Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Clin Oncol. Mar 24, 2026; 17(3): 116093
Published online Mar 24, 2026. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v17.i3.116093
Published online Mar 24, 2026. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v17.i3.116093
Table 1 Liver-resident cells and their roles in metastatic colonization and immune suppression
| Cell type | Key functions in liver metastasis | Roles in metastatic colonization & immune suppression |
| KCs[39-46] | Liver-resident macrophages that are the first immune cells to contact CTCs in hepatic sinusoids | Can exert early tumoricidal activity but may become reprogrammed into an immunosuppressive phenotype promoting T-cell exhaustion and MDSC accumulation |
| LSECs[13-16,47-49] | Fenestrated endothelial cells regulating leukocyte trafficking, antigen presentation, and vascular tone | Under pathological activation, LSECs upregulate adhesion molecules and promote tumor cell arrest, transmigration, and angiogenesis |
| HSCs[50-55,109] | Perisinusoidal cells that can transition into myofibroblast-like CAFs and remodel ECM | Activated by tumor-derived factors to secrete IL-8, deposit collagen, and create a fibrotic, immune-excluded microenvironment |
| Hepatocytes[56-61] | Primary parenchymal liver cells central to metabolism and paracrine signaling | Modulate Fas/FasL, IGF2, HGF, and FGL1 to support tumor survival, proliferation, and suppression of CD8+ T-cell and NK-cell responses |
Table 2 Clinical evidence summary of immune checkpoint inhibitor outcomes in liver metastases
| Tumor type | Analysis | Treatment/comparison | Endpoint | Liver metastasis subgroup result | Overall population result (for comparison) | Key finding regarding liver metastases |
| Pan-cancer[77] | Meta-analysis | ICI-treated patients (vs without liver mets) | OS, PFS | OS: HR = 1.82, 95%CI: 1.59-2.08; PFS: HR = 1.68, 95%CI: 1.49-1.89 | N/A | Liver metastases associated with significantly worse OS and PFS |
| Pan-cancer[78] | Pan-cancer analysis | ICI monotherapy | OS | 10 months | 20 months (patients without liver disease) | Markedly shorter OS for those with liver metastases |
| NSCLC[81] | Meta-analysis | ICIs vs control | PFS, OS | PFS: HR = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.55-0.75; OS: HR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.72-0.94 | PFS: HR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.50-0.63; OS: HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.66-0.81 | Benefit is present but attenuated compared to those without liver mets (larger HR values) |
| NSCLC[82] | Pooled CheckMate 017/057 | Nivolumab vs docetaxel | OS | HR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.50-0.91 | HR = 0.70 | Nivolumab maintained an OS benefit, similar to the overall population |
| NSCLC[83] | KEYNOTE-189 | Pembro + chemo vs chemo | OS | HR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.44-0.87) | HR = 0.56 | OS benefit was present but less pronounced than in the overall population |
| NSCLC[84-87] | Meta-analyses of KEYNOTE-001, KEYNOTE-010, and KEYNOTE-024 | ICIs vs control (pooled analysis) | OS | Pooled OS: HR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.68-0.90 | N/A | Survival benefit is present but attenuated relative to patients without liver involvement (ratio of OS-HRs = 1.10) |
| NSCLC[88] | Real-world cohorts | ICI-treated patients (with vs without liver mets) | OS | N/A | N/A | Approximately 21% higher risk of death (OS: HR = 1.21, 95%CI: 1.17-1.27) with liver metastases |
| NSCLC[89-91] | IMpower150 (final analysis) | ABCP (atezolizumab + bevacizumab + chemo) vs chemo | OS | HR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.45-1.02 | N/A | Suggested clinically meaningful benefit by adding anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) to the regimen in this subgroup |
| NSCLC[92,93] | CheckMate 9 LA | Nivo + ipi + chemo vs chemo | OS (5-year rate) | Numerically lower survival than those without hepatic mets; 18% OS rate (vs 11% with chemo alone) | N/A | Durable OS benefit across metastatic subgroups, including those with liver involvement |
| Melanoma[94] | - | Anti-PD-1 therapy (pooled analyses) | ORR | Markedly reduced | N/A | Liver metastases significantly dampen responses, associated with reduced CD8+ T-cell infiltration |
| CRC[99] | KEYNOTE-177 (MSI-H/dMMR subset) | Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy | PFS | Improved PFS (specific HR not provided) | N/A | Pembrolizumab significantly improved PFS, including those with liver metastases |
| CRC[106] | Real-world, MSI-H/dMMR) | ICI-treated patients (with vs without liver mets) | ORR, PFS | ORR = 58%; PFS: HR = 3.18, 95%CI: 1.52-6.67 | ORR 66% | Liver involvement impairs outcomes (lower ORR, higher HR for progression) |
| CRC[108] | REGONIVO (regorafenib + nivolumab, early-phase) | ICI + VEGF inhibitor | ORR | 7%-19% (North American cohorts) | Up to 33% (Japanese cohorts) | Limited generalizability; ORR significantly lower, especially in patients with liver metastases |
| PDAC[123,125] | KEYNOTE-158 (MSI-H/dMMR subset) | Pembrolizumab | OS, ORR | ORR = 18% (4 of 22 patients); median OS = 4.0 months, 95%CI: 2.1-8.7 | N/A | Limited data; liver metastases exacerbate resistance due to fibrosis-driven immune exclusion |
