pugh B patients (20.20 vs 9.83 months; P = .0008), no differences were observed in time to progression and treatment safety. Liver decompensation occurred in 63 patients (25.51%), specifically 27.89% Child Pugh A and 51.16% Child Pugh B patients; in 41.26% of patients, atezobeva was resumed after decompensation, achieving an OS comparable to those who never decompensated (20.87 vs 20.2 months; P = .77), and better than those who permanently stopped treatment (8.07 months; P = .02). Time to decompensation was similar for patients with albumin-bilirubin score 2 regardless of Child Pugh class, and the probability of recovery from decompensation was similar for Child Pugh A and B patients.

Atezobeva is effective in both Child Pugh A and B patients. The possibility to resume treatment after an episode of decompensation underscores the importance of integrated hepato-oncological management.

We aimed to compare the early responder rates, defined as complete or partial responders, using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST), and Choi criteria in advanced HCC patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab (atezo-bev), and to correlate them with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

This retrospective study included advanced HCC patients treated with ≥ 3 cycles of atezo-bev. Two reviewers assessed responses using RECIST 1.1, mRECIST, and Choi criteria at 1st follow-up imaging. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests evaluated and compared PFS and OS. Cox proportional hazard models identified survival outcome predictors. Kappa statistics assessed inter-reader agreement.

We evaluated 77 patients (65 men; mean age, 62.8 ± 12.3 years). Choi's criteria revealed the highest early responders rate (53.2%), exceeding mRECIST (32.5-33.8%) and RECIST 1.1 (24.7-26.0%), with an excellent agreement in all criteria (κ, 0.85-0.95). Across criteria, a consistent number of patients progressed (23-26) and was associated with significantly poor OS (ps ≤ 0.049). Responders by any criteria showed longer PFS (ps ≤ 0.009), and 1-year OS (ps ≤ 0.01). Choi criteria linked to significantly better OS without landmark (p = 0.003), with 1-year OS rates at 76.9% for responders vs 38.1% for non-responders. Cox analysis identified responders by Choi criteria as a significant OS predictor.

Choi criteria identified more early responders than RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, significantly correlating with improved OS. Choi criteria could be considered as a formal response assessment criterion for the emerging atezo-bev systemic treatment.

For atezo-bev treatment of advanced HCC, more comprehensive response criteria, such as Choi criteria, could be effective in identifying early responders and predicting survival outcomes along with RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST.

Choi criteria identified a higher rate of early responders compared to mRECIST and RECIST1.1 following atezo-bev treatment. Responders by all criteria had longer PFS and 1-year OS, and only those by Choi criteria experienced longer OS without landmark time. Choi criteria, with RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, is an effective response assessment tool for atezo-bev treatment.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major global burden, ranking as the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality. HCC due to chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) or C virus (HCV) infection has decreased due to universal vaccination for HBV and effective antiviral therapy for both HBV and HCV, but HCC related to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and alcohol-associated liver disease is increasing. Biannual liver ultrasonography and serum α-fetoprotein are the primary surveillance tools for early HCC detection among high-risk patients (e.g., cirrhosis, chronic HBV). Alternative surveillance tools such as blood-based biomarker panels and abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are being investigated. Multiphasic computed tomography or MRI is the standard for HCC diagnosis, but histological confirmation should be considered, especially when inconclusive findings are seen on cross-sectional imaging. Staging and treatment decisions are complex and should be made in multidisciplinary settings, incorporating multiple factors including tumor burden, degree of liver dysfunction, patient performance status, available expertise, and patient preferences. Early-stage HCC is best treated with curative options such as resection, ablation, or transplantation. For intermediate-stage disease, locoregional therapies are primarily recommended although systemic therapies may be preferred for patients with large intrahepatic tumor burden. In advanced-stage disease, immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapy is the preferred treatment regimen. In this review article, we discuss the recent global epidemiology, risk factors, and HCC care continuum encompassing surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and treatments.

This study aims to develop a prognostic model for HCC based on TME-related factors.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is characterized by a poor prognosis, largely due to the complex and heterogeneous interactions between stromal and immune cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME).

