Locoregional therapies (LRT) are employed for bridging patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Although the main LRT options include transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) is an alternative with considerably lower costs. This study is a pioneering evaluation of the natural history of PEI bridging to OLT as compared to TACE.

All consecutive cirrhotic patients with HCC enlisted for OLT (2011-2020) at a single center were analyzed. Patients were divided into three LRT modality groups: PEI, TACE, and PEI+TACE. The primary study outcome was waitlist dropout due to tumor progression beyond Milan criteria. A comparison of post-transplant outcomes of patients as stratified by LRT modality also was performed.

One hundred twenty-nine patients were included (PEI=56, TACE=43, PEI+TACE=30). The dropout rate due to tumor progression was not different among the three groups: PEI=8.9%, TACE=14%, PEI+TACE=16.7% (p=0.54). Thirteen (76.4%) patients underwent OLT after successful downstaging (3 [75%] in the PEI group, 5 [83.3%] in the TACE group, and 5 [71.4%] in the PEI+TACE group). For the 96 patients undergoing OLT, 5-year post-transplant recurrence-free survival was PEI=55.6% vs. TACE=55.1% vs. PEI+TACE=71.4% (p=0.42). Complete/near-complete pathological response rate was similar among groups (p=0.82).

Dropout rates and post-transplant recurrence-free survivals related to PEI were comparable to those of TACE. This study supports the use of PEI alone or in combination with TACE for HCC patients awaiting OLT whenever RFA is not an option.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common cause of liver malignancy and the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths universally. Cure can be achieved for early stage HCC, which is defined as 3 or fewer lesions less than or equal to 3 cm in the setting of Child-Pugh A or B and an ECOG of 0. Patients outside of these criteria who can be down-staged with loco-regional therapies to resection or liver transplantation (LT) also achieve curative outcomes. Traditionally, surgical resection, LT, and ablation are considered curative therapies for early HCC. However, results from recently conducted LEGACY study and DOSISPHERE trial demonstrate that transarterial radio-embolization has curative outcomes for early HCC, leading to its recent incorporation into the Barcelona clinic liver criteria guidelines for early HCC. This review is based on current evidence for curative-intent loco-regional therapies including radioembolization for early-stage HCC.

HCC comprises around 60 to 80% of all primary liver cancers and exhibits wide geographical variability. Appropriate treatment allocation needs to include both patient and tumor characteristics.

Current HCC classification systems to guide therapy are either liver function-centric and evaluate physiologic liver function to guide therapy or prognostic stratification classification systems broadly based on tumor morphologic parameters, patient performance status, and liver reserve assessment. This review focuses on different classification systems for HCC, their strengths, and weaknesses as well as the use of artificial intelligence in improving prognostication in HCC.

Future HCC classification systems will need to incorporate clinic-pathologic data from a multitude of sources and emerging therapies to develop patient-specific treatment plans targeting a patient's unique tumor profile.

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with underlying Child-Pugh B-7 cirrhosis benefit from management from an experienced, multidisciplinary team. In patients with localized disease who meet criteria for liver transplant, establishing care at a liver transplant center is crucial. For those awaiting transplant, local bridge therapies have emerged as a strategy to maintain priority status and eligibility. Multiple liver-directed therapies exist to provide locoregional tumor control. The careful selection of locoregional therapy is a multidisciplinary endeavor that takes into account patient factors including tumor resectability, underlying liver function, performance status, previous treatment, tumor location/size, and vascular anatomy to determine the optimal management strategy. Technological advances in external beam radiation therapy have allowed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to emerge in recent years as a versatile and highly effective bridge therapy consisting of typically between 3 and 5 high dose, highly focused, and non-invasive radiation treatments. When treating cirrhotic patients with HCC, preserving liver function is of utmost importance to prevent clinical decline and decompensation. SBRT has been shown to be both safe and effective in carefully selected patients with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis; however, care must be taken to prevent radiation-induced liver disease. This review summarizes the evolving role of SBRT in the treatment of HCC in patients with Child-Pugh B-7 cirrhosis.