| Gastric/GEJ cancer[129] | KEYNOTE 859 | Chemo-immunotherapy combination | OS | HR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.90 | HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.63-0.84 | Survival benefits regardless of liver metastasis status; difference in benefit was not statistically significant |
| Gastric/GEJ cancer[131] | Retrospective cohort | ICI-treated patients (with vs without liver mets) | OS | 10.53 months | 13.43 months | No significant difference in OS. Other factors (peritoneal mets, burden) were more strongly associated with reduced PFS |
| Gastric/GEJ[126] | Mechanistic profiling | - | Immune composition (CD4+, CD8+, monocytic MDSC) | - | Stomach/GEJ show increase proliferating CD4+/CD8+ and decrease monocytic MDSC vs EAC | Proinflammatory TME may blunt LM’s negative effect |
| Gastric/GEJ[127] | JAVELIN gastric 100 - phase 3 (maintenance) | Avelumab maintenance vs maintenance chemotherapy | OS, PFS | Not reported specifically by LM status | No improvement in OS or PFS with avelumab maintenance | Maintenance ICI alone did not improve outcomes |
| Gastric/GEJ[128-130] | Meta-analysis | Chemoimmunotherapy vs chemotherapy | OS, PFS | Benefit observed irrespective of LM status across included trials | ChemoIO improved OS and PFS (KEYNOTE859, CheckMate 649) | Supports chemoIO regardless of LM status |
| Gastric/GEJ[130] | CheckMate 649 - phase 3 | Nivolumab + chemo vs chemo | OS, PFS | No dedicated LM subgroup analysis reported | Significant OS/PFS benefit overall (approximately 96% metastatic; approximately 40% LM) | ChemoIO improves outcomes; LMspecific effect not isolated |
| Gastric/GEJ[129] | KEYNOTE859 - phase 3 | Pembrolizumab + chemo vs chemo | OS | HR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.90 - benefit regardless of LM | NoLM HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.63-0.84 | Difference by LM not statistically significant |
| Gastric/GEJ[131] | Retrospective cohort | Immunotherapy (with LM vs without LM) | OS (factors for PFS) | OS = 10.53 months (LM) - no significant difference vs noLM | OS = 13.43 months (noLM); P = 0.584 | Reduced PFS associated with MMR mutations, > 3 metastatic sites, peritoneal metastases |
Table 3 Key clinical and translational studies testing combination strategies to enhance immunotherapy in liver metastases
| Strategy | Mechanistic target | Representative trial/evidence | Primary cancer(s) | Outcome summary | Clinical implication |
| VEGF blockade + ICI[137,138] | Vascular normalization, myeloid suppression | IMpower150 (ABCP regimen) | NSCLC (with liver mets) | OS: HR = 0.68; improved immune infiltration | Supports VEGF + PD-L1 combination |
| Dual checkpoint blockade[92] | T-cell priming & exhaustion | CheckMate 9 LA | NSCLC, melanoma, CRC | Higher ORR & PFS in liver mets | Increased efficacy but higher toxicity |
| TGF-β + PD-L1 blockade[158-160] | Fibrosis reversal, stromal remodeling | Bintrafusp alfa trials | Mixed metastatic | Disease control approximately 10%-15% | Promising mechanism; modest efficacy |
| CSF1R/CCR2 blockade + PD-1[162] | Myeloid reprogramming | Ongoing phase I/II | CRC, NSCLC | Preclinical synergy with PD-1 | Pending translation |
| Epigenetic modulation + ICI[163] | Antigen presentation, viral mimicry | Early-phase trials | Multiple cancers | MHC expression & T-cell infiltration increase | Converts cold to hot lesions |
| Adoptive cell therapy[166] | Enhanced intrahepatic trafficking | Hepatic artery CAR-T delivery | CRC, HCC | Feasible; improved local homing | Useful for liver-limited disease |
Table 4 Summary of clinical evidence for ablative therapies in liver metastases across tumor types
| Technique | Typical local control rate | Any OS benefit in RCTs | Comments |
| RFA[169] | 80%-95% (CRLM) | Yes (CLOCC: 8-year OS 35.9% vs 8.9%, HR = 0.58, P = 0.01) | Effective for small, oligometastatic CRLM; potentially curative; added to systemic therapy in unresectable CRLM |
| MWA[174,175] | ≥ 85% (various primaries) | Not reported | May outperform RFA for perivascular tumors due to reduced heat-sink effects |
| Cryoablation[169] | ≥ 85% (various primaries) | Not reported | High local control for breast, lung, neuroendocrine metastases; symptom palliation |
| SBRT[169] | 83%-94% (small lesions < 3 cm) | Not reported | Minimal grade ≥ 3 toxicity (< 10%) |
| Ablation (general)[171,172] | 80%-95% (CRLM) | Yes (collision: HR = 1.05, P = 0.83, non-inferior to surgery) | Non-inferior to surgery for OS and local control in CRLM; promising with ICI |
| Ablation + ICI[177,178] | Not specified | Yes (IMbrave050: Improved RFS/OS vs ICI alone) | Improved RFS/OS in HCC; unconfirmed long-term OS benefit; EORTC-1560 ILOC showed no response in untreated metastases |
- Citation: Pham HT, Dong ZY, De Alba M, Cottle C, Zhang MY, Parker JB, Morecroft-Phillipps R, Chaludiya K, Ingram D, Ahmad AN, Zeng Z, Mohseni MM, Zhang ZZ, Rueda Prada L, Ali M, Yang V. Immunotherapy in liver metastases: Challenges, emerging evidence, and future directions. World J Clin Oncol 2026; 17(3): 116093
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-4333/full/v17/i3/116093.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v17.i3.116093