Genome and transcriptome data, as well as clinical information of HCC patients, were obtained from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO). The TME score was evaluated using the "ESTIMATE" R package. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) associated with TME phenotype were analyzed using the LIMMA R-package. Survival outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) networks integrated with multivariate survival and LASSO analyses were utilized to identify TME-related hub genes for a risk score model. A nomogram predicting prognosis of HCC patients was developed through four independent cohorts.

The TME scores showed a negative correlation with tumor progression and survival in HCC patients. We identified 50 core genes with high connectivity in the PPI network, as along with 33 key DEGs associated with survival in HCC. Intersection analysis revealed six hub genes -CXCL8, CXCL1, CCR7, IL7R, MMP9, and CD69. The risk score based on these six TME-related hub genes was significantly associated with overall survival and clinicopathological characteristics of HCC patients. Furthermore, the nomogram demonstrated its ability to discriminate HCC patients from healthy individuals using peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

We have developed a TME-related risk scoring model for HCC patients and identified six hub gene panel that serve as a potential biomarker for personalized prognosis of immunotherapy and non-invasive diagnostics of HCC.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A/B) received FDA approval as the first-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 2020. However, optimal subsequent treatment options are unclear. Here, we describe clinical outcomes of advanced HCC patients following first-line treatment with A/B.

We conducted a multi-site analysis of patients with HCC treated with first-line A/B between January 2018 and December 2022 at Mayo Clinic. This study cohort included all patients receiving second-line systemic therapy after A/B. Median overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Child Pugh (CP) scores are also described at diagnosis, prior to first line, and prior to second-line therapy.

Of the 342 patients who received A/B, 107 (31.3%) received second-line treatments including anti-VEGF therapy or immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and were included in the final analysis. Median OS for all patients was 11.1 months from initiation of second-line therapy. Median OS was 10.7 months (95% CI: 7.2-12.8) and 15.7 months (95%CI: 6.8-NE) for those receiving anti-VEGF inhibitors and ICI ( P = .50). Median TTD for second-line therapies was 2.4 months (95% CI: 1.7-3.3) and 2.6 months (95% CI: 1.5-5.1) for anti-VEGF inhibitors and ICI, respectively (P = .87). In multivariate analyses, CP was significantly associated with survival.

Following first-line A/B treatment, there is no statistically significant difference in survival between ICI and anti-VEGF therapy, nor in time to treatment discontinuation. CP score remains an important prognostic tool.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in India. This review explores the epidemiological trends and the landscape of systemic therapy for HCC in the Indian context, acknowledging the recent shift in etiology from viral hepatitis to lifestyle-associated factors. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted, including data from the Global Cancer Observatory and the Indian Council of Medical Research, along with a critical analysis of various clinical trials. The article investigates systemic therapies in-depth, discussing their mechanisms, efficacy, and adaptation to Indian healthcare framework. Progression-free survival with a hazard ratio of ≤0.6 compared to sorafenib, overall survival of ∼16-19 months, and objective response rate of 20-30% are the defining thresholds for systemic therapy clinical trials. Systemic therapy for advanced HCC in India primarily involves the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, and cabozantinib, with sorafenib being the most commonly used drug for a long time. Monoclonal antibodies such as ramucirumab and bevacizumab and immune-checkpoint inhibitors, such as atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab, are expanding treatment horizons. Lenvatinib has emerged as a cost-effective alternative, and the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival. Despite these advances, late-stage diagnosis and limited healthcare accessibility pose significant challenges, often relegating patients to palliative care. Addressing HCC in India demands an integrative approach that not only encompasses advancements in systemic therapy but also targets early detection and comprehensive care models. Future strategies should focus on enhancing awareness, screening for high-risk populations, and overcoming infrastructural disparities. Ensuring the judicious use of systemic therapies within the constraints of the Indian healthcare economy is crucial. Ultimately, a nuanced understanding of systemic therapeutic options and their optimal utilization will be pivotal in elevating the standard of HCC care in India.