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains high globally. Surgical treatment is the best treatment for improving the prognosis of patients with HCC. Neoadjuvant therapy plays a key role in preventing tumor progression and even downstaging HCC. The liver transplantation rate and resectability rate have increased for neoadjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy is effective in different stages of HCC. In this review, we summarized the definition, methods, effects, indications and contraindications of neoadjuvant therapy in HCC, which have significance for guiding treatment.

Hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer in the world and the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths. The United Network for Organ Sharing has its own staging criteria for organ allocation, which is a modification of tumor-node-metastasis staging of American Joint Committee on Cancer. For the purpose of clarity, United Network for Organ Sharing staging will be described as uT1, uT2 (Milan criteria), and uT3 (eligible for downstaging) in this review. For those with unresectable HCC or those with advanced liver disease and HCC but within the Milan criteria, liver transplantation is the treatment of choice. Because of prolonged waiting period on the liver transplant list in many parts of the world for deceased donor liver transplantation, there is a serious risk of dropout from the liver transplant list because of tumor progression. For those patients, locoregional therapies might need to be considered, and moreover, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that tumor progression after locoregional therapies might be a surrogate marker of unfavorable tumor biology. There is no consensus on the role or type of locoregional therapies in the management of patients with uT1 and uT2 eligible for liver transplant and of those with lesions larger than uT2 but eligible for downstaging protocol (uT3 lesions). In this review, we examine the role of locoregional therapies in these patients stratified by staging and propose treatment options based on the current evidence of tumor progression rates while awaiting liver transplantation and tumor recurrence rates after liver transplantation.

In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting the Milan criteria (MC), the benefit of locoregional therapies (LRTs) in the context of liver transplantation (LT) is still debated. Initial biases in the selection between treated and untreated patients have yielded conflicting reported results. The study aimed to identify, using a competing risk analysis, risk factors for HCC-dependent LT failure, defined as pretransplant tumor-related delisting or posttransplant recurrence. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identification number NCT03723304). In order to offset the initial limitations of the investigated population, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was used: 1083 MC-in patients (no LRT = 182; LRT = 901) were balanced using 8 variables: age, sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) value, hepatitis C virus status, hepatitis B virus status, largest lesion diameter, number of nodules, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). All the covariates were available at the first referral. After the IPTW, a pseudo-population of 2019 patients listed for LT was analyzed, comparing 2 homogeneous groups of untreated (n = 1077) and LRT-treated (n = 942) patients. Tumor progression after LRT was the most important independent risk factor for HCC-dependent failure (subhazard ratio [SHR], 5.62; P < 0.001). Other independent risk factors were major tumor diameter, AFP, MELD, patient age, male sex, and period of wait-list registration. One single LRT was protective compared with no treatment (SHR, 0.51; P < 0.001). The positive effect was still observed when 2-3 treatments were performed (SHR, 0.66; P = 0.02), but it was lost in the case of ≥4 LRTs (SHR, 0.80; P = 0.27). In conclusion, for MC-in patients, up to 3 LRTs are beneficial for success in intention-to-treat LT patients, with a 49% to 34% reduction in failure risk compared with untreated patients. This benefit is lost if more LRTs are required. A poor response to LRT is associated with a higher risk for HCC-dependent transplant failure.

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are listed for liver transplantation (LT) are often treated while on the waiting list with locoregional therapy (LRT), which is aimed at either preventing progression of HCC or reducing the measurable disease burden of HCC in order to receive increased allocation priority. We aimed to synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of LRT in the management of patients with HCC who were on the LT waitlist. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases from 1996 to April 25, 2016, for studies that enrolled adults with cirrhosis awaiting LT and treated with bridging or down-staging therapies before LT. Therapies included transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, transarterial radioembolization, ablation, and radiotherapy. We included both comparative and noncomparative studies. There were no randomized controlled trials identified. For adults with T1 HCC and waiting for LT, there were only two nonrandomized comparative studies, both with a high risk of bias, which reported the outcome of interest. In one series, the rate of dropout from all causes at 6 months in T1 HCC patients who underwent LRT was 5.3%, while in the other series of T1 HCC patients who did not receive LRT, the dropout rate at median follow-up of 2.4 years and the progression rate to T2 HCC were 30% and 88%, respectively. For adults with T2 HCC awaiting LT, transplant with any bridging therapy showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of waitlist dropout due to progression (relative risk [RR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-1.85; I² = 0%) and of waitlist dropout from all causes (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.060-2.370; I² = 85.7%) compared to no therapy based on three comparative studies. The quality of evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. There were five comparative studies which reported on posttransplant survival rates and 10 comparative studies which reported on posttransplant recurrence, and there was no significant difference seen in either of these endpoints. For adults initially with stage T3 HCC who received LRT, there were three studies reporting on transplant with any down-staging therapy versus no downstaging, and this showed a significant increase in 1-year (two studies, RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.23) and 5-year (1 study, RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.32) post-LT survival rates for patients who received LRT. The quality of evidence is very low due to serious risk of bias and imprecision.

In patients with HCC listed for LT, the use of LRT is associated with a nonsignificant trend toward improved waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, though there is a high risk of selection bias in the available evidence. (Hepatology 2018;67:381-400).

Liver transplantation (LT) is considered the ideal therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) having cirrhosis but the shortage of liver donors and the risk of dropout from the wait list due to tumor progression severely limit transplantation. A new prognostic score, the HCC-model for end-stage liver disease (HCC-MELD), was developed by combining α-fetoprotein (AFP), MELD, and tumor size, to improve risk stratification of dropout in patients with HCC.

In this study, we investigated the ability of the HCC-MELD score in predicting the posttransplant for patients fulfilling Milan criteria (MC).

Two hundred patients with stage II tumor were retrospectively reviewed from a total of 1290 transplants performed at our institution from October 1997 through April 2015. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the prognostic factors impacting the posttransplant survival.

Overall survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 89.3%, 71.1%, and 67.2%, whereas disease-free survival was 86.4%, 66.5%, and 52.4%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed HCC-MELD score (hazard ratio [HR] 39.6, P < .001) and microvascular invasion (HR 2.41, P = .002) to be independent risk factors for recurrence, whereas HCC diameter (HR 1.15, P = .041), HCC-MELD (HR 15.611, P = .006), and grading (HR 2.17, P = .03) proved to be predictive factors of poor overall survival.

Our study showed the validity of the HCC-MELD equation in the evaluation of patients undergoing LT for HCC. This score offers a reliable method to assess the risk of waiting list dropout and predict posttransplantation outcomes.

Liver transplantation (LT) provides a good chance of cure for selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). Patients with HCC on a waiting list for LT are at risk for tumor progression and dropout. Treatment of HCC with locoregional therapies may lessen dropout due to tumor progression. Strict selection and adherence to the LT criteria for patients with pCCA before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy are critical for optimal outcome with LT. This article reviews the existing data for the various treatment strategies used for patients with HCC and pCCA awaiting LT.

The purpose of this article is to analyze longitudinal trends in locoregional therapy (LRT) use and review locoregional therapy's role in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to orthotropic liver transplantation Porrett et al. (2006) . LRT has a role in both bridge to transplantation and downstaging of patients not initially meeting Milan or UCSF Criteria. Due to the lack of randomized controlled trials, no specific bridging LRT modality is recommended over another for treating patients on the waiting list, however each modality has unique and patient-specific advantages. Pre-transplant LRT use in the United States has increased dramatically over the last two decades with more than 50% of the currently listed patients receiving LRT Freeman et al. (2008) . Despite these national trends, significant differences in LRT utilization, referral patterns, recurrence rates and survival have been observed among UNOS regions, socioeconomic levels and races. The use of LRT as a biologic selection tool based on response to treatment has shown promising results in its ability to predict successful post-transplant outcomes.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death, especially in Eastern areas. With advancements in diagnosis and treatment modalities for HCC, the survival and prognosis of HCC patients are improving. However, treatment patterns are not uniform between areas despite efforts to promote a common protocol. Although many hepatologists in Asian countries may adopt the principles of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system, they are also independently making an effort to expand the indications of each treatment and to combine therapies for better outcomes. Several expanded criteria for liver transplantation in HCC have been developed in Asian countries. Living donor liver transplantation is much more commonly performed in these countries than deceased donor liver transplantation, and it may be preceded by other treatments such as the down-staging of tumors. Local ablation therapies are often combined with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and the outcome is comparable to that of surgical resection. The indications of TACE are expanding, and there are new types of transarterial therapies. Although data on drug-eluting beads, TACE, and radioembolization in Asian countries are still relatively sparse compared with Western countries, these methods are gradually gaining popularity because of better tolerability and the possibility of improved response rates. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy and radiotherapy are not included in Western guidelines, but are currently being used actively in several Asian countries. For more advanced HCCs, appropriate combinations of TACE, radiotherapy, and sorafenib can be considered, and emerging data indicate improved outcomes of combination therapies compared with single therapies. To include these paradigm shifts into newer treatment guidelines, more studies may be needed, but they are certainly in progress.

In some countries where the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is used for graft allocation, selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receive a fixed number of exception points at listing, and increasing priority on the list by accruing additional exception points at regular time intervals. This system originally aimed at balancing the risks of HCC patients of developing contraindications and of non-HCC patients of dying before transplantation, is not ideal because it appears to offer an advantage to HCC patients, regardless of tumor characteristics and response to loco-regional treatment. Scores modulated by HCC characteristics have been proposed. They are based on a more refined estimate of the risk of pretransplant drop-out or of the posttransplant transplant benefit expressed as the life-years gained for each graft. This review describes the newly proposed systems, and discusses their advantages and drawbacks. We believe that the current exception points allocation should be revised and that drop-out-equivalent or transplant benefit-equivalent models should be studied further. As with all policy changes, these should be done under close monitoring that allows subsequent revisions.

The practice of treating candidates for liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with locoregional therapies, is common in most transplant centers. However, for T1 tumors and expected waiting times to LT <6 months, there is no evidence that these treatments are beneficial. For T2 tumors and for longer waiting times, neo-adjuvant treatments are usually performed with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), ablation techniques and liver resection in selected cases. The treatment choice should be based on the BCLC staging system. At present, there is no evidence of the superiority of ablation/resection vs. TACE, but some studies showed better results of the former in achieving a complete response. The response to neo-adjuvant treatments should be evaluated through mRECIST criteria, but few studies adopted these criteria and properly analyzed factors affecting response. The simultaneous evaluation of the impact of neo-adjuvant therapies on dropout rate, post-LT HCC recurrence and patient survival is rarely reported. Tumor stage and volume, alpha-fetoprotein levels, response to treatments and liver function affect pre-LT outcomes. These same factors, together with vascular invasion and poor tumor differentiation, are major determinants of poor post-LT outcomes. Due to the low number of prospective studies with well-defined entry criteria and the variability of results, the role of downstaging is still to be defined. Novel molecular markers seem promising for the estimation of prognosis and/or response to treatments. With a persistent scarcity of organ donors, neo-adjuvant treatments can help identify patients with different probabilities of cancer progression, and consequently balance the priority of HCC and non-HCC-candidates through revised additional scores for HCC.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often occurs in patients with chronic liver disease or cirrhosis. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma has the potential to eliminate both the tumor as well as the underlying cirrhosis and is the ideal treatment for HCC in cirrhotic liver as well as massive HCC in noncirrhotic liver. Limitations in organ availability, necessitate stringent selection of patients who would likely to derive most benefit. Selection criteria have considered tumor size, number, volume as well as biological features. The Milan criteria set the benchmark for tumors that would benefit from liver transplantation but were found to be excessively restrictive. Modest expansion in criteria has also been shown to be associated with equivalent survival. Microvascular invasion is the single most important adverse prognostic factor for survival. Living donor liver transplantation has expanded donor options and has the advantage of lower waiting period and not impacting the non-HCC waiting list. Acceptable outcomes have been obtained with living donor liver transplantation for larger and more numerous tumors in the absence of microvascular invasion. Downstaging of tumors to prevent progression while waiting for an organ or for reduction in size to allow enrolment for transplantation has met with variable success.

To evaluate the impact of age on the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Whether age plays an important role in the outcomes of HCC after RFA remains controversial.

Two hundred fifty-eight consecutive treatment naive HCC patients who underwent RFA were enrolled. Patients aged ≤ 65 years (n = 100) were defined as the younger group and those aged > 65 years (n = 158) were the elderly group. Their clinicopathologic features and prognosis were compared.

Younger patients had a higher male-to-female ratio, higher prevalence of hepatitis B virus, and smaller tumor size than elder patients. After median follow-up of 28.5 ± 18.7 months, 45 patients died. The cumulative 5-year survival rates were 81.3% and 65.4% in younger and elder HCC patients, respectively (P = 0.008). Multivariate analysis disclosed that age > 65 years, serum albumin level ≤ 3.7 g/dL, prothrombin time international normalized ratio > 1.1, α-fetoprotein (AFP) > 20 ng/mL, and no antiviral therapy after RFA were independent risk factors associated with poor overall survival. Besides, there were 163 patients with tumor recurrence after RFA. Multivariate analysis showed that age > 65 years, platelet count ≤ 10/mm, AFP > 20 ng/mL, multinodularity, and tumor size > 2 cm were the independent risk factors predicting recurrence.

Both liver functional reserve (serum albumin level, prothrombin time international normalized ratio, platelet count, and antiviral therapy) and tumor factors (tumor size, number, and AFP level) were crucial in determining post-RFA prognosis in HCC patients. Moreover, younger HCC patients have better overall survival and lower recurrence rate after RFA compared with elder patients.

In the last US national conference on liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a continuous priority score, that incorporates model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), alpha-fetoprotein and tumor size, was recommended to ensure a more equitable liver allocation. However, prioritizing highest alpha-fetoprotein levels or largest tumors may select lesions at a higher risk for recurrence; similarly, patients with higher degree of liver failure could have lower postoperative survival. Data from 300 adult HCC recipients were reviewed and the proposed HCC-MELD equation was applied to verify if it can predict post-transplantation survival. The 5-year survival and recurrence rates after transplantation were 72.8 and 13.5%, respectively. Cox regression analysis confirmed HCC-MELD as predictive of both postoperative survival and recurrence (p < 0.001). The 5-year predicted survival and recurrence rates were plotted against the HCC-MELD-based dropout probability: the higher the dropout probability while on waiting list, the lower the predicted survival after transplantation, that is worsened by hepatitis C positivity; similarly, the higher the predicted HCC recurrence rate after transplantation. The HCC priority score could predict the postoperative survival of HCC recipients and could be useful in selecting patients with greater possibilities of survival, resulting in higher post-transplantation survival rates of HCC populations.

Transplantation is the treatment of choice for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting the Milan criteria. HCC and chronic liver diseases have distinct natural histories for which an equitable transplant policy must account. We enrolled and prospectively followed at a single center 206 consecutive HCC patients that presented within the Milan criteria. Patients were treated per the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm; 95% received resection, ablation, or transarterial chemoembolization. The median follow-up was 16 months. Progression occurred in 84 patients, and 8 patients died. Risk factors for the time to disease progression (death or progression beyond T2) were analyzed in 170 patients with a complete data set. Risk factors with the strongest relationship to progression included tumor diameter and tumor persistence/recurrence after local therapy (hazard ratios of 1.51 and 2.75, respectively, when transplanted patients were censored at the time of transplantation and hazard ratios of 1.53 and 3.66, respectively, when transplantation was counted as an event; P < or = 0.0001). To evaluate the current Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception, we compared the expected progression rate (PR) with our observed PR in 133 stage T2 patients. The current policy resulted in a large overestimation of the PR for T2 HCC and an unsatisfactory performance [Harrell's concordance index (C index) = 0.60, transplant censored; C index = 0.55, transplant as progression]. Risk factors for progression that were identified by univariate analysis were considered for multivariate analysis. With these risk factors and the patients' natural MELD scores, an adjusted model applicable to organ allocation was generated, and this decreased the discrepancy between the expected and observed PRs (C index = 0.66, transplant censored; C index = 0.69, transplant as progression). In conclusion, the current MELD exception largely overestimates progression in T2 patients treated according to the BCLC guidelines. The tumor response to resective or ablative treatment can predict tumor progression beyond the Milan criteria, and it should be taken into account in models designed to prioritize organ allocation.