You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Associated with NAFLD: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Ramona Cadar
,
Corina Lupascu Ursulescu
,
Alin Mihai Vasilescu
,
Ana Maria Trofin
,
Mihai Zabara
,
Delia Rusu-Andriesi
,
Bogdan Ciuntu
,
Cristina Muzica
,
Cristian Dumitru Lupascu

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has gained attention due to its increasing prevalence worldwide becoming a global epidemic. The increasing incidence of NAFLD and the concurrent increase in the number of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases at a global level is a matter of concern. HCC has several risk factors, of which NAFLD and its associated metabolic disturbances—type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and dyslipidemia—are of great interest due to their accelerating rise in incidence worldwide. There is a high amount of data derived from basic and clinical studies that reveal the molecular pathways that drive NAFLD-associated HCC. Based on these findings, new prevention, surveillance, and treatment strategies are emerging. 

  • non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
  • hepatocellular carcinoma
  • management
  • hepatic resection
  • ablation
  • liver transplantation
  • transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE)
  • systemic therapy

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, liver cancer incidence and death have both been steadily increasing. With a total of 905,677 new cases reported in 2020, liver cancer constituted the sixth most prevalent cancer globally. Liver cancer still has a poor prognosis despite recent improvements. In terms of cancer-related deaths in 2020, liver cancer came in third with 830,180 fatalities [1]. HCC has several risk factors, of which NAFLD and its associated metabolic disturbances—type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and dyslipidemia—are of great interest due to their accelerating rise in incidence worldwide [2].

The therapeutic management of HCC is complex and, according to the recommendations of current guidelines, it requires a multidisciplinary team consisting of hepatologists, oncologists, and surgeons specialized in liver surgery and transplantation, as well as radiologists. However, data from the literature show that only half of patients diagnosed with HCC are subsequently evaluated by a multidisciplinary team. Currently, the treatment recommendations for HCC are based on the BCLC classification and do not differ from one etiology to another, but do take into consideration the presence of liver cirrhosis and consequently liver function [3]. Placing patients in a specific therapeutic strategy depends on the BCLC classification, taking into account patient heterogeneity, patient wishes, ongoing clinical trials, and local limitations. There are scarce data regarding both treatment modalities and long-term survival in NAFLD-HCC, taking into consideration that these patients frequently have several comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and obesity. For instance, Wang et al. demonstrated that cirrhotic patients with type 2 diabetes and HCC have lower overall survival rates after curative hepatectomy compared to those without diabetes [4]. The authors concluded that diabetes may reduce the OS of HCC patients by exacerbating existing liver fibrosis, resulting in severe liver failure.

2. Hepatic Resection

In patients with HCC without liver cirrhosis and impaired liver function, hepatic resection represents the first option for treatment [5][6]. However, despite progress having been made in the last years in improving the survival rate in those with liver resection, the recurrence rate has not shown major changes. Research studies that assessed the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with NAFLD-associated HCC showed optimistic results (Table 1). It appears that OS at 5 years after liver resection for NAFLD-associated HCC ranges from 51.5% to 97%, whereas RFS at 5 years ranges from 36.3% to 66% [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the outcomes after resection in patients with NAFLD-associated HCC vs. other liver diseases. It appears that the presence of metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, which are often found in patients with NAFLD, has a negative impact on the OS after liver resection for HCC [14]. A meta-analysis that aimed to evaluate the outcome after hepatic resection for HCC in NAFLD vs. other liver diseases in approximately 7200 patients found a better RFS and OS in those with NAFLD [15]. Furthermore, a lower RFS was found in a study that compared NAFLD-associated HCC with HCV-related HCC (44.6% vs. 62.5%) [11]. Still, it is important to acknowledge that the high post-surgical mortality in patients with NAFLD is mainly due to the metabolic comorbidities, which should be carefully diagnosed and managed.
Table 1. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with NAFLD-associated HCC after liver resection.
Ref. Type of Study Patients (n) and Characteristics Overall Survival Rate * Recurrence-Free Survival **
Koh et al. [16] Retrospective N = 996 HCC patients, 844 with non-NAFLD HCC and 152 with NAFLD HCC 70.1% 45.4%
Reddy et al. [17] Retrospective N = 214 HCC patients, 52 with NASH and 162 with HCV or ALD 59% 48%
Liang et al. [18] Retrospective N = 177 HCC patients, 75 with NASH and 102 with alcoholic or viral hepatitis 87% 51%
Vigano et al. [19] Retrospective N = 192 HCC patients, 96 with NASH and 96 with HCV 65.6% 37%
Billeter et al. [20] Retrospective N = 365 HCC patients, 62 with NASH and 303 with HCV 71.3% 36.3%
Yang et al. [21] Retrospective N = 1483 HCC patients, 96 with NAFLD HCC and 1387 with HBV HCC 51.4% 38.8%
Wakai et al. [22] Retrospective N = 225 HCC patients, 17 with NAFLD HCC, 61 with HBV, and 147 with HCV 59% 66%
* Five-year overall survival rate. ** Five-year recurrence free survival.