The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atz/Bev) has radically changed the treatment strategy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) but raises questions. Our objectives were to determine survival outcomes and safety in a real-life multicenter French cohort, to investigate the on-treatment prognostic value of the bioinflammatory RECA score, and to perform a matched comparison with patients who previously received tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

A retrospective analysis of 109 consecutive patients enrolled from September 2020 to January 2023 and a post matched comparison with a TKI cohort ( n  = 79) by the propensity score matching method.

The Atz/Bev population was mainly nonviral disease patients (69%) with Child-Pugh grade A (90%), performance status 0/1 (90%), and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B (38%) or stage C (62%) classification. After a median follow-up of 6.5 months (3.6-11.7), overall survival (OS) was 13.0 (5.1-28.7) months. OS was independently associated with metastasis, increased alkaline phosphatase, and serum bilirubin levels. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 78% of patients, mostly grade 1 or 2. The RECA score clearly revealed two different prognosis groups after three cycles. No difference in OS was observed after matching between sequential treatment with TKIs and Atz/Bev.

This real-life study highlights the importance of liver function when using Atz/Bev combination and the necessity of identifying predictive markers of response to HCC therapies. Our findings suggest a change in practices, with a marked proportion of intermediate stages, and support the on-treatment prognostic value of an inflammatory score.

Background/Objectives: This study evaluated comparative overall survival (OS) of United States veterans with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) receiving first-line (1L) atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib or lenvatinib, overall and across racial and ethnic groups. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with uHCC who initiated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (post-2020) or sorafenib or lenvatinib (post-2018) were identified from the Veterans Health Administration National Corporate Data Warehouse (1 January 2017-31 December 2022). Patient characteristics were evaluated in the year prior to 1L treatment initiation. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression methods were used to compare OS starting from treatment between cohorts, both overall and by race and ethnicity. Results: Among the 1874 patients included, 405 (21.6%) received 1L atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 1016 (54.2%) received sorafenib, and 453 (24.2%) received lenvatinib, with a median follow-up time of 8.5, 7.6, and 8.2 months, respectively. Overall, patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had longer unadjusted median OS (12.8 [95% CI: 10.6, 17.1] months) than patients receiving sorafenib (8.0 [7.1, 8.6] months) or lenvatinib (9.5 [7.8, 11.4] months; both log-rank p < 0.001). After adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with a reduced risk of death by 30% vs. sorafenib (adjusted HR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.60, 0.82]) and by 26% vs. lenvatinib (0.74 [0.62, 0.88]; both p < 0.001). OS trends in the White, Black, and Hispanic patient cohorts were consistent with that of the overall population. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with improved survival outcomes compared with sorafenib and lenvatinib in patients with uHCC, both overall and across racial and ethnic subgroups.

The aims of this study were to identify clinically significant biomarkers of a response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATZ + BV) therapy and to develop target strategies against unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC).

We first investigated the potential of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to serve as a biomarker for predicting the therapeutic outcome in 24 u-HCC patients treated with ATZ + BV therapy. Next, we analyzed levels of immune-related cytokines in blood samples from 134 u-HCC patients who received ATZ + BV. For this, serum immune-related molecules or cancer-immune cycle-related molecules that have been reported in HCC patient sera, namely CD274, LAG-3, CCL2, 4, 5, CXCL1, 9, 10, 12, 13, CX3CL1, CCR5, IFNγ and IL-6, 8 were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

More than 1% of variant read frequency (VRF) mutations were found in TP53, APC, PIK3CA and VHL, although with no correlation with treatment response. Among the 15 cytokines evaluated, CXCL9 and LAG-3 levels were significantly different between patients with objective response (OR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) following ATZ + BV treatment. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses of CXCL9 (cut-off value: 419.1 pg/ml) and LAG-3 (cut-off value: 3736.3 pg/ml) indicated areas of 0.779 and 0.697, respectively, for differentiating PD from non-PD and OR from non-OR. In multivariate analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), high serum CXCL9 (hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.412 (0.251-0.677) (p = 0.0005) for PFS and 0.252 (0.125-0.508) (p = 0.0001) for OS), and low serum LAG-3 (HR and 95% CI 0.419 (0.249-0.705) (p = 0.0011) for PFS and 0.294 (0.140-0.617) (p = 0.0012) for OS) were independent positive predictive factors.

