BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Review
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
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 sinusoidsCan 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 toneUnder 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 ECMActivated 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 signalingModulate 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-analysisICI-treated patients (vs without liver mets)OS, PFSOS: HR = 1.82, 95%CI: 1.59-2.08; PFS: HR = 1.68, 95%CI: 1.49-1.89N/ALiver metastases associated with significantly worse OS and PFS
Pan-cancer[78]Pan-cancer analysisICI monotherapyOS10 months20 months (patients without liver disease)Markedly shorter OS for those with liver metastases
NSCLC[81]Meta-analysisICIs vs controlPFS, OSPFS: HR = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.55-0.75; OS: HR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.72-0.94PFS: HR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.50-0.63; OS: HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.66-0.81Benefit is present but attenuated compared to those without liver mets (larger HR values)
NSCLC[82]Pooled CheckMate 017/057Nivolumab vs docetaxelOSHR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.50-0.91HR = 0.70Nivolumab maintained an OS benefit, similar to the overall population
NSCLC[83]KEYNOTE-189Pembro + chemo vs chemoOSHR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.44-0.87)HR = 0.56OS benefit was present but less pronounced than in the overall population
NSCLC[84-87]Meta-analyses of KEYNOTE-001, KEYNOTE-010, and KEYNOTE-024ICIs vs control (pooled analysis)OSPooled OS: HR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.68-0.90N/ASurvival benefit is present but attenuated relative to patients without liver involvement (ratio of OS-HRs = 1.10)
NSCLC[88]Real-world cohortsICI-treated patients (with vs without liver mets)OSN/AN/AApproximately 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 chemoOSHR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.45-1.02N/ASuggested clinically meaningful benefit by adding anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) to the regimen in this subgroup
NSCLC[92,93]CheckMate 9 LANivo + ipi + chemo vs chemoOS (5-year rate)Numerically lower survival than those without hepatic mets; 18% OS rate (vs 11% with chemo alone)N/ADurable OS benefit across metastatic subgroups, including those with liver involvement
Melanoma[94]-Anti-PD-1 therapy (pooled analyses)ORRMarkedly reducedN/ALiver metastases significantly dampen responses, associated with reduced CD8+ T-cell infiltration
CRC[99]KEYNOTE-177 (MSI-H/dMMR subset)Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapyPFSImproved PFS (specific HR not provided)N/APembrolizumab significantly improved PFS, including those with liver metastases
CRC[106]Real-world, MSI-H/dMMR)ICI-treated patients (with vs without liver mets)ORR, PFSORR = 58%; PFS: HR = 3.18, 95%CI: 1.52-6.67ORR 66%Liver involvement impairs outcomes (lower ORR, higher HR for progression)
CRC[108]REGONIVO (regorafenib + nivolumab, early-phase)ICI + VEGF inhibitorORR7%-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)PembrolizumabOS, ORRORR = 18% (4 of 22 patients); median OS = 4.0 months, 95%CI: 2.1-8.7N/ALimited data; liver metastases exacerbate resistance due to fibrosis-driven immune exclusion
Gastric/GEJ cancer[129]KEYNOTE 859Chemo-immunotherapy combinationOSHR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.90HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.63-0.84Survival benefits regardless of liver metastasis status; difference in benefit was not statistically significant
Gastric/GEJ cancer[131]Retrospective cohortICI-treated patients (with vs without liver mets)OS10.53 months13.43 monthsNo 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 EACProinflammatory TME may blunt LM’s negative effect
Gastric/GEJ[127]JAVELIN gastric 100 - phase 3 (maintenance)Avelumab maintenance vs maintenance chemotherapyOS, PFSNot reported specifically by LM statusNo improvement in OS or PFS with avelumab maintenanceMaintenance ICI alone did not improve outcomes
Gastric/GEJ[128-130]Meta-analysisChemoimmunotherapy vs chemotherapyOS, PFSBenefit observed irrespective of LM status across included trialsChemoIO improved OS and PFS (KEYNOTE859, CheckMate 649)Supports chemoIO regardless of LM status
Gastric/GEJ[130]CheckMate 649 - phase 3Nivolumab + chemo vs chemoOS, PFSNo dedicated LM subgroup analysis reportedSignificant OS/PFS benefit overall (approximately 96% metastatic; approximately 40% LM)ChemoIO improves outcomes; LMspecific effect not isolated
Gastric/GEJ[129]KEYNOTE859 - phase 3Pembrolizumab + chemo vs chemoOSHR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.90 - benefit regardless of LMNoLM HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.63-0.84Difference by LM not statistically significant
Gastric/GEJ[131]Retrospective cohortImmunotherapy (with LM vs without LM)OS (factors for PFS)OS = 10.53 months (LM) - no significant difference vs noLMOS = 13.43 months (noLM); P = 0.584Reduced 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 suppressionIMpower150 (ABCP regimen)NSCLC (with liver mets)OS: HR = 0.68; improved immune infiltrationSupports VEGF + PD-L1 combination
Dual checkpoint blockade[92]T-cell priming & exhaustionCheckMate 9 LANSCLC, melanoma, CRCHigher ORR & PFS in liver metsIncreased efficacy but higher toxicity
TGF-β + PD-L1 blockade[158-160]Fibrosis reversal, stromal remodelingBintrafusp alfa trialsMixed metastaticDisease control approximately 10%-15%Promising mechanism; modest efficacy
CSF1R/CCR2 blockade + PD-1[162]Myeloid reprogrammingOngoing phase I/IICRC, NSCLCPreclinical synergy with PD-1Pending translation
Epigenetic modulation + ICI[163]Antigen presentation, viral mimicryEarly-phase trialsMultiple cancersMHC expression & T-cell infiltration increaseConverts cold to hot lesions
Adoptive cell therapy[166]Enhanced intrahepatic traffickingHepatic artery CAR-T deliveryCRC, HCCFeasible; improved local homingUseful 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 reportedMay outperform RFA for perivascular tumors due to reduced heat-sink effects
Cryoablation[169]≥ 85% (various primaries)Not reportedHigh local control for breast, lung, neuroendocrine metastases; symptom palliation
SBRT[169]83%-94% (small lesions < 3 cm)Not reportedMinimal 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 specifiedYes (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