3. Ablation

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a non-surgical treatment method that is currently recommended in patients with stage 0 (tumors smaller than 2 cm) or A, according to the BCLC classification, with OS rates similar to resection [3]. Regarding NAFLD-associated HCC, a recent study that evaluated the OS rates in patients treated with RFA for HCC in NAFD and other liver diseases reported no significant differences [9]. However, data from another study show that the presence of type 2 diabetes impairs the outcome after RFS, though metformin therapy has a positive impact on OS [23]. Despite the good efficacy and safety of microwave ablation of HCC, there are no data regarding the outcome in patients with NAFLD.

4. Liver Transplantation

According to the European Liver Transplant Registry, the survival rate at 10 years after liver transplantation for HCC is 51%, irrespective of underlying etiology [24]. The current guidelines recommend liver transplantation as the first choice in patients with HCC who do not meet the eligibility criteria for liver resection but are within the Milan criteria [5][6][25]. However, since many believe that the Milan criteria are too strict, nowadays there are many centers that offer liver transplantation in patients with HCC outside the Milan experience, with good results [26].
There are several studies regarding long-term outcomes after liver transplantation in NAFLD-associated HCC (Table 2). The OS and RFS rates range from 59% to 88% and 48% to 68%, respectively [8][27][28][29][30][31]. Although some studies reported similar outcomes after liver transplantation for HCC in NAFLD and other etiologies [8][32], there are some studies that raised concerns regarding worse OS in those with NAFLD. For instance, a comprehensive analysis from the European Transplant Registry, which included patients with liver transplantation for different etiologies, reported lower OS in NAFLD-HCC compared to alcoholic liver disease-related HCC [27]. On the other hand, the same authors found no difference in terms of OS rates at 10 years when compared to chronic HCV infection and cryptogenic cirrhosis (73%). In contrast with these results, an American study found no difference in OS rates after liver transplantation in NAFLD-associated HCC vs. alcoholic liver disease-associated HCC [8]. These differences could be attributed to different national listing and scoring systems. Overall, it seems that NAFLD has no significant impact on OS after liver transplantation for HCC compared to other causes of liver disease, but it needs to be taken into consideration due to the high complication rates after surgery due to metabolic syndrome-associated comorbidities.
Table 2. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with NAFLD-associated HCC after liver transplantation.
Ref. Type of Study Patients (n) and Characteristics Overall Survival Rate * Recurrence-Free Survival
Reddy et al. [17] Retrospective N = 214 HCC patients, 52 with
NASH and 162 patients with HCV or ALD		 59% 48% at 5 years
Haldar et al. [33] Retrospective N = 68,950 recipients, 1071 with NASH-HCC and 19,134 with HCC of other etiologies 68.6% n/a
Wong C.R. et al. [34] Retrospective N = 17,644 HCC patients, 406 patients with NAFLD, 1854 with HCV, 1342 with HBV, and 1024 with ALD 60% n/a
Rajendran et al. [35] Retrospective N = 20,672 HCC patients, 2071 with NASH HCC and 18,601 with HCC of other etiologies 76.3% n/a
Sadler et al. [4] Retrospective N = 929 HCC patients, 60 with NASH and 869 with other etiologies 80% 68%
Malik et al. [7] Retrospective N = 17 NASH HCC patients 88% at 2.5 years n/a
* Five-year overall survival rate.
Considering that nowadays there are numerous centers that offer liver transplantation beyond the Milan criteria, patients with NAFLD and HCC have also benefited from the extended indications. Rajendran et al. evaluated the outcomes of liver transplantation in patients with NAFLD-related HCC and found that there were no survival differences in populations within or beyond the Milan criteria [29].

5. Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Therapies

Currently, there is no recommendation for adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies use in HCC management because of the low efficacy and poor safety profile of the agents studied until now. Although HCC has very high rates of recurrence after resection or ablation (up to 70% at 5 years after curative treatment), there has been no therapy able to modify the outcome in these patients. There are several ongoing phase III randomized controlled trials that are evaluating the efficacy of adjuvant therapies after curative treatment with nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab + bevacizumab, and durvalumab [36].

6. Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization

In patients with unresectable HCC and preserved liver function with no evidence of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread, categorized as BCLC class B, the first-line treatment is transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). The classic method for TACE, consisting of the administration of an anticancer-in-oil emulsion followed by embolic agents, has been replaced in the last few years with a more efficient alternative that offers the possibility of introducing an embolic drug-eluting bead (DEB) providing a better efficacy and safety profile [37]. Data from several studies that assessed the pharmacokinetic profile of DEBs loaded with doxorubicin reported excellent features with lower systemic drug exposure and significantly reduced liver toxicity compared with conventional TACE [38][39][40].
In NAFLD-associated HCC, data about TACE efficacy are still scarce, with few studies mentioning its feasibility [41][42]. In a recent study, Young et al. retrospectively compared the median OS in patients with HCC and NAFLD vs. other etiologies after TACE and found that there were no significant differences [43]. In contrast with these results, another study conducted by Wu et al., which included 57 patients with HCC of different etiologies who had performed 100 TACE procedures, reported a negative impact of obesity on post-therapy residual disease and the time-to-progression interval [44]. Consequently, the low scientific evidence for TACE in NAFLD-associated HCC does not currently sustain a clear recommendation for including this procedure in the treatment strategy.

7. Systemic Therapy

Data regarding systemic therapy in NAFLD-associated HCC are lacking and the indication of treatment is derived from HCC cases of other etiologies.
The first agent for systemic therapy in HCC was sorafenib, which was introduced in 2007 based on the excellent results from the SHARP trial and has been used as a first-choice therapy for advanced-stage HCC (BCLC C) for over 10 years [44]. Data from the SHARP phase III trial showed that the efficacy of sorafenib varied depending on the etiology of HCC, being more effective in those with chronic HCV infection [45]. Interestingly, it has been recently demonstrated by a cohort study that included HCC patients with several etiologies of liver disease that the efficacy of sorafenib was similar in NAFLD patients when compared to other etiologies [46].
Recent advances in the field of immunotherapy for HCC have introduced new agents in the management of advanced-stage HCC, with promising results. The REFLECT trial demonstrated an improved OS of lenvatinib compared to sorafenib (13.6 vs. 12.3 months) [47]. Interestingly, lenvatinib showed an improvement of 1.5 months in terms of progression-free survival in patients with NAFLD-associated HCC compared to viral-related HCC [48]. Regorafenib has been recently recommended based on the improved survival rates in viral and non-viral HCC when compared to placebo (10.6 vs. 7.8 months), but due to the low incidence of NAFLD patients in the pivotal trial, there are no data regarding the efficacy of the drug in this cohort [49]. Similarly, the trials that evaluated cabozantinib and ramucirab, which, along with lenvatinib, are recommended as second-line choices when sorafenib fails, did not offer any data on their efficacy in NAFLD patients [50][51].
The cytotoxicity of these drugs is, however, a matter of concern nowadays. For instance, the side effects of antiangiogenic medications, such as sorafenib, may include hypertension, renal toxicity, arterial thromboembolism, bleeding, cardiotoxicity, thyroid dysfunction, hand–foot skin reaction, rash, pruritus, alopecia, potentially fatal hepatotoxicity, toxic/metabolic encephalopathy, and muscle wasting. On the other hand, despite having significantly higher transaminases than patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors for other conditions (such as lung cancer or melanoma), patients with HCC have not experienced early treatment termination or treatment-related mortality [52].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/life13101987

References

  1. Rumgay, H.; Arnold, M.; Ferlay, J.; Lesi, O.; Cabasag, C.J.; Vignat, J.; Laversanne, M.; McGlynn, K.A.; Soerjomataram, I. Global burden of primary liver cancer in 2020 and predictions to 2040. J. Hepatol. 2022, 77, 1598–1606.
  2. Younossi, Z.M.; Blissett, D.; Blissett, R.; Henry, L.; Stepanova, M.; Younossi, Y.; Racila, A.; Hunt, S.; Beckerman, R. The economic and clinical burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States and Europe. Hepatology 2016, 64, 1577–1586.
  3. Reig, M.; Forner, A.; Rimola, J.; Ferrer-Fàbrega, J.; Burrel, M.; Garcia-Criado, Á.; Kelley, R.K.; Galle, P.R.; Mazzaferro, V.; Salem, R.; et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update. J. Hepatol. 2022, 76, 681–693.
  4. Grgurevic, I.; Bozin, T.; Mikus, M.; Kukla, M.; O’Beirne, J. Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: From Epidemiology to Diagnostic Approach. Cancers 2021, 13, 5844.
  5. Trevisani, F.; D’Intino, P.E.; Morselli-Labate, A.M.; Mazzella, G.; Accogli, E.; Caraceni, P.; Domenicali, M.; De Notariis, S.; Roda, E.; Bernardi, M. Serum a-fetoprotein for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: Influence of hBsAg and anti-HCV status. J. Hepatol. 2001, 34, 570–575.
  6. Heimbach, J.K.; Kulik, L.M.; Finn, R.S.; Sirlin, C.B.; Abecassis, M.M.; Roberts, L.R.; Zhu, A.X.; Murad, M.H.; Marrero, J.A. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2018, 67, 358–380.
  7. Koh, Y.X.; Tan, H.J.; Liew, Y.X.; Syn, N.; Teo, J.Y.; Lee, S.Y.; Goh, B.K.; Goh, G.B.; Chan, C.Y. Liver resection for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-associated hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2019, 229, 467–478.e1.
  8. Reddy, S.K.; Steel, J.L.; Chen, H.-W.; DeMateo, D.J.; Cardinal, J.S.; Behari, J.; Humar, A.; Marsh, J.W.; Geller, D.A.; Tsung, A. Outcomes of curative treatment for hepatocellular cancer in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis versus hepatitis C and alcoholic liver disease. Hepatology 2012, 55, 1809–1819.
  9. Liang, J.; Ariizumi, S.-I.; Nakano, M.; Yamamoto, M. Diabetes mellitus and/or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis-related hepatocellular carcinoma showed favorable surgical outcomes after hepatectomy. Anticancer Res. 2019, 39, 5639–5643.
  10. Viganò, L.; Conci, S.; Cescon, M.; Fava, C.; Capelli, P.; D’errico, A.; Torzilli, G.; Di Tommaso, L.; Giuliante, F.; Vecchio, F.M.; et al. Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with metabolic syndrome: A multicenter matched analysis with HCV-related HCC. J. Hepatol. 2015, 63, 93–101.
  11. Billeter, A.T.; Müller, P.C.; Albrecht, T.; Roessler, S.; Löffler, M.; Lemekhova, A.; Mehrabi, A.; Müller-Stich, B.P.; Hoffmann, K. Impact of type 2 diabetes on oncologic outcomes of hepatocellular carcinomas in non-cirrhotic, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: A matchedpair analysis. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2021, 25, 1193–1202.
  12. Yang, T.; Hu, L.-Y.; Li, Z.-L.; Liu, K.; Wu, H.; Xing, H.; Lau, W.Y.; Pawlik, T.M.; Zeng, Y.-Y.; Zhou, Y.-H.; et al. Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A multicenter propensity matching analysis with HBV-HCC. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2020, 24, 320–329.
  13. Wakai, T.; Shirai, Y.; Sakata, J.; Korita, P.V.; Ajioka, Y.; Hatakeyama, K. Surgical outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2011, 15, 1450–1458.
  14. Kaufmann, B.; Reca, A.; Wang, B.; Friess, H.; Feldstein, A.E.; Hartmann, D. Mechanisms of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and implications for surgery. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2021, 406, 1–17.
  15. Molinari, M.M.; Kaltenmeier, C.; Samra, P.-B.; Liu, H.; Wessel, C.M.; Klem, M.L.; Dharmayan, S.; Emmanuel, B.; Al Harakeh, H.; Tohme, S.; et al. Hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Ann. Surg. Open 2021, 2, e065.
  16. Tzartzeva, K.; Obi, J.; Rich, N.E.; Parikh, N.D.; Marrero, J.A.; Yopp, A.; Waljee, A.K.; Singal, A.G. Surveillance imaging and alpha fetoprotein for early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2018, 154, 1706–1718.e1.
  17. Roberts, L.R.; Sirlin, C.B.; Zaiem, F.; Almasri, J.; Prokop, L.J.; Heimbach, J.K.; Murad, M.H.; Mohammed, K. Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology 2018, 67, 401–421.
  18. Zhang, J.; Yu, Y.; Li, Y.; Wei, L. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis with evidence from 1998 to 2016. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 75418–75426.
  19. Bartolotta, T.V.; Taibbi, A.; Midiri, M.; Lagalla, R. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of hepatocellular carcinoma: Where do we stand? Ultrasonography 2019, 38, 200–214.
  20. Xu, M.; Yang, L.; Lin, Y.; Lu, Y.; Bi, X.; Jiang, T.; Deng, W.; Zhang, L.; Yi, W.; Xie, Y.; et al. Emerging nanobiotechnology for precise theranostics of hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2022, 20, 427.
  21. Wang, Z.; Wu, P.; He, Z.; He, H.; Rong, W.; Li, J.; Zhou, D.; Huang, Y. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles with lactose-mediated targeting effect to deliver platinum(iv) prodrug for liver cancer therapy. J. Mater. Chem. B 2017, 5, 7591–7597.
  22. Rahman, M.; Almalki, W.H.; Alrobaian, M.; Iqbal, J.; Alghamdi, S.; Alharbi, K.S.; Alruwaili, N.K.; Hafeez, A.; Shaharyar, A.; Singh, T.; et al. Nanocarriers-loaded with natural actives as newer therapeutic interventions for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2021, 18, 489–513.
  23. Chen, T.-M.; Lin, C.-C.; Huang, P.-T.; Wen, C.-F. Metformin associated with lower mortality in diabetic patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after radiofrequency ablation. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2011, 26, 858–865.
  24. European Liver Transplant Registry. Patient Survival vs. Primary Disease. Available online: https://www.eltr.org/Overall-indication-and-results.html (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  25. Omata, M.; Cheng, A.L.; Kokudo, N.; Kudo, M.; Lee, J.M.; Jia, J.; Tateishi, R.; Han, K.H.; Chawla, Y.K.; Shiina, S.; et al. Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: A 2017 update. Hepatol. Int. 2017, 11, 317–370.
  26. Lingiah, V.A.; Niazi, M.; Olivo, R.; Paterno, F.; Guarrera, J.V.; Pyrsopoulos, N.T. Liver Transplantation Beyond Milan Criteria. J. Clin. Transl. Hepatol. 2020, 8, 69–75.
  27. Haldar, D.; Kern, B.; Hodson, J.; Armstrong, M.J.; Adam, R.; Berlakovich, G.; Fritz, J.; Feurstein, B.; Popp, W.; Karam, V.; et al. Outcomes of liver transplantation for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: A European Liver Transplant Registry study. J. Hepatol. 2019, 71, 313–322.
  28. Wong, C.R.; Njei, B.; Nguyen, M.H.; Nguyen, A.; Lim, J.K. Survival after treatment with curative intent for hepatocellular carcinoma among patients with vs. without non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2017, 46, 1061–1069.
  29. Rajendran, L.; Murillo Perez, C.F.; Ivanics, T.; Claasen, M.P.A.W.; Hansen, B.E.; Wallace, D.; Yoon, P.D.; Sapisochin, G. Outcomes of liver transplantation in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) versus non-NASH associated hepatocellular carcinoma. HPB 2023, 25, 556–567.
  30. Haldar, D.; Kern, B.; Hodson, J.; Armstrong, M.J.; Adam, R.; Berlakovich, G.; Fritz, J.; Feurstein, B.; Popp, W.; Karam, V.; et al. Liver transplantation for NASH-related hepatocellular carcinoma versus non-NASH etiologies of hepatocellular carcinoma. Transplantation 2018, 102, 640–647.
  31. Malik, S.M.; Gupte, P.A.; de Vera, M.E.; Ahmad, J. Liver transplantation in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2009, 7, 800–806.
  32. Wong, R.J.; Chou, C.; Bonham, C.A.; Concepcion, W.; Esquivel, C.O.; Ahmed, A. Improved survival outcomes in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and alcoholic liver disease following liver transplantation: An analysis of 2002-2012 United Network for Organ Sharing data. Clin. Transplant. 2014, 28, 713–721.
  33. Leung, T.W.; Tang, A.M.; Zee, B.; Lau, W.Y.; Lai, P.B.; Leung, K.L.; Lau, J.T.; Yu, S.C.; Johnson, P.J. Construction of the Chinese University Prognostic Index for hepatocellular carcinoma and comparison with the TNM staging system, the Okuda staging system, and the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program staging system: A study based on 926 patients. Cancer 2002, 94, 1760–1769.
  34. Kudo, M.; Chung, H.; Osaki, Y. Prognostic staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma (CLIP score): Its value and limitations, and a proposal for a new staging system, the Japan Integrated Staging Score (JIS score). J. Gastroenterol. 2003, 38, 207–215.
  35. AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, 7th ed.; American Joint Committee on Cancer: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010.
  36. Llovet, J.M.; Kelley, R.K.; Villanueva, A.; Singal, A.G.; Pikarsky, E.; Roayaie, S.; Lencioni, R.; Koike, K.; Zucman-Rossi, J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2021, 7, 6.
  37. Lencioni, R. Loco-regional treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2010, 52, 762–773.
  38. Varela, M.; Real, M.I.; Burrel, M.; Forner, A.; Sala, M.; Brunet, M.; Ayuso, C.; Castells, L.; Montañá, X.; Llovet, J.M.; et al. Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with drug eluting beads: Efficacy and doxorubicin pharmacokinetics. J. Hepatol. 2007, 46, 474–481.
  39. Lammer, J.; Malagari, K.; Vogl, T.; Pilleul, F.; Denys, A.; Watkinson, A.; Pitton, M.; Sergent, G.; Pfammatter, T.; Terraz, S.; et al. PRECISION V Investigators. Prospective randomized study of doxorubicin-eluting-bead embolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: Results of the PRECISION V study. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2010, 33, 41–52.
  40. Vogl, T.J.; Lammer, J.; Lencioni, R.; Malagari, K.; Watkinson, A.; Pilleul, F.; Denys, A.; Lee, C. Liver, gastrointestinal and cardiac toxicity in intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma treated with PRECISION TACE with drug-eluting beads: Results from the PRECISION V randomized trial. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011, 197, W562–W570.
  41. Siriwardana, R.C.; Niriella, M.A.; Dassanayake, A.S.; Liyanage, C.A.H.; Upasena, A.; Sirigampala, C.; de Silva, H.J. Factors affecting post-embolization fever and liver failure after trans-arterial chemo-embolization in a cohort without background infective hepatitis- a prospective analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2015, 15, 96.
  42. Weinmann, A.; Alt, Y.; Koch, S.; Nelles, C.; Düber, C.; Lang, H.; Otto, G.; Zimmermann, T.; Marquardt, J.U.; Galle, P.R.; et al. Treatment and survival of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis associated hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 210.
  43. Wu, S.E.; Charles, H.W.; Park, J.S.; Goldenberg, A.S.; Deipolyi, A.R. Obesity conveys poor outcome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated by transarterial chemoembolization. Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2017, 98, 37–42.
  44. Llovet, J.M.; Ricci, S.; Mazzaferro, V.; Hilgard, P.; Gane, E.; Blanc, J.F.; De Oliveira, A.C.; Santoro, A.; Raoul, J.L.; Forner, A.; et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 378–390.
  45. Bruix, J.; Cheng, A.-L.; Meinhardt, G.; Nakajima, K.; Sanctis, Y.; de Llovet, J. Prognostic factors and predictors of sorafenib benefit in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of two phase III studies. J. Hepatol. 2017, 67, 999–1008.
  46. Howell, J.; Samani, A.; Mannan, B.; Hajiev, S.; Aval, L.M.; Abdelmalak, R.; Tam, V.C.; Bettinger, D.; Thimme, R.; Taddei, T.H.; et al. Impact of NAFLD on clinical outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib: An international cohort study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39 (Suppl. S3), 289.
  47. Kudo, M.; Finn, R.S.; Qin, S.; Han, K.-H.; Ikeda, K.; Piscaglia, F.; Baron, A.; Park, J.-W.; Han, G.; Jassem, J.; et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2018, 391, 1163–1173.
  48. Hiraoka, A.; Kumada, T.; Tada, T.; Tani, J.; Kariyama, K.; Fukunishi, S.; Atsukawa, M.; Hirooka, M.; Tsuji, K.; Ishikawa, T.; et al. Efficacy of Lenvatinib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Based on Background Liver Disease Etiology: Multi-center Retrospective Study. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 16663.
  49. Bruix, J.; Qin, S.; Merle, P.; Granito, A.; Huang, Y.-H.; Bodoky, G.; Pracht, M.; Yokosuka, O.; Rosmorduc, O.; Breder, V.; et al. Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017, 389, 56–66.
  50. Abou-Alfa, G.K.; Meyer, T.; Cheng, A.-L.; El-Khoueiry, A.B.; Rimassa, L.; Ryoo, B.-Y.; Cicin, I.; Merle, P.; Chen, Y.; Park, J.-W.; et al. Cabozantinib in patients with advanced and progressing hepatocellular carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 54–63.
  51. Zhu, A.X.; Kang, Y.K.; Yen, C.J.; Finn, R.S.; Galle, P.R.; Llovet, J.M.; Assenat, E.; Brandi, G.; Pracht, M.; Lim, H.Y.; et al. Ramucirumab after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased a-fetoprotein concentrations (REACH-2): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 282–296.
  52. Yau, T.; Kang, Y.K.; Kim, T.Y.; El-Khoueiry, A.B.; Santoro, A.; Sangro, B.; Melero, I.; Kudo, M.; Hou, M.M.; Matilla, A.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Previously Treated with Sorafenib: The CheckMate 040 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020, 6, e204564, Erratum in JAMA Oncol. 2021, 7, 140.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Academic Video Service
Feedback