Although, as far as we examined, no ctDNA mutations in blood were found to be related to ATZ + BV treatment efficacy, serum CXCL9 and LAG-3 levels, which are related to the cancer-immune cycle, were associated with treatment efficacy and could be predictive markers of the efficacy of ATZ + BV treatment in HCC patients.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is generally diagnosed at an advanced stage, which limits curative treatment options for these patients. Locoregional therapy (LRT) is the standard approach to bridge and downstage unresectable HCC for liver transplantation (LT). Atezolizumab-bevacizumab (atezo-bev) can induce objective responses in nearly one-third of patients; however, the role and outcomes of downstaging using atezo-bev remains unknown.

In this retrospective single-center study, we included consecutive patients between November 2020 and August 2023, who received atezo-bev with or without LRT and were subsequently considered for resection/LT after downstaging.

Of the 115 patients who received atezo-bev, 12 patients (10.4%) achieved complete or partial response and were willing to undergo LT; they (age, 58.5 years; women, 17%; Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage system B/C, 5/7) had received 3-12 cycles of atezo- bev, and four of them had received prior LRT. Three patients died before LT, while three were awaiting LT. Six patients underwent curative therapies: four underwent living donor LT after a median of 79.5 days (range, 54-114) following the last atezo-bev dose, one underwent deceased donor LT 38 days after the last dose, and one underwent resection. All but one patient had complete pathologic response with no viable HCC. Three patients experienced wound healing complications, and one required re-exploration and succumbed to sepsis. After a median follow-up of 10 months (range, 4-30), none of the alive patients developed HCC recurrence or graft rejection.

Surgical therapy, including LT, is possible after atezo-bev therapy in well-selected patients after downstaging.

The IMbrave150 trial established atezolizumab with bevacizumab (A+B) as standard care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), recommending an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) within 6 months of treatment initiation to prevent bleeding from esophagogastric varices. The necessity of mandatory EGD for all patients remains unclear. We retrospectively analyzed 112 HCC patients treated with A+B at five Canadian cancer centers from 1 July 2020 to 31 August 2022. A+B was the first-line therapy for 90% of patients, with median overall survival at 20.3 months and progression-free survival at 9.6 months. There was no survival difference between patients with bleeding and those without. Before A+B, 71% (n = 79) of patients underwent an EGD within 6 months, revealing varices in 41% (n = 32) and requiring intervention in 19% (n = 15). The overall bleeding rate was 15% (n = 17), with GI-specific bleeding occurring in 5% (n = 17). In the EGD group, GI-specific bleeding was 6% (n = 5) while in the non-EGD group, it was 3% (n = 1). Non-GI bleeding was observed in 10% (n = 11) of patients. Outcomes for HCC patients treated with A+B in Canada were comparable to IMbrave150. There was no increase in GI bleeding in patients without pre-treatment EGD, possibly supporting a selective EGD approach.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a significant burden on global healthcare systems due to its considerable incidence and mortality rates. Recent trends indicate an increase in the worldwide incidence of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and a shift in the etiology of HCC, with MASLD replacing the hepatitis B virus as the primary contributor to new cases of HCC. MASLD-related HCC exhibits distinct characteristics compared to viral HCC, including unique immune cell profiles resulting in an overall more immunosuppressive or exhausted tumor microenvironment. Furthermore, MASLD-related HCC is frequently identified in older age groups and among individuals with cardiometabolic comorbidities. Additionally, a greater percentage of MASLD-related HCC cases occur in noncirrhotic patients compared to those with viral etiologies, hindering early detection. However, the current clinical practice guidelines lack specific recommendations for the screening of HCC in MASLD patients. The evolving landscape of HCC management offers a spectrum of therapeutic options, ranging from surgical interventions and locoregional therapies to systemic treatments, for patients across various stages of the disease. Despite ongoing debates, the current evidence does not support differences in optimal treatment modalities based on etiology. In this study, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the current literature on the trends, characteristics, clinical implications, and treatment modalities for MASLD-related HCC.

Primary liver cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) being the most prevalent type of liver cancer. The prognosis of patients with advanced, unresectable HCC has historically been poor. However, with the emergence of immunotherapy, specifically immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), there is reason for optimism. Nevertheless, ICIs do not come without risk, especially when administered in patients with HCC, given their potential underlying poor hepatic reserve. Given their novelty in the management of HCC, there are few studies to date specifically investigating ICI-related side effects on the liver in patients with underlying HCC. This review will serve as a guide for clinicians on ICIs' role in the management of HCC and their potential side effect profile. There will be a discussion on ICI-related hepatotoxicity, the potential for hepatitis B and C reactivation with ICI use, the potential for the development of autoimmune hepatitis with ICI use, and the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with ICI use. As ICIs become more commonplace as a treatment option in patients with advanced HCC, it is imperative that clinicians not only understand the mechanism of action of such agents but also understand and are able to identify hepatic-related side effects.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common malignancy with a poor prognosis, particularly in patients with advanced-stage disease, elderly individuals and/or in those with poor liver function. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-containing therapies, such as atezolizumab, an anti-programmed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody, plus bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, may be effective and safe therapeutic options for elderly patients with advanced-stage HCC. The present study reports the case of a male patient his 80s who consumed alcohol with unresectable advanced-stage HCC who received combination therapy comprising atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for 6 months. The patient achieved a complete response despite the discontinuation of treatment due to nephrotoxicity. It is critical for patients with HCC and a Child-Pugh A grade to continue therapy for HCC, even if they are older. The development of more effective therapies is required for patients with advanced-stage HCC with a worse liver function than those with a Child-Pugh A grade. The case described in the present study demonstrates the need for obtaining further evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for elderly patients with advanced-stage HCC.

A meta-analysis was performed to assess the benefits and safety profile of approved immune checkpoint inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Eligible studies were searched from Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed databases based on a well-established strategy. Following the exclusion of ineligible studies, 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with control group, immune checkpoint inhibitors were associated with improved ORR (OR 3.03, 95% CI 2.26-4.05, P < 0.00001), SD (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.95, P = 0.02), OS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.83, P < 0.00001), and PFS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87, P < 0.0003). However, no significant differences were observed in DCR (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.97-1.81, P = 0.07), PD (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67-1.21, P = 0.48), and all caused any-grade adverse events (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.62-2.39, P = 0. 57), all caused ≥ grade 3 adverse events (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97-1.25, P = 0.14), treatment-related any-grade adverse events (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.55-2.32, P = 0.73), and treatment-related ≥ grade 3 events (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34-1.97, P = 0.65) between the two groups. After subgroup analysis conducted, patients in the immune checkpoint inhibitor group compared with targeted drug group showed significant improvements in OS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84, P < 0.00001) and PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.91, P = 0.004). Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated peculiar benefits in the treatment of HCC with an acceptable safety profile. Compared to targeted drugs, immune checkpoint inhibitors still offer advantages in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. However, there is still considerable room for further improvement.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a primary liver cancer that commonly arises in the background of chronic liver inflammation and/or cirrhosis. Chronic liver inflammation results in the production of different growth factors, remodeling of the microenvironment architecture into fibrosis, and eventually carcinogenesis. Overexpression of some growth factors has been associated with worse prognosis in patients with HCC. Targeted therapies against growth factors may disrupt cell signaling and the mechanisms that allow for cell survival (e.g. angiogenesis, proliferation, metastases).

We herein review potential growth factor targets of HCC and the limited research that exists regarding targeted therapy of these ligands and their receptors. We performed an extensive literature search to investigate preclinical studies, clinical research, and clinical trials.

Systemic therapy for patients with HCC is continuing to evolve. Anti-angiogenic therapy holds the most promise among targeted therapy for growth factors among patients with HCC. Improving our understanding of growth factors in HCC will hopefully lead to the development of new targeted therapies and strategies for combination therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors.