Clinical Practice Guidelines

EASL–EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management
of hepatocellular carcinoma
European Association for the Study of the Liver⇑,
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
Introduction
EASL–EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) define the use of surveillance, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies recommended for
patients with this type of cancer. This is the first European joint
effort by the European Association for the Study of the Liver
(EASL) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to provide common guidelines for the
management of hepatocellular carcinoma. These guidelines
update the recommendations reported by the EASL panel of
experts in HCC published in 2001 [1]. Several clinical and scientific advances have occurred during the past decade and, thus, a
modern version of the document is urgently needed.
The purpose of this document is to assist physicians, patients,
health-care providers, and health-policy makers from Europe and
worldwide in the decision-making process according to evidencebased data. Users of these guidelines should be aware that the
recommendations are intended to guide clinical practice in circumstances where all possible resources and therapies are available. Thus, they should adapt the recommendations to their local
regulations and/or team capacities, infrastructure, and cost–
benefit strategies. Finally, this document sets out some recommendations that should be instrumental in advancing the
research and knowledge of this disease and ultimately contribute
to improve patient care.
The EASL–EORTC CPG on the management of hepatocellular
carcinoma provide recommendations based on the level of eviReceived 15 December 2011; accepted 15 December 2011
Contributors: Chairmen: Josep M. Llovet (EASL); Michel Ducreux (EORTC). Clinical
Practice Guidelines Members: Riccardo Lencioni; Adrian M. Di Bisceglie; Peter R.
Galle; Jean Francois Dufour; Tim F. Greten; Eric Raymond; Tania Roskams; Thierry De
Baere; Michel Ducreux; and Vincenzo Mazzaferro. EASL Governing Board Representatives: Mauro Bernardi. Reviewers: Jordi Bruix; Massimo Colombo; Andrew Zhu.
⇑ Correspondence: EASL Office, 7 rue des Battoirs, CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland.
Tel.: +41 22 807 0360; fax: +41 22 328 0724.
E-mail address: easloffice@easloffice.eu ( European Association for the Study of
the Liver).
Abbreviations: HCV, Hepatitis C virus; SNP, Single nucleotide polymorphism; PEG,
Polyethylene glycol; HALT-C, Hepatitis C antiviral long-term treatment against
cirrhosis; EPIC, Evaluation of PegIntron in control of hepatitis C cirrhosis; CT,
Computed tomography; MR, Magnetic resonance; MRI, Magnetic resonance
imaging; EpCAM, Epithelial cell adhesion molecule; PPV, Positive predictive
value; qRT-PCR, Real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction; CUPI,
Chinese university prognostic index; CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian program;
SHARP, Sorafenib hepatocellular carcinoma assessment randomised protocol.
These Guidelines were developed by the EASL and the EORTC and are published
simultaneously in the Journal of Hepatology (volume 56, issue 4) and the European
Journal of Cancer (volume 48, issue 5).

dence and the strength of the data (the classification of evidence
is adapted from National Cancer Institute [2]) (Table 1A) and the
strength of recommendations following previously reported systems (GRADE systems) (Table 1B).

Clinical Practice Summary
The clinical practice guidelines below will give advice for up to
date management of patients with HCC as well as providing an
in-depth review of all the relevant data leading to the conclusions.

Clinical Practice Summary
Surveillance
•

•

•

Patients at high risk for developing HCC should be entered into
surveillance programs. Groups at high risk are depicted in Table
3
(evidence 1B/3A; recommendation 1A/B)
Surveillance should be performed by experienced personnel
in all at-risk populations using abdominal ultrasound every 6
months
(evidence 2D; recommendation 1B)
Exceptions: A shorter follow-up interval (every 3-4
months) is recommended in the following cases: (1).
Where a nodule of less than 1 cm has been detected
(see recall policy), (2). In the follow-up strategy after
resection or loco-regional therapies
(evidence 3D; recommendation 2B)
Patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation should
be screened for HCC in order to detect and manage tumor
progression and to help define priority policies for transplantation
(evidence 3D; recommendation 1B)

Recall policy
•

•

•

In cirrhotic patients, nodules less than 1 cm in diameter detected
by ultrasound should be followed every 4 months the first year
and with regular checking every 6 months thereafter
(evidence 3D; recommendation 2B)
In cirrhotic patients, diagnosis of HCC for nodules of 1-2
cm in diameter should be based on non-invasive criteria or
biopsy-proven pathological confirmation. In the latter case,
it is recommended that biopsies are assessed by an expert
hepatopathologist. A second biopsy is recommended in case
of inconclusive findings, or growth or change in enhancement
pattern identified during follow-up
(evidence 2D; recommendation 1B)
In cirrhotic patients, nodules more than 2 cm in diameter can be
diagnosed for HCC based on typical features on one imaging
technique. In case of uncertainty or atypical radiological findings,
diagnosis should be confirmed by biopsy
(evidence 2D; recommendation 1A)

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Clinical Practice Summary
Diagnosis

Liver Transplantation

•

•

•

•

Diagnosis of HCC is based on non-invasive criteria or pathology
(evidence 2D; recommendation 1A)
Pathological diagnosis of HCC is based on the recommendations
of the International Consensus Panel. Immunostaining for GPC3,
HSP70, and glutamine synthetase and/or gene expression profiles
(GPC3, LYVE1 and survivin) are recommended to differentiate high
grade dysplastic nodules from early HCC
(evidence 2D; recommendation 2B)
Additional staining can be considered to detect progenitor cell
features (K19 and EpCAM) or assess neovascularisation (CD34)
Non-invasive criteria can only be applied to cirrhotic patients and are
based on imaging techniques obtained by 4-phase multidetector CT
scan or dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Diagnosis should be based
on the identification of the typical hallmark of HCC (hypervascular
in the arterial phase with washout in the portal venous or delayed
phases). While one imaging technique is required for nodules
beyond 1 cm in diameter (evidence 2D; recommendation 2B), a
more conservative approach with 2 techniques is recommended
in suboptimal settings. The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound
(CEUS) and angiography is controversial. PET-scan is not accurate
for early diagnosis

Staging systems
•

•

•
•

Staging systems in HCC should define outcome prediction and
treatment assignment. They should facilitate exchange of information,
prognosis prediction and trial design. Due to the nature of HCC,
the main prognostic variables are tumor stage, liver function and
performance status
The BCLC staging system is recommended for prognostic prediction
and treatment allocation
(evidence 2A; recommendation 1B)
This staging system can be applied to most HCC patients, as
long as specific considerations for special subpopulations (liver
transplantation) are incorporated
Other staging systems applied alone or in combination with BCLC are
not recommended in clinical practice
Molecular classification of HCC based on gene signatures or
molecular abnormalities is not ready for clinical application
(evidence 2A; recommendation 1B)

Treatment
•

Treatment allocation is based on the BCLC allocation system

•
•

•

•

•

Local ablation
•

•

•

Resection
•

•

•
•

•

Resection is the first-line treatment option for patients with solitary
tumors and very well-preserved liver function, defined as normal
bilirubin with either hepatic venous pressure gradient ≤10 mmHg or
platelet count ≥100,000
(evidence 2A; recommendation 1B)
Anatomical resections are recommended
(evidence 3A; recommendation 2C)
Additional indications for patients with multifocal tumors meeting
Milan criteria (≤3 nodules ≤3 cm) or with mild portal hypertension not
suitable for liver transplantation require prospective comparisons with
loco-regional treatments
(evidence 3A; recommendation 2C)
Peri-operative mortality of liver resection in cirrhotic patients is
expected to be 2-3%
Neo-adjuvant or adjuvant therapies have not proven to improve
outcome of patients treated with resection (or local ablation)
(evidence 1D; recommendation 2C)
Tumor recurrence represents the major complication of resection and
the pattern of recurrence influences subsequent therapy allocation
and outcome. In case of recurrence, the patient will be re-assessed
by BCLC staging, and re-treated accordingly

Liver transplantation is considered to be the first-line treatment option
for patients with single tumors less than 5 cm or ≤3 nodules ≤3 cm
(Milan criteria) not suitable for resection
(evidence 2A; recommendation 1A)
Peri-operative mortality and one-year mortality are expected to be
approximately 3% and ≤10%, respectively
Extension of tumor limit criteria for liver transplantation for HCC has
not been established. Modest expansion of Milan criteria applying
the “up-to-seven” in patients without microvascular invasion achieves
competitive outcomes, and thus this indication requires prospective
validation
(evidence 2B; recommendation 2B)
Neo-adjuvant treatment can be considered for loco-regional therapies
if the waiting list exceeds 6 months due to good cost-effectiveness
data and tumor response rates, even though impact on long-term
outcome is uncertain
(evidence 2D; recommendation 2B)
Down-staging policies for HCCs exceeding conventional criteria
cannot be recommended and should be explored in the context
of prospective studies aimed at survival and disease progression
end-points
(evidence 2D; recommendation 2C)
Assessment of downstaging should follow modified RECIST criteria
Living donor liver transplantation is an alternative option in patients
with a waiting list exceeding 6-7 months, and offers a suitable setting
to explore extended indications within research programs
(evidence 2A; recommendation 2B)

Local ablation with radiofrequency or percutaneous ethanol injection
is considered the standard of care for patients with BCLC 0-A tumors
not suitable for surgery
(evidence 2A; recommendation 1B)
Other ablative therapies, such as microwave or cryoablation, are still
under investigation
Radiofrequency ablation is recommended in most instances as the
main ablative therapy in tumors less than 5 cm due to a significantly
better control of the disease
(evidence 1iD; recommendation 1A)
Ethanol injection is recommended in cases where radiofrequency
ablation is not technically feasible (around 10-15%)
In tumors <2 cm, BCLC 0, both techniques achieve complete
responses in more than 90% of cases with good long-term outcome.
Whether they can be considered as competitive alternatives to
resection is uncertain
(evidence 1iA; recommendation 1C)

Chemoembolization and transcatheter therapies
•

•

•

•

Chemoembolization is recommended for patients with BCLC stage
B, multinodular asymptomatic tumors without vascular invasion or
extra-hepatic spread
(evidence 1iiA; recommendation 1A)
The use of drug-eluting beads has shown similar response rates
than gelfoam-lipiodol particles associated with less systemic adverse
events
(evidence 1D; recommendation 2B)
Chemoembolization is discouraged in patients with decompensated
liver disease, advanced liver dysfunction, macroscopic invasion or
extrahepatic spread
(evidence 1iiA; recommendation 1B)
Bland embolization is not recommended
Internal radiation with 131I or 90Y glass beads has shown promising
anti-tumoral results with a safe profile, but cannot be recommended
as standard therapy. Further research trials are needed to establish a
competitive efficacy role in this population
(evidence 2A; recommendation 2B)
Selective intra-arterial chemotherapy or lipiodolization are not
recommended for the management of HCC
(evidence 2A; recommendation 2B)
External three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is under
investigation, and there is no evidence to support this therapeutic
approach in the management of HCC
(evidence 3A; recommendation 2C)

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

909

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
Table 1A. Levels of evidence according to study design and end-points
National Cancer Institute: PDQ Levels of Evidence for Adult and Pediatric
Cancer Treatment Studies. Bethesda [2]–.

Clinical Practice Summary
Systemic therapies
•

•

•

•

•

•

Sorafenib is the standard systemic therapy for HCC. It is indicated
for patients with well-preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A class)
and with advanced tumors (BCLC C) or those tumors progressing
upon loco-regional therapies
(evidence 1iA; recommendation 1A)
There are no clinical or molecular biomarkers available to identify
the best responders to sorafenib
(evidence 1A; recommendation 2A)
Systemic chemotherapy, tamoxifen, immunotherapy, antiandrogen, and herbal drugs are not recommended for the clinical
management of HCC patients
(evidence 1-2A; recommendation 1A/B)
There is no available second-line treatment for patients with
intolerance or failure to sorafenib. Best supportive care or the
inclusion of patients in clinical trials is recommended in this setting
(recommendation 2B)
In specific circumstances, radiotherapy can be used to alleviate
pain in patients with bone metastasis
(evidence 3A; recommendation 2C)
Patients at BCLC D stage should receive palliative support
including management of pain, nutrition and psychological support.
In general, they should not be considered for participating in clinical
trials (recommendation 2B)

Epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention

•

The incidence of HCC is increasing in Europe and
worldwide.

•

Vaccination against hepatitis B is recommended to all
newborns and high risk groups
(evidence: 2D; recommendation 1A)

•

Governmental health agencies should recommend
policies for preventing HCV/HBV transmissions,
encourage life styles preventing obesity and alcohol
abuse (evidence 3A; recommendation 1A) and
controlling metabolic conditions, such as diabetes
(evidence 3; recommendation 2B)

•

In patients with chronic hepatitis, antiviral therapies
leading to maintained HBV suppression in chronic
hepatitis B and sustained viral response in hepatitis
C are recommended since they have been shown
to prevent progression to cirrhosis, and hence HCC
development (evidence 1A; recommendation 1A). The
application of antiviral therapies should follow the EASL
guidelines for management of chronic hepatitis B and C
infection

•

Once cirrhosis is established, the benefits of anti-viral
therapy in preventing HCC development are not robustly
demonstrated
(evidence 1D; recommendation 2B)

Epidemiology
The burden of cancer is increasing worldwide. Each year there are
10.9 million new cases of cancer and 6.7 million cancer-related
910

Strength of evidence according to study design:
Level 1: Randomized controlled clinical trials or metaanalyses of randomized studies*
(i) Double-blinded
(ii) Non-blinded treatment delivery
Level 2: Non-randomized controlled clinical trials**
Level 3: Case series***
(i) Population-based, consecutive series
(ii) Consecutive cases (not population-based)
(iii) Non-consecutive cases
Strength of evidence according to end-points:
A. Total mortality (or overall survival from a defined time)
B. Cause-specific mortality (or cause-specific mortality from a
defined time)
C. Carefully assessed quality of life
D. Indirect surrogates#
(i) Event-free survival
(ii) Disease-free survival
(iii) Progression-free survival
(iv) Tumor response rate
–
National Cancer Institute: PDQÒ Levels of Evidence for Adult and Paediatric
Cancer Treatment Studies. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Date last
modified 26/August/2010. Available at: http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/levels-evidence-adult-treatment/HealthProfessional. Accessed <March 1st, 2011>.
⁄
The randomized, double-blinded controlled clinical trial (1i) is the gold standard
of study design. Meta-analyses of randomized studies are placed in the same
category of strength of evidence as are randomized studies.
⁄⁄
This category includes trials in which treatment allocation was made by birth
date, chart number (so-called quasi randomized studies) or subset analyses of
randomized studies (or randomized phase II studies).
⁄⁄⁄
All other prospective (cohort studies) or retrospective studies (case–control
studies, case series).
#
These end-points may be subjected to investigator interpretation. More
importantly, they may, but do not automatically, translate into direct patient
benefit such as survival or quality of life. Nevertheless, it is rational in many
circumstances to use a treatment that improves these surrogate end-points while
awaiting a more definitive end-point to support its use.

deaths. The most commonly diagnosed cancers are lung, breast,
and colorectal while the most common causes of cancer death
are lung, stomach, and liver [3,4]. Liver cancer is the sixth most
common cancer (749,000 new cases), the third cause of cancerrelated death (692,000 cases), and accounts for 7% of all cancers
[4]. HCC represents more than 90% of primary liver cancers and
is a major global health problem.
The incidence of HCC increases progressively with advancing
age in all populations, reaching a peak at 70 years [5]. In Chinese
and in black African populations, the mean age of patients with
the tumor is appreciably younger. This is in sharp contrast to
Japan, where the incidence of HCC is highest in the cohort of
men aged 70–79 years [6]. HCC has a strong male preponderance
with a male to female ratio estimated to be 2.4 [4].
The pattern of HCC occurrence has a clear geographical distribution, with the highest incidence rates in East Asia, sub-Saharan
Africa, and Melanesia, where around 85% of cases occur [3,4]. In
developed regions, the incidence is low with the exception of
Southern Europe where the incidence in men (10.5 age-standardized

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Table 1B. Grading evidence and recommendations (adapted from GRADE system).

Grading of evidence

Notes

Symbol

High quality

Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect

A

Moderate quality

Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate
of effect and may change the estimate
Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the
estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Any estimate of effect is
uncertain
Notes

B

Low or very low quality

Grading recommendation
Strong recommendation warranted
Weaker recommendation

Nation
Albania
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia-Erzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Great Britain
Greece
Netherland
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Moldova
Montenegro
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine

M
5.8
9.3
3.3
4.3
5.6
7.7
5.9
4.0
3.5
5.8
10.5
6.2
3.8
5.2
2.0
7.5
3.4
13.4
4.6
4.1
9.8
5.3
14.2
5.3
2.2
3.1
3.5
8.1
4.4
4.8
5.4
9.6
3.2
7.8
3.2

Factors influencing the strength of the recommendation included the quality of the
evidence, presumed patient-important outcomes, and cost
Variability in preferences and values, or more uncertainty: more likely a weak
recommendation is warranted
Recommendation is made with less certainty: higher cost or resource consumption

C

Symbol
1
2

F
2.9
2.9
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.4
2.4
1.3
1.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
1.7
2.0
0.8
2.0
1.5
4.4
1.8
1.4
3.8
2.3
4.6
2.5
1.0
1.5
1.2
3.0
1.9
2.6
1.8
2.5
1.4
2.3
1.6

Fig. 1. Incidence rates of primary liver cancer according to geographical distribution in Europe. Age-adjusted incidence rates per 100,000 of liver cancer in Europe in
2008. The color intensity is proportional to the magnitude of incidence. M, males; F, females. (Data from: Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM.
GLOBOCAN 2008, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010.
Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr.)

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

911

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
incidence rates per 100,000) is significantly higher than in other
developed regions [7] (Fig. 1).
There is a growing incidence of HCC worldwide. Overall, the
incidence and mortality rates were of 65,000 and 60,240 cases
in Europe and 21,000 and 18,400 cases in the United States in
2008, respectively. It is estimated that by 2020 the number of
cases will reach 78,000 and 27,000, respectively [4]. People
infected with HCV in Europe during the period 1940–60 and in
the United States of America (USA) one decade later led to the
current increase of HCC incidence. In Europe, the incidence and
mortality rates reported are heterogeneous. HCC mortality during
the last decades increased in males in most of the countries (i.e.
Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Norway,
Spain, Switzerland, and United Kingdom), but decreased in others
(Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Sweden) [7]. In the United States, the rate of HCC deaths appears to have increased by
about 40% over the period 1990–2004, whereas the overall rate
of cancer deaths has declined by about 18% during this same period [8]. Besides the emergence of liver disease due to hepatitis C,
this growth in incidence may be also due to an increase in HBVrelated HCC, particularly among immigrants from endemic countries. Conversely, in Japan, a country where the impact of HCVrelated HCC was first noticed after World War II, there has been
an apparent decline in the incidence of this neoplasm for the first
time since 1990 [6]. Finally, the impact of universal infant vaccination against HBV has decreased the rate of HBV-related HCC in
endemic countries. So far, this has been observed among children
in Taiwan, but it is expected to become more apparent as these
vaccinated children grow into adults [9].
Etiology and risk factors
Approximately 90% of HCCs are associated with a known underlying risk factor (Table 2). The most frequent factors include
chronic viral hepatitis (types B and C), alcohol intake and aflatoxin exposure. In Africa and East Asia, the largest attributable

Table 2. Geographical distribution of main risk factors for HCC worldwide.⁄

Geographic area AAIR
M/F
Europe

6.7/2.3

Southern

10.5/3.3

Northern

4.1/1.8

North America

6.8/2.3

Asia and Africa
Asia

23/9.6

Japan

20.5/7.8

Africa
⁄

Alcohol Others

50-60 20

20

20

70

10

70

10-20 10

31

54

(%)
10

10
(NASH)
10
(Aflatoxin)

21.6/8.2

China

WORLD

Risk factors

HCV HBV (%)
(%)
(%)
60-70 10-15 20

10

1.6/5.3
16/6

15

Updated from Llovet et al. [99], according to IARC data [4]. AAIR, age-adjusted
incidence rate.

912

fraction is due to hepatitis B (60%) whereas in the developed
Western world, only 20% of cases can be attributed to HBV infection, while chronic hepatitis C appears to be the major risk factor
[3]. Worldwide, approximately 54% of cases can be attributed to
HBV infection (which affects 400 million people globally) while
31% can be attributed to HCV infection (which affects 170 million
people), leaving approximately 15% associated with other causes.
Cirrhosis is an important risk factor for HCC, and may be
caused by chronic viral hepatitis, alcohol, inherited metabolic diseases such as hemochromatosis or alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. All etiologic forms
of cirrhosis may be complicated by tumor formation, but the risk
is higher in patients with hepatitis infection. Overall, one-third of
cirrhotic patients will develop HCC during their lifetime [10].
Long-term follow-up studies have demonstrated that approximately 1–8% per year of patients with cirrhosis develop HCC
(e.g. 2% in HBV-infected cirrhotic patients and 3–8% in HCVinfected cirrhotic patients) [11]. In general, features of liver disease severity (low platelet count of less than 100   103, presence
of esophageal varices), in addition to older age and male gender,
correlate with HCC development among patients with cirrhosis
[12]. Recent studies have shown that liver cancer incidence
increases in parallel to portal pressure as directly measured
[13] or in parallel to the degree of liver stiffness as measured
by transient elastography [14,15].
Several studies have identified HBV-related factors as key predictors of HCC development in patients with chronic hepatitis B
infection [16]. Hepatitis B virus e antigen (HBeAg) seropositivity
[17], high viral load [18], and genotype C [19] are independent
predictors of HCC development. In addition, hepatitis B viral load
correlates with the risk of progression to cirrhosis [20]. Similarly,
in a recent meta-analysis, HCV genotype 1b is claimed to increase
the risk of HCC development [21].
Dietary exposure to aflatoxin B1, derived from the fungi Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, is an important co-factor for HCC
development in some parts of Africa and Asia. These molds are
ubiquitous in nature and contaminate a number of staple foodstuffs in tropical and subtropical regions. Epidemiologic studies
have shown a strong correlation between the dietary intake of
aflatoxin B1, TP53 mutations and incidence of HCC, specifically
in HBV-infected individuals [22]. Regarding other risk factors,
patients with hemochromatosis develop HCC in up to 45% of
cases [23], most often with a background of cirrhosis, and HCC
is well documented as a complication of cirrhosis associated with
alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency [24]. HCC develops occasionally in
patients with Wilson’s disease, but only in the presence of cirrhosis [25].
Obesity, diabetes and fatty liver disease have come to be recognized as a cause of HCC [26,27], although the mechanisms by
which these overlapping conditions contribute to cancer development remain elusive. Cirrhosis due to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis may give rise to HCC but it appears that these factors may also
be additive to chronic viral hepatitis [27]. Epidemiologic evidence
of a link between cigarette smoking and the occurrence of HCC
was traditionally conflicting [26], but recent evidence support
that smoking is a clear co-factor [28]. Heavy smokers have a
higher risk than non-smokers. In the general population, the incidence of HCC is increased among patients with HIV infection
compared to controls, and HIV appears to be an additive co-factor, exacerbating the risk of HCC in patients with chronic viral
hepatitis [29].

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Identification of mutations in germline DNA that define
patients at high risk of developing cancer has become a challenge for surveillance programs and chemopreventive strategies.
This is the case of mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and increased
risk of breast or ovarian cancer [30] or in genes involved in
DNA mismatch repair and hereditary colon cancer [31]. In
HCC, a recent case–control study found a significant association
between an epidermal growth factor (EGF) gene polymorphism
and the risk of HCC [32], while another study suggests genetic
predisposition of SNPs at loci involved in immune response
[33]. These findings require validation by independent
investigators.

Surveillance

•

Implementation of surveillance programs to identify
at-risk candidate populations and identification of
biomarkers for early HCC detection are a major public
health goal to decrease HCC-related deaths
(evidence 1D; recommendation 1B)
Government health policy and research agencies should
address these needs

•

Patients at high risk for developing HCC should be
entered into surveillance programs. Groups at high risk
are depicted in Table 3
(evidence 1B/3A; recommendation 1A/B)

•

Surveillance should be performed by experienced
personnel in all at-risk populations using abdominal
ultrasound every 6 months
(evidence 2D; recommendation 1B)

Prevention
Primary prevention of HCC can be achieved with universal
vaccination against HBV infection [9]. Vaccination against
hepatitis B is recommended to all newborns and high risk
groups, following the recommendations of the World Health
Organization [34]. Since perinatal or early postnatal transmission is an important cause of chronic HBV infections globally,
the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine should be given as soon
as possible after birth, even in low-endemicity countries
(those with prevalence of HBsAg carriers <2%). Vaccination
is also recommended in age-specific cohorts (young adolescents) and people with risk factors for acquiring HBV infection
(i.e. health workers, travellers to areas where HBV-infection is
prevalent, injecting drug users, and people with multiple sex
partners).
Antiviral treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis B and
C infection should follow the recommendations from existing
EASL guidelines [35,36]. Interferon, lamivudine, adefovir, entecavir, telbivudine and tenofovir are now available for HBV
treatment, but long-term follow-up data assessing their effect
in secondary prevention are only available with interferon
and lamivudine. Observational studies assessing the effect of
interferon showed a potential effect in reduction of HCC incidence [37], but this was not confirmed by Asian casecontrolled studies [38]. Similarly, a randomized controlled trial
(RCT) assessing the effect of lamivudine showed a significant
reduction in HCC incidence. Nonetheless, there are some concerns regarding the effects obtained in this study as prevention
of HCC occurrence was not the primary end-point of the study,
and because the marginal effect obtained disappeared once
adjusted for co-variables [39]. As a result, it appears prudent
to conclude that surveillance for HCC should be maintained
in those patients who already qualified before starting the
treatment.
In hepatitis C viral infection, the results of a meta-analysis of
retrospective studies suggest that the risk of HCC is reduced
among patients with HCV who achieve a sustained virological
response (SVR) with antiviral therapy with interferon–ribavirin
[40]. Once cirrhosis is established, there is no conclusive evidence
that anti-viral therapy can prevent or delay the occurrence of
HCC [41,42]. Maintenance therapy with PEG–interferon in cirrhotic patients has not significantly decreased the incidence of
HCC according to the HALT-C [43,44] and EPIC studies [45]. Additional studies are required to test the potential preventive effect
of combination with new protease inhibitors (boceprevir, telaprevir) in cirrhotic patients.

Exceptions: A shorter follow-up interval (every 3-4
months) is recommended in the following cases:
1. Where a nodule of less than 1 cm has been
detected (see recall policy), 2. In the follow-up
strategy after resection or loco-regional therapies
(evidence 3D; recommendation 2B)

•

Accurate tumor biomarkers for early detection need to
be developed. Data available with tested biomarkers
(i.e. AFP, AFP-L3 and DCP) show that these tests are
suboptimal for routine clinical practice
(evidence 2D; recommendation 2B)

•

Patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation should
be screened for HCC in order to detect and manage
tumor progression and to help define priority policies for
transplantation
(evidence 3D; recommendation 1B)

Surveillance consists of the periodic application of a diagnostic test to subjects at risk for developing a given disease. Its usefulness and applicability are influenced by several factors, such as
the incidence of the surveyed disease in the target population, the
availability of efficient diagnostic test(s) at bearable costs and
their acceptability by the target population, and the availability
of treatments and their effectiveness [46]. The aim of surveillance
is to obtain a reduction in disease-related mortality. This is usually achieved through an early diagnosis (stage migration) that, in
turn, enhances the applicability and cost–effectiveness of curative therapies. Stage migration, however, cannot serve as a surrogate for the main end-point, which is patient survival.
HCC is a condition which lends itself to surveillance as at-risk
individuals can readily be identified because of the presence of
underlying viral hepatitis or other liver diseases. In fact, in the
Western world, HCC arises in a cirrhotic background in up to 90%
of cases [47], and cirrhosis itself is a progressive disease that affects
patient survival. The presence of cirrhosis then influences the
chances for anti-tumoral treatment and affects their results, thus
rendering early diagnosis of HCC even more crucial. Moreover,
many available treatments can have an adverse impact on cirrho-

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

913

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
sis, and the exact cause of death, which could be either the underlying disease or HCC, cannot be clearly defined in some instances.
For this reason, a reduction in overall mortality represents a more
appropriate end-point to assess the efficacy of surveillance.
Target populations
Cirrhotic patients
Decision analysis and cost–effectiveness models suggest that an
intervention is considered cost-effective if it provides gains of life
expectancy of at least 3 months with a cost lower than approximately US$ 50,000 per year of life saved [48]. Cost–effectiveness
studies indicate that an incidence of 1.5%/year or greater would
warrant surveillance of HCC in cirrhotic patients [49], irrespective
of its etiology [10,17,50,51]. It may also be possible to identify
cirrhotic patients at low risk of developing HCC [52–54] and
hence exclude them from surveillance, thereby saving costs
although this approach is not proven yet. Conversely, the presence of advanced cirrhosis (Child–Pugh class C) prevents potentially curative therapies from being employed, and thus
surveillance is not cost-effective in these patients [1,55]. As an
exception, patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation,
regardless of the liver functional status, should be screened for
HCC in order to detect tumors exceeding conventional criteria
and to help define priority policies for transplantation. Finally,
although it seems intuitive that surveillance might not be costeffective above a certain age cut-off, the lack of data prevents
the adoption of any specific recommendation.
Non-cirrhotic subjects
Patients with chronic HBV infection are at risk of HCC development even in the absence of cirrhosis. In these cases, the recommended cut-off of annual incidence above which surveillance
should be recommended cannot be applied. The cut-off of annual
incidence in these patients is ill-defined, albeit expert opinion
indicates that it would be warranted if HCC incidence is at least
0.2%/year [56,57]. Thus, cost–benefit modeling is needed in this
scenario. The incidence of HCC in adult Asian or African active
HBV carriers or with a family history of HCC exceeds this value,
whereas HCC incidence ranges from 0.1% to 0.4%/year in Western
patients with chronic HBV infection [58,59]. Viral load also
appears to increase the risk of developing HCC. In Asian patients,
serum HBV-DNA above 10,000 copies/ml was associated with an
annual risk above 0.2%/year [18].
Unfortunately, there is scanty and sometimes contradictory
information on the incidence of HCC in patients with chronic hepatitis C without cirrhosis. Data from Japan would suggest that
patients with mild fibrosis have a yearly HCC incidence of 0.5%
[51]. A recent study from the United States has pointed out that
HCC does occur in patients with chronic hepatitis C and bridging
fibrosis in the absence of cirrhosis (Metavir F3) [12]. The fact that
the transition from advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis cannot be accurately defined led the EASL guidelines to recommend surveillance
also for patients with bridging fibrosis [1]. This panel also endorses
such a policy. In this respect, transient elastography appears to be a
promising tool able to stratify patients at different HCC risks [14,60].
Information about the incidence of HCC in patients with nonviral chronic liver disease without cirrhosis, such as non-alcoholic
and alcoholic steatohepatitis, autoimmune liver disease, genetic
hemochromatosis, a1-antitripsin deficiency, and Wilson disease

914

is limited [23–25,61]. However, available evidence suggests that
HCC usually arises in these contexts once cirrhosis is established
[1]. Certainly, patients with metabolic syndrome or non-alcoholic
steatohepatitis leading to cirrhosis should undergo surveillance
[62], whereas the risk of HCC development is not established in
non-cirrhotic individuals.
Treated viral chronic hepatitis
Recent advances in therapy have led to relatively high rates of viral
clearance or suppression among those patients being treated for
chronic hepatitis B or C. Successful treatment, leading to sustained
virological response in chronic hepatitis C, and HBeAg seroconversion or sustained HBV-DNA suppression in chronic hepatitis B,
decreases, but does not eliminate the risk of HCC [63–66]. Surveillance should be offered to treated patients with chronic hepatitis B
who remain at risk of HCC development due to baseline factors, or
to those with HCV-induced advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis, even
after achieving sustained virological response.

Table 3. Recommendations for HCC surveillance: categories of adult patients
in whom surveillance is recommended.

1.

Cirrhotic patients, Child-Pugh stage A and B*

2.

Cirrhotic patients, Child-Pugh stage C awaiting
liver transplantation**
Non-cirrhotic HBV carriers with active hepatitis or family
history of HCC***
Non-cirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C and advanced
liver fibrosis F3****

3.
4.
⁄

Evidence 3A; strength B1;

⁄⁄

evidence 3D; strength B1;
evidence 1B; strength A1 for Asian patients; evidence 3D; strength C1 for
Western patients;
⁄⁄⁄⁄
evidence 3D; strength B1 for Asian patients; evidence 3D; strength B2 for
Western patients.
⁄⁄⁄

Surveillance tests
Tests that can be used in HCC surveillance include serological and
imaging examinations. The imaging test most widely used for
surveillance is ultrasonography (US). US has an acceptable diagnostic accuracy when used as a surveillance test (sensitivity ranging from 58% to 89%; specificity greater than 90%) [67,68]. A
recent meta-analysis including 19 studies has showed that US
surveillance detected the majority of HCC tumors before they
presented clinically, with a pooled sensitivity of 94%. However,
US was less effective for detecting early-stage HCC, with a sensitivity of only 63% [69]. In contrast, in a recent Japanese cohort
including 1432 patients, careful US surveillance performed by
highly skilled operators resulted in an average size of the
detected tumors of 1.6 ± 0.6 cm, with less than 2% of the cases
exceeding 3 cm [70].
The widespread popularity of US also relies on the absence of
risks, non-invasiveness, good acceptance by patients and relatively moderate cost. Nonetheless, US detection of HCC on a cirrhotic background is a challenging issue. Liver cirrhosis is

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
characterized by fibrous septa and regenerative nodules. These
features produce a coarse pattern on US, which may impair identification of small tumors. Because of these limitations, the performance of US in early detection of HCC is highly dependent
on the expertise of the operator and the quality of the equipment.
Thus, special training for ultrasonographers is recommended. The
recent introduction of US contrast agents has not proven to
increase the ability of US to detect small HCC tumors [71].
There are no data to support the use of multidetector CT or
dynamic MR imaging for surveillance. Practical experience suggests
that the rate of false-positive results that will trigger further investigation is very high and non-cost-effective. These circumstances
are overcome in the setting of the waiting list for liver transplantation where CT scan or MRI are alternatives to US. These techniques
should be also considered when obesity, intestinal gas, and chest
wall deformity prevent an adequate US assessment. Even in these
circumstances, radiation risk due to repeated exposure to CT scan
and high cost of MR make debatable their use in long-term
surveillance.
Serological tests that have been investigated or are under
investigation for early diagnosis of HCC include alpha-fetoprotein
(AFP), des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) – also known as
prothrombin induced by Vitamin K Absence II (PIVKA II) – the ratio
of glycosylated AFP (L3 fraction) to total AFP, alpha-fucosidase, and
glypican 3 [12,72]. AFP is the most widely tested biomarker in
HCC. It is known that persistently elevated AFP levels are a risk factor for HCC development and can be used to help define at-risk
populations [73]. Of note is that AFP has been mostly tested in
the diagnostic mode rather than for surveillance. This is relevant,
since its performance as a diagnostic test cannot be extrapolated
to the surveillance setting. As a serological test for surveillance,
AFP has a suboptimal performance. One randomized study [74]
and one population-based observational study [75] reached opposite results. The latter study provides rationale for testing AFP in
special populations or health care environments when US is not
readily available [75]. However, when combined with US, AFP levels are only able to provide additional detection in 6–8% of cases
not previously identified by US. Reasons for the suboptimal performance of AFP as a serological test in the surveillance mode are
twofold. Firstly, fluctuating levels of AFP in patients with cirrhosis
might reflect flares of HBV or HCV infection, exacerbation of
underlying liver disease or HCC development [76]. Secondly, only
a small proportion of tumors at an early stage (10–20%) present
with abnormal AFP serum levels, a fact that has been recently correlated with a molecular subclass of aggressive HCCs (S2 class,
EpCAM positive) [77–79]. When used as a diagnostic test, AFP levels at a value of 20 ng/ml show good sensitivity but low specificity,
whereas at higher cut-offs of 200 ng/ml the sensitivity drops to
22% with high specificity [80].
All other serum markers have usually been evaluated, alone or
in combination, in a diagnostic rather than surveillance setting.
Moreover, their diagnostic performance has often been assessed
at an HCC prevalence remarkably higher than that expected in
the context of surveillance [81]. In the latter setting, DCP, measured with a first generation assay, did not offer substantial
advantages with respect to AFP [82]. In addition, DCP levels have
been associated to portal vein invasion and advanced tumoral
stage, a fact that prevents the usage of this marker for early detection [82]. A similar situation occurs with AFP-L3 fraction levels
[83]. At present, none of these tests can be recommended to sur-

vey patients at risk of developing HCC. Several markers, such as
fucosylated proteins, are currently under investigation [84].
In conclusion, US can be seen as the most appropriate test to
perform surveillance. The combination with AFP is not recommended, as the 6–8% gain in the detection rate does not counterbalance the increase in false positive results, ultimately leading to
an about 80% increase in the cost of each small HCC diagnosed
[69,85].
Surveillance efficacy
Two randomized controlled trials have been published on HCC
surveillance. In one population-based study cluster randomization (randomizing entire villages) was performed comparing surveillance (US and AFP measurements every 6 months) versus no
surveillance in a population of Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B infection, regardless of the presence of cirrhosis [86].
Despite suboptimal adherence to the surveillance program
(55%), HCC-related mortality was reduced by 37% in the surveillance arm as a result of increased applicability of resection in
detected cases. The other AFP-based surveillance study carried
out in Qidong (China) in high-risk individuals (males, HBsAg+)
did not identify differences in overall survival [74].
Other types of evidence include population and non-population-based cohorts and cost–effectiveness analysis, which mostly
reinforce the benefits of regular US schemes [55,69,87–93]. However, these studies are heterogeneous as far as stage and etiology
of liver disease, and surveillance protocols. Moreover, almost all
suffer from methodological biases such as lead-time bias (apparent improvement of survival due to an anticipated diagnosis) and
length time bias (over-representation of slower-growing
tumors). While the latter is unavoidable in this type of study,
lead-time bias can be minimized using correction formulas.
When this was done, the advantage of surveillance remained
[94].
Surveillance interval
The ideal interval of surveillance for HCC should be dictated by
two main features: rate of tumor growth up to the limit of its
detectability, and tumor incidence in the target population. Based
on available knowledge on mean HCC volume doubling time [87–
89]; a 6-month interval represents a reasonable choice. Considering, though, that inter-patient variability is so huge, a shorter 3month interval has been proposed by Japanese guidelines
[90,95]. However, the unique randomized study comparing 3 versus 6-month based programs failed to detect any differences [91].
On the other hand, cohort comparisons of 6 versus 12-month
schemes provide similar results [52,92], while retrospective studies identified better performance of the 6-month interval in terms
of stage migration (small HCC amenable for curative treatments)
[96] and survival [97]. Meta-analysis of prospective studies has
shown that the pooled sensitivity of US-based surveillance
decreases from 70% with the 6-month program to 50% with the
annual program [69].
Finally, cost–effectiveness studies have shown that semi-annual
US-based surveillance improves quality-adjusted life expectancy at
a reasonable cost [98]. In light of available knowledge, a 6-month
scheduled surveillance appears the preferable choice. Further trials
in this setting would be difficult to implement.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

915

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
Recall policy

•

•

•

In cirrhotic patients, nodules less than 1 cm in diameter
detected by ultrasound should be followed every
4 months the first year and with regular checking every
6 months thereafter
(evidence 3D; recommendation 2B)
In cirrhotic patients, diagnosis of HCC for nodules of
1-2 cm in diameter should be based on non-invasive
criteria or biopsy-proven pathological confirmation.
In the latter case, it is recommended that biopsies are
assessed by an expert hepatopathologist. A second
biopsy is recommended in case of inconclusive findings,
or growth or change in enhancement pattern identified
during follow-up
(evidence 2D; recommendation 1B)
In cirrhotic patients, nodules more than 2 cm in diameter
can be diagnosed for HCC based on typical features on
one imaging technique. In case of uncertainty or atypical
radiological findings, diagnosis should be confirmed by
biopsy
(evidence 2D; recommendation 1A)

Recall policy is crucial for the success of surveillance procedures. It consists of a defined algorithm to be followed when surveillance tests show an abnormal result. This definition must take
into account the ideal target of surveillance, i.e. the identification
of HCC at a very early stage (2 cm or less), when radical treatments can be applied with the highest probability of long-term
cure [99]. In case of HCC, abnormal US results are either a newly
detected focal lesion or a known hepatic lesion that enlarges and/
or changes its echo pattern [100].
Pathology studies show that the majority of nodules smaller than
1 cm, that can be detected in a cirrhotic liver, are not HCCs [101].
Thus, a tight follow-up is recommended in these cases (Fig. 2). An
accepted rule is to consider any nodule larger than about 1 cm as
an abnormal screening result warranting further investigation
[56]. These new nodules should trigger the recall strategy for diagnosis with non-invasive or invasive (biopsy) criteria, as described
in the section of diagnosis. If a diagnosis cannot be reached with
non-invasive criteria due to atypical radiological appearance, then
biopsy is recommended. If even biopsy provides inconclusive
results, then a tight follow-up every 4 months is recommended.
A second biopsy can be considered in case of growth or change in
the enhancement pattern. Upon detection of a suspicious nodule,
the recommended policy is to evaluate the patient in a referral center with appropriate human and technical resources [56].

Diagnosis
Nowadays, early HCC diagnosis is feasible in 30–60% of cases
in developed countries and this enables the application of
curative treatments. In fact, while tumors less than 2 cm in diameter represented <5% of the cases in the early nineties in Europe,
currently they represent up to 30% of cases in Japan. This trend is
expected to continue growing in parallel to the wider implemen916

•

Diagnosis of HCC is based on non-invasive criteria or
pathology
(evidence 2D; recommendation 1A)

•

Pathological diagnosis of HCC is based on the
recommendations of the International Consensus Panel.
Immunostaining for GPC3, HSP70, and glutamine
synthetase and/or gene expression profiles (GPC3,
LYVE1 and survivin) are recommended to differentiate
high grade dysplastic nodules from early HCC
(evidence 2D; recommendation 2B)
Additional staining can be considered to detect
progenitor cell features (K19 and EpCAM) or assess
neovascularisation (CD34)

•

Non-invasive criteria can only be applied to cirrhotic
patients and are based on imaging techniques obtained
by 4-phase multidetector CT scan or dynamic
contrast-enhanced MRI. Diagnosis should be based
on the identification of the typical hallmark of HCC
(hypervascular in the arterial phase with washout in the
portal venous or delayed phases). While one imaging
technique is required for nodules beyond
1 cm in diameter (evidence 2D; recommendation
2B), a more conservative approach with 2 techniques is
recommended in suboptimal settings.
The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and
angiography is controversial. PET-scan is not accurate
for early diagnosis

tation of surveillance policies in developed countries [102]. However, detection of these minute nodules of  2 cm poses a
diagnostic challenge as they are difficult to characterize by radiological or pathological examination [103–105].
Proper definition of nodules as pre-neoplastic lesions or early
HCC has critical implications. Dysplastic lesions should be followed by regular imaging studies, since at least one-third of them
develop a malignant phenotype [106,107]. Conversely, early
tumors are treated with potentially curative procedures – albeit
expensive – such as resection, transplantation and percutaneous
ablation. Thus, there is an urgent need to identify better tools to
characterize these lesions. Otherwise, the cost–effectiveness of
the recall policies applied within surveillance programs will be
significantly undermined.
Non-invasive diagnosis
Accurate diagnosis of small liver nodules is of paramount importance. Until 2000, diagnosis was based on biopsy. This approach
had some limitations related to feasibility due to location and risk
of complications, such as bleeding or needle-track seeding [108].
In addition, achieving accuracy in differentiating between highgrade dysplastic nodules and early HCCs was complex, since stromal invasion, the most relevant criteria, is difficult to recognize
even for an expert pathologist [105]. In 2001, a panel of experts
on HCC convened in Barcelona by EASL reported for the first time
non-invasive criteria for HCC based on a combination of imaging
and laboratory findings [1]. In principle, a unique dynamic radiological behavior (contrast up-take in the arterial phase by CT, MRI,
angiography or US) represented the backbone of radiological diagnosis of early HCC. In cirrhotic patients with nodules >2 cm, coinci-

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Mass/Nodule on US

<1 cm

1-2 cm

Repeat US at 4 mo

4-phase CT/dynamic
contrast enhanced MRI

Growing/changing
character

Stable

Investigate
according to size

>2 cm

1 or 2 positive techniques*:
HCC radiological hallmarks**

4-phase CT or dynamic
contrast enhanced MRI

1 positive technique:
HCC radiological hallmarks**

Yes

No

Yes

No

HCC

Biopsy

HCC

Biopsy

Inconclusive

Fig. 2. Diagnostic algorithm and recall policy. ⁄One imaging technique only recommended in centers of excellence with high-end radiological equipment.
radiological hallmark: arterial hypervascularity and venous/late phase washout.

dental findings by two imaging techniques were considered diagnostic, or alternatively, one imaging technique along with AFP levels
above 400 ng/ml. In all other circumstances biopsy was mandatory.
In 2005, the EASL panel of experts and the American Association for
the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidelines adopted a new HCC
radiological hallmark, i.e. contrast uptake in the arterial phase and
washout in the venous/late phase [109]. Non-invasive diagnosis
was established by one imaging technique in nodules above 2 cm
showing the HCC radiological hallmark and two coincidental techniques with nodules of 1–2 cm in diameter (CT, MRI and US-contrast). AFP levels were dropped from the diagnostic scheme [109].
Recent updated AASLD guidelines have proposed that one imaging
technique (CT or MRI) showing the HCC radiological hallmark suffices for diagnosing tumors of 1–2 cm in diameter [56].
In order to update the EASL guidelines for non-invasive diagnostic criteria of HCC, two questions are posed. First, what data
provides reliable non-invasive diagnostic accuracy for nodules
of 1–2 cm in diameter taking into account that the recommendations apply to a wide range of expert physicians and radiologists.
And second, what imaging techniques can be used. Regarding the
first issue, two prospective studies have shown that using 2
imaging techniques is an approach with high PPV and specificity
[104,109]. In one study including 89 consecutive cases of nodules
between 0.5 and 2 cm detected within surveillance programs in
cirrhotic patients showed that non-invasive criteria are accurate
for the diagnosis of HCC, with a specificity of 100% [104]. Unfortunately, such an absolute specificity had the downside of a low
sensitivity of 30%, meaning that two-thirds of nodules required
pathological confirmation. The other study suggested that the
use of a sequential algorithm would maintain an absolute speci-

⁄⁄

HCC

ficity but increase the sensitivity, with significant savings in
terms of liver biopsy procedures for nodules of 1–2 cm [110]. A
retrospective study reporting diagnostic accuracies of MRI in
large series of transplanted patients showed an overall false positive rate exceeding 10% when using one imaging technique [111].
Finally, a recent prospective study, testing the accuracy of imaging techniques in nodules between 1 and 2 cm detected by ultrasound, showed false positive diagnosis – mostly due to high
grade dysplastic nodules – above 10% with either 1 or 2 imaging
techniques, with a specificity of 81% and 85%, respectively [112].
Hence, the non-invasive diagnosis of 1–2 cm lesions remains a
challenging issue, with no unequivocal data in prospective validation studies. While the panel considers incorporating the 1
technique rule in order to have a consistent approach in the field,
a more cautious application of this rule is recommended in suboptimal settings, where the technology at disposal or the local
skills are not at the high-end level. In these circumstances, we
recommended to use two coincidental techniques, since the negative consequences of high rates of false-positive diagnosis offset
the benefit. Additional prospective studies to confirm the accuracy of this approach are recommended in order to support a
more strong recommendation at the 1A level.
Regarding which imaging techniques should be used, it has to be
pointed out the fact that the HCC radiological hallmark is based on
the tumor vascular dynamic performance. This limits the usage of
US-contrast – since US microbubbles are confined to the intravascular space – as opposed to iodinated contrast-CT or gadoliniumbased MR imaging, in which standard contrast agents are rapidly
cleared from the blood pool into the extracellular space. A recent
study showed that lesions other than HCC, i.e. cholangiocarcinoma,

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

917

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
displayed homogeneous contrast uptake at US-contrast followed by
washout, i.e. the vascular pattern assumed to represent the hallmark
of HCC [113]. Thus, latest generation CT and/or MRI following
reported protocols are recommended for non-invasive diagnosis
of HCC [114]. On the other hand, recent advances in the use of perfusion CT or MRI with liver-specific contrast agents have not so far
provided solid data to support their use as alternate criteria.
It is important to point out that the HCC radiological hallmark
only occurs in a small proportion of patients with tiny tumors
(1–2 cm) [103], and thus biopsy or tissue biomarkers will be
required in most instances. Delaying diagnosis beyond 2 cm leads
to increased levels of treatment failure or recurrence, since it is
known that satellites and microscopic vascular invasion rise exponentially beyond this size cut-off [101]. Therefore, it is crucial to
provide reliable tools for a final diagnosis before the 2 cm cut-off.
Pathological diagnosis
Pathological diagnosis of HCC is based on the definitions of the
International Consensus Group for Hepatocellular Neoplasia
[115] and is recommended for all nodules occurring in non-cirrhotic livers, and for those cases with inconclusive or atypical
imaging appearance in cirrhotic livers. Sensitivity of liver biopsy
depends upon location, size and expertise, and might range
between 70% and 90% for all tumor sizes. Pathological diagnosis
is particularly complex for nodules between 1 and 2 cm [105].
Morphological criteria alone still pose problems for the differential diagnosis of high-grade dysplastic nodules versus early HCC,
especially because the pathological hallmark of HCC, stromal invasion, can be absent or difficult to identify in biopsy specimens
[105]. In a prospective study, first biopsy was reported positive
in  60% of cases for tumors less than 2 cm [104]. Thus, a positive
tumor biopsy is clinically useful to rule in a diagnosis of HCC, but
a negative biopsy does not rule out malignancy. The risk of tumor
seeding after liver biopsy is 2.7% with a median time interval
between biopsy and seeding of 17 months [116].
Tissue markers might provide a more across-the-board standardized diagnosis of these tumors. Distinct technologies such
as genome-wide DNA microarray, qRT-PCR, proteomic and inmunostaining studies have been used in an attempt to identify
markers of early diagnosis of HCC. Few studies, however, include
a thorough analysis of several markers in a training-validation
scheme and with a sufficient number of samples [78]. A study
conducted in 128 human samples described a 13-gene signature
able to identify HCC lesions with high diagnostic accuracy [117].
Similarly, a three-gene signature (the genes that encode GPC3,
LYVE1, and survivin) has been proposed as an accurate molecular
tool (>80% accuracy) to discriminate between dysplastic nodules
and small HCCs (<2 cm) [118]. The performance of this signature
was externally validated in a different set of samples [118,119].
The diagnostic performance of some markers of early HCC
identified by genomic studies has been prospectively assessed
by immunohistochemistry, a low-cost technique. By examining
the tissue, the pathologist can select a representative tumor sample without necrosis or inflammation and define the cell type
expressing protein markers and the specific pattern. A promising
marker is GPC3, which shows a sensitivity of 68–72% with a specificity superior to 92% [120,121]. Similarly, combinations of different protein markers – HSP70, GPC3, and GS – in 105
hepatocellular nodules performed acceptably (sensitivity and
specificity of 72% and 100%, respectively) [120], and were after-

918

wards validated in two larger series [122,123]. The International
Consensus Group of Hepatocellular Neoplasia has adopted the
recommendation to define a pathological diagnosis of HCC if at
least two of these markers are positive [115]. Additional staining
can be considered to assess neovascularisation (CD34) or potential progenitor cell origin (Keratin 19, EpCAM) [101,105,124]. In
particular, keratin 19 (K19), a progenitor cell/biliary marker, at
a cut-off of 5% of positive tumor cells with immunohistochemistry, has been shown to correlate with poorest outcome
[105,124,125]. Moreover, K19 recognizes biliary features in
mixed forms of HCC/cholangiocarcinoma, which are not always
detected on hematoxylin–eosin stain.
Assessment of disease extension
Assessment of tumor extension is critical for defining staging and
treatment strategy. Several studies with pathological correlation
have shown that dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and 4-phase
multidetector CT are the most effective imaging techniques for
detecting tumors smaller than 2 cm. However, underestimation
of 25–30% is expected even with the best state-of-the-art technology [126,127]. Pre-specified protocols should define the
amount and rate of contrast given, the precise individualized timing of the image acquisition and image reconstruction with minimum slice thickness. Lipiodol contrast staining should not be
used. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is unable to compete with
CT and MRI in terms of accuracy for detection of lesions. Bone
scintigraphy can be used for evaluating bone metastases. PETbased imaging is not accurate to stage early tumors. Pre-operative staging prior to liver transplantation should include abdominal dynamic CT or MRI, chest CT and bone scintigraphy.
Staging systems

•

Staging systems in HCC should define outcome
prediction and treatment assignment. They should
facilitate exchange of information, prognosis prediction
and trial design. Due to the nature of HCC, the main
prognostic variables are tumor stage, liver function and
performance status

•

The BCLC staging system is recommended for
prognostic prediction and treatment allocation
(evidence 2A; recommendation 1B). This staging
system can be applied to most HCC patients, as long as
specific considerations for special subpopulations (liver
transplantation) are incorporated

•

Refinement of BCLC class C by clinical or biomarker
tools should further facilitate understanding of outcome
data and trial stratification

•

Other staging systems applied alone or in combination
with BCLC are not recommended in clinical practice

•

Molecular classification of HCC based on gene
signatures or molecular abnormalities is not ready for
clinical application
(evidence 2A; recommendation 1B)

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Cancer classification is intended to establish prognosis and
enable the selection of the adequate treatment for the best candidates. In addition, it helps researchers to exchange information
and design clinical trials with comparable criteria. In patients with
HCC, unlike most solid tumors, the coexistence of two life-threatening conditions such as cancer and cirrhosis complicates prognostic
assessments [99,128]. Thus, staging systems for this cancer should
be designed with data coming from two sources. First, prognostic
variables obtained from studies describing the natural history of
cancer and cirrhosis. Second, treatment-dependent variables
obtained from evidence-based studies providing the rationale for
assigning a given therapy to patients in a given subclass.
Based on data reporting the natural history of the disease, the
main clinical prognostic factors in HCC patients are related to
tumor status (defined by number and size of nodules, presence
of vascular invasion, extrahepatic spread), liver function (defined
by Child–Pugh’s class, bilirubin, albumin, portal hypertension,
ascites) and general health status (defined by ECOG classification
and presence of symptoms) [129–133]. Etiology has not been
identified as an independent prognostic factor.
Tissue and serum biomarkers predicting prognosis have been
less explored in HCC patients. Strict rules for incorporating prognostic or predictive markers into clinical practice have been published [134]. According to these rules, acceptable biomarkers
should be obtained from randomized investigations, as is the case
with KRAS status and response to cetuximab in colon cancer.
Only in particularly compelling circumstances can prognostic or
predictive markers tested in cohort studies be adopted in clinical
practice. The panel recommends to incorporate biomarkers for
the management of HCC when the following requirements are
met: (1) demonstrate prognostic prediction in properly powered
randomized studies or in training and validation sets from cohort
studies; (2) demonstrate independent prognostic value in mutivariate analysis, including known clinico-pathological predictive
variables; and (3) confirmation of results using the same technology in an external cohort reported by independent investigators.
None of the biomarkers tested so far fulfil these criteria in HCC,
but four just require external validation by independent groups:
gene signatures or biomarkers from the tumor (EpCAM signature,
G3-proliferation subclass, and miR-26a) [77,135,136] and adjacent tissue (poor-survival signature) [137]. Regarding serum
markers, AFP levels, VEGF and Ang2 have been shown to have
independent prognostic value in large cohorts of untreated
advanced tumors [138]. The prognostic relevance of high AFP levels has been scarcely reported in controlled investigations [139],
but has been shown to predict risk of drop-out in patients on the
waiting list for liver transplantation (cut-off of 200 ng/ml, or by
increases of >15 ng/ml) [140,141], response to local ablation
[142], response to loco-regional therapies [143] and in the outcome of advanced tumors (cut-off of 200 ng/ml [138]; 400 ng/
ml [130,144]). The heterogeneity of the above studies prevents
the formulation of a clear recommendation, but it is advised to
test levels >200 and/or >400 ng/ml as prognostic factors of poor
outcome in research investigations.
Several staging systems have been proposed to provide a clinical classification of HCC. In oncology, the standard classification
of cancer is based on the TNM staging. In HCC, the 7th TNM edition
in accordance with the AJCC [145], which was obtained from the
analysis of a series of patients undergoing resection, has several
limitations [146]. First, pathological information is required to
assess microvascular invasion, which is only available in patients

treated by surgery ( 20%). In addition, it does not capture information regarding liver functional status or health status. Onedimensional systems, such as the Okuda staging and the Child–
Pugh classification, albeit popular, serve purposes distinct to class
prediction in HCC patients. Among more comprehensive staging
systems, five have been broadly tested, three European (the
French classification [147], the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program
(CLIP) classification [130], and the Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer
(BCLC) staging system [148,149]) and two Asian (the Chinese University Prognostic Index (CUPI score) [150] and the Japan Integrated Staging (JIS), which was recently refined including
biomarkers (AFP, DCP AFP-L-3) (bm-JIS) [151]). The CUPI and CLIP
scores largely subclassify patients at advanced stages, with a
small number of effectively treated patients. Overall, few of the
most used systems or scores have been externally validated
(BCLC, CUPI, CLIP, and bm-JIS), only two include the three types
of prognostic variables (BCLC, CUPI) and only one assigns treatment allocation to specific prognostic subclasses (BCLC).
The current EASL–EORTC GP guidelines endorse the Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification for several reasons
[148,149]. It includes prognostic variables related to tumor status, liver function and health performance status along with
treatment-dependant variables obtained from cohort studies
and randomized trials. It has been externally validated in different clinical settings [152–154]. This is an evolving system that
links tumor stage with treatment strategy in a dynamic manner
enabling the incorporation of novel advancements in the understanding of the prognosis or management of HCC. In this regard,
the seminal classification reported in 1999 [148] was updated
with the incorporation of stage 0 (very early HCC) and chemoembolization for intermediate HCC in 2003 [99], and further
modified in 2008 to incorporate sorafenib as first-line treatment
option in advanced tumors [149]. As discussed below, further
refinements in class stratification (for instance to incorporate biomarkers) or treatment allocation resulting from positive high-end
trials are expected in the following years. The BCLC classification
was first endorsed by the EASL [1], and thereafter by the AASLD
guidelines for the management of HCC [56].
BCLC classification: outcome prediction and treatment allocation
The Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification divides
HCC patients in 5 stages (0, A, B, C and D) according to preestablished prognostic variables, and allocates therapies
according to treatment-related status (Fig. 3). Thus, it provides
information on both prognostic prediction and treatment allocation. Prognosis prediction is defined by variables related to tumor
status (size, number, vascular invasion, N1, M1), liver function
(Child–Pugh’s) and health status (ECOG). Treatment allocation
incorporates treatment dependant variables, which have been
shown to influence therapeutic outcome, such as bilirubin, portal
hypertension or presence of symptoms-ECOG.
Early stages
Very early HCC (BCLC stage 0) is defined as the presence of a single
tumor <2 cm in diameter without vascular invasion/satellites in
patients with good health status (ECOG-0) and well-preserved
liver function (Child–Pugh A class). Nowadays, 5–10% of patients
in the West are diagnosed at this stage while in Japan the figure is
almost 30% due to the widespread implementation of surveillance programs [155]. From pathological studies, though, two

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

919

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
HCC

Stage 0

Stage A-C

Stage D

PST 0, Child-Pugh A

PST 0-2, Child-Pugh A-B

PST >2, Child-Pugh C*

Very early stage (0)

Early stage (A)

Intermediate stage (B)

Single <2 cm,
Carcinoma in situ

Single or 3 nodules ≤3 cm,
PS 0

Multinodular,
PS 0

Single

3 nodules ≤3 cm

Advanced stage (C)

Terminal stage (D)

Portal invasion,
N1, M1, PS 1-2

Portal pressure/bilirubin
Increased
Normal

Resection

Associated diseases
No

Liver transplantation
(CLT/LDLT)

Yes

RF/PEI

Curative treatment (30-40%)
Median OS >60 mo; 5-yr survival: 40-70%

TACE

Sorafenib

Best supportive
care

Target: 20%
OS: 20 mo (45-14)

Target: 40%
OS: 11 mo (6-14)

Target: 10%
OS: <3 mo

Fig. 3. Updated BCLC staging system and treatment strategy, 2011.

subclasses of tumors have been defined: vaguely nodular type –
size around 12 mm without local invasiveness – and the distinctly nodular type – mean size 16 mm which might show local
invasiveness. Vaguely nodular types are very well-differentiated
HCCs that contain bile ducts and portal veins, have ill-defined
nodular appearance and, by definition, do not have invaded structures. Distinctly nodular type show local metastases surrounding
the nodule in 10% of cases, and microscopic portal invasion in up
to 25% [101,105]. Therefore, some tumors smaller than 2 cm are
prone to locally disseminate, but others behave as carcinoma
in situ and those are defined as Stage 0. Recent data have shown
a 5-year survival in 80–90% of patients with resection and liver
transplantation and in 70% with local ablation [156–159].
Whether patients at very early stage can be offered local ablation
as a first line treatment option is a topic of controversy. No RCT
addressing this issue have been reported so far and comparison
of cohort studies suffers from selection bias.
Early HCC (BCLC stage A) is defined in patients presenting single tumors >2 cm or 3 nodules <3 cm of diameter, ECOG-0 and
Child–Pugh class A or B. Median survival of patients with early
HCC reaches 50–70% at 5 years after resection, liver transplantation or local ablation in selected candidates [102,160]. The natural outcome of these cases is ill-defined due the scarcity of
reported data, but it is estimated to be a median survival of
around 36 months. An improvement in survival is universal when
920

applying the so-called treatment-dependent variables in the
selection of candidates.
Tumor status is defined by size of the main nodule and multicentricity (single 2–5 cm, 3 nodules 63 cm), each of these categories showing significantly different outcomes. As discussed below,
single tumors beyond 5 cm are still considered for surgical resection as first option, because if modern MRI is applied in pre-operative staging, the fact that solitary large tumors remain single and
with no macrovascular involvement – which might be common in
HBV-related HCC – reflects a more benign biological behavior.
Variables related to liver function are relevant for candidates to
resection. Absence of clinically relevant portal hypertension and normal bilirubin are key predictors of survival in patients with single
tumors undergoing resection [161]. Similarly, Child–Pugh class A is
the strongest prognostic variable in patients undergoing local ablation, along with tumor size and response to treatment [162]. Since
liver transplantation may potentially cure both the tumor and the
underlying liver disease, variables mostly related with HCC have
been clearly established as prognostic factors (single tumors
65 cm or 3 nodules 63 cm), defining the so-called Milan criteria.
Intermediate-advanced HCC
Prognosis of HCC was assumed to be poor for unresectable cases,
with a median survival of less than 1 year. Analysis of heterogeneous
outcomes within 25 RCT (2 year survival 8–50%) [131,133,139,163]

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
leads to the identification of at least three subgroups of patients with
unresectable HCC: the intermediate, advanced and end-stage classes,
according to the BCLC classification.
Intermediate HCC (BCLC stage B): Untreated patients at an
intermediate stage – BCLC B class (multinodular asymptomatic
tumors without an invasive pattern) present a median survival
of 16 months [139,164], or 49% at 2 year [133]. Chemoembolization extends the survival of these patients to a median of up to
19–20 months according to RCT and meta-analysis of pooled data
[139]. Nonetheless, outcome prediction is heterogeneous for
BCLC B subclass patients, and has been reported to range from
around 36–45 months [165–167] for the best responders to
chemoembolization in recent series, to 11 months for the worst
scenario of untreated candidates (placebo arm of the SHARP
trial-BCLC B patients) [168]. A recent meta-analysis of RCT assessing outcome of patients in the control arm suggests that ascites –
which contraindicates TACE treatment – is the worst prognostic
factor for this subclass [133].
Advanced HCC (BCLC stage C): Patients with cancer relatedsymptoms (symptomatic tumors, ECOG 1–2), macrovascular
invasion (either segmental or portal invasion) or extrahepatic
spread (lymph node involvement or metastases) bear a dismal
prognosis, with expected median survival times of 6 months
[131,164], or 25% at 1 year [133]. Nonetheless, it is obvious that
this outcome varies according to the liver functional status and
other variables. For instance, patients with preserved liver function (Child–Pugh’s A class) have a median survival of 7 months
[168], while those with severe liver impairment (Child–Pugh’s B
class) present 5 months of median life expectancy. In 2006, there
was no FDA-approved first line treatment for patients with
advanced HCC. This scenario has changed as a result of the data
reported showing survival benefits from patients receiving
sorafenib – a multi tyrosine kinase inhibitor – in advanced cases
[168]. The results of this RCT represent a breakthrough in the
management of HCC, as it is discussed in the molecular targeted
therapies section of this document. Overall median survival in the
sorafenib arm was 10.7 months, ranging from 14.7 months in
BCLC B and 9.5 months in BCLC C patients.
End-stage HCC: Patients with end-stage disease are characterized by presenting with tumors leading to a very poor Performance
Status (ECOG 3–4), which reflects a severe tumor-related disability. Their median survival is 3–4 months [148] or 11% at 1-year
[133]. Similarly, Child–Pugh C patients with tumors beyond the
transplantation threshold also have a very poor prognosis.
Concept of treatment stage migration
A proportion of patients in each stage do not fulfil all the criteria
for the treatment allocation. In those cases, it is advised to offer
the patient the next most suitable option within the same stage
or the next prognostic stage. For instance, patients at BCLC A
failing local ablation should be offered chemoembolization.
Similarly, patients at BCLC B stage non-responding to chemoembolization – at least two cycles of treatment – should be offered
sorafenib, as reported in the SHARP trial [168,169].
Refinement of BCLC classification
Some studies challenged the capacity of BCLC to properly provide
a fine stratification of patients for trial design. These studies
mostly included patients at BCLC C stage of the disease [170].
The panel of experts acknowledges that the range of survival
reported for patients at BCLC B (from 45 months to 11 months)
and C (from 11 months to 5 months) deserves to be addressed.

Further stratification of patients within each class according to
liver function (Child–Pugh A versus B, or ascites), prognostic
molecular biomarkers or prognostic variables (ECOG, cancer invasiveness) should be explored.
Molecular classification of HCC
Molecular classification of cancer should aid in understanding the
biological subclasses and drivers of the disease and optimize benefits from molecular therapies and enrich trial populations. Few
molecular classifications have been proposed in cancer. One such
is the case of breast cancer, where Her2/nu status discriminates
subgroups of patients with different outcome and treatment
response to trastuzumab [171]. Similarly, EGFR mutational status
in non-small cell lung cancer identifies a subgroup of responders
to tyrosine kinase inhibitors [172]. More recently, the fact that a
subgroup of patients with melanoma and BRAF mutations
respond to specific B-RAF inhibitors has defined a new paradigm
and subclass in the management of this cancer [173].
In HCC, no molecular subclass has been reported as responding to specific targeted therapy. Nonetheless, clear advancements
in the understanding of the pathogenesis and molecular subclasses of the disease occurred during the last decade. From the biological standpoint, different tumoral classes have been
characterized including a Wnt subclass, a proliferation class (with
two subclasses: S1-TGF-beta and S2-EpCAM positive) and an
inflammation class [77,137,174,175]. Samples obtained from different parts of a given neoplastic nodule showed identical class
stratification in 95% of cases [136]. Equally relevant, gene profiling of adjacent non-tumoral tissue defines two subgroups of
patients with good and poor outcome [137]. Thus, a portrait of
the field effect is currently available, although further studies
are required to confirm the prognostic significance of these subclasses, and whether specific drivers within them can provide the
rationale for a more stratified medicine.
Treatment

•

Treatment allocation is based on the BCLC allocation
system, and the levels of evidence of treatments
according to strength and magnitude of benefit are
summarized in Fig. 4

In oncology, the benefits of treatments should be assessed
through randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis. Other
sources of evidence, such as non-randomized clinical trials or
observational studies are considered less robust. Few medical
interventions have been thoroughly tested in HCC, in contrast
with other cancers with a high prevalence worldwide, such as
lung, breast, colorectal and stomach cancer. As a result, the
strength of evidence for most interventions in HCC is far behind
the most prevalent cancers worldwide. The level of evidence for
efficacy according to trial design and end-points for all available
treatments in HCC and the strength of recommendations according to GRADE are summarized in Fig. 4.
In principle, recommendations in terms of selection for different
treatment strategies are based on evidence-based data in circumstances where all potential efficacious interventions are available.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

921

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
Sorafenib
Chemoembolization
RF (<5 cm),
RF/PEI (<2 cm)

Levels of evidence

1
Adjuvant therapy
after resection
LDLT
Internal
radiation
OLT-extended
Neo-adjuvant therapy
iin waiting
iti lilist

2

Resection

OLT-Milan

Down-staging
3
External/palliative
radiotherapy

C

B

A

C

2 (weak)

B

A

1 (strong)

Grade of recommendation
Fig. 4. Representation of EASL–EORTC recommendations for treatment according to levels of evidence (NCI classification [2]) and strength of recommendation
(GRADE system). RF, radiofrequency ablation; PEI, percutaneous ethanol injection; OLT, orthotopic liver transplantation; LDLT, living donor liver transplantation.

Multidisciplinary HCC teams including hepatologists, surgeons,
oncologists, radiologists, interventional radiologists, pathologists
and translational researchers are encouraged to apply these guidelines. Strategic recommendations should be adapted to local regulations and/or team capacities and cost–benefit strategies.
Resection

•

Resection is the first-line treatment option for patients
with solitary tumors and very well-preserved liver
function, defined as normal bilirubin with either hepatic
venous pressure gradient ≤10 mmHg or platelet count
≥100,000
(evidence 2A; recommendation 1B)
Anatomical resections are recommended
(evidence 3A; recommendation 2C)

•

Additional indications for patients with multifocal tumors
meeting Milan criteria (≤3 nodules ≤3 cm) or with mild
portal hypertension not suitable for liver transplantation
require prospective comparisons with loco-regional
treatments
(evidence 3A; recommendation 2C)

•

Peri-operative mortality of liver resection in cirrhotic
patients is expected to be 2-3%

•

Neo-adjuvant or adjuvant therapies have not proven to
improve outcome of patients treated with resection (or
local ablation)
(evidence 1D; recommendation 2C)

•

Tumor recurrence represents the major complication
of resection and the pattern of recurrence influences
subsequent therapy allocation and outcome. In case
of recurrence, the patient will be re-assessed by BCLC
staging, and re-treated accordingly

922

Surgery is the mainstay of HCC treatment. Resection and
transplantation achieve the best outcomes in well-selected candidates (5-year survival of 60–80%), and compete as the first
option in patients with early tumors on an intention-to-treat perspective [176,177]. Hepatic resection is the treatment of choice
for HCC in non-cirrhotic patients (5% of cases in the West, 40%
in Asia) [178,179], where major resections can be performed with
low rates of life-threatening complications and acceptable outcome (5-year survival: 30–50%).
Modern standards of HCC resection in cirrhotic patients are
defined by the panel as follows: expected 5-year survival rates
of 60%, with a peri-operative mortality of 2–3% and blood transfusion requirements of less than 10% [102,157,180–182]. In fact,
peri-operative mortality has decreased from 15% in the 1980s to
3–5% in the majority of referral units. Some centers have reported
zero peri-operative mortality [176,183]. Blood loss is significantly
associated with patient outcome and may be controlled both by
selecting patients with preserved liver functional reserve and by
applying intermittent inflow occlusion during the hepatic parenchymal transection. Nowadays the selection of candidates for
resection has been refined, and both the surgical technique –
pre-resection imaging planning, ultrasonic dissector, intermittent
Pringle maneuvre, low central venous pressure maintenance, etc.
– and immediate post-operative management have been optimized. These strategies have led to a decrease in blood transfusion
from 80% to 90% to less than 10% in two decades [183]. In addition,
the implementation of anatomic resections according to Couinaud
has ensured a surgical approach based on sound oncologic principles, although associated with modest decrease in early recurrence [184]. Anatomic resections aiming at 2 cm margins
provide better survival outcome than narrow resection margins
<1 cm [185] and are recommended only in case that the maintenance of appropriate function to the remnant liver volume is
ensured. Retrospective studies linking anatomic resections and
better outcome should be interpreted with caution, due to the
propensity of performing wider interventions in patients with
well-preserved liver function. Thus, caution should be exercised
as the surgical effort is aimed at preservation of adequate hepatic

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
reserve through tailoring of the procedures to individual patients
and tumor characteristics – i.e. body size, central versus peripheral location of tumor nodule and solitary large HCC (versus infiltrating tumor types).
Selection of the ideal candidates involves an adequate assessment of the liver functional reserve and tumor extension. The
refinement of assessment of liver function has moved from the
gross determination of Child–Pugh class to a more sophisticated
measurement of indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min
(ICG15) [186] or hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)
P10 mmHg as a direct measurement of relevant portal hypertension [187]. This concept of portal hypertension as prognostic factor in patients undergoing resection has recently been validated in
Asia [182]. Surrogate measures of portal hypertension include two
variables: platelet count below 100,000/mm3 associated with
splenomegaly, being the spleen size the less among clinical
parameters associated with portal hypertension [188]. Platelet
count has been recently confirmed as independent predictor of
survival in resected HCC cases [189]. In line with these considerations, although the extensive assessment of each component of
portal hypertension (HVPG, esophageal varices, splenomegaly
and platelet count) is recommended before surgery, platelet count
remains the most accessible parameter of portal hypertension
available. In practice, selection of patients with HVPG <10 mmHg
or absence of surrogates of portal hypertension (esophageal varices, or splenomegaly with platelet count <100.000/mm3) lead to a
resectability rate of less than 10% [99]. Expansion of these restrictive criteria by applying MELD score of 610 needs to be prospectively validated with a survival end-point [189].
Some groups apply pre-operative portal vein embolization
(PVE) of the branches supplying the portion of the liver to be
resected in order to increase the residual liver volume if a major
resection is envisioned [183,190]. This approach is associated
with a complication rate of 10–20% and occurrence of severe
portal hypertension in 1% of cirrhotic patients [191]. However,
the effectiveness of PVE in the frame of HCC in cirrhosis has
not yet been properly tested in large controlled studies. Finally,
an increasing number of data are collected on laparoscopic
video-assisted hepatic resection, as an alternative non-invasive
approach aimed at preventing liver deterioration compared to
open approaches. The positive results reported for specific tumor
locations in cohort series [192] need prospective comparison
with traditional laparotomic resection before any change in
current practice is made.
In patients properly selected according to liver functional status, the main predictors of survival are tumor size, tumor number
presence of microsatellites and vascular invasion [176]. Tumor
extension should be assessed by latest generation CT scan or
MRI. Intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) enables the detection
of nodules between 0.5 and 1 cm and is considered the standard
of care for discarding the presence of additional nodules and to
guide anatomical resections [193]. The Japanese Nationwide Survey has shown that a cut-off below 2 cm is an independent predictor of survival in a series of thousands of patients [194]. Five
year survival rates for patients with HCC 62 cm was of 66%, compared with 52% for tumors 2–5 cm and 37% for tumors >5 cm.
Multinodularity also predicts survival, with 5-year survival rates
after resection of single tumors of 57% and 26% for three or more
nodules, respectively. Recently, some referral centers reported 5year survival rates above 50% in patients undergoing resection for
multiple tumors fulfiling Milan criteria (up to 3 nodules 63 cm)

not suitable for transplantation [180–182]. The positive results
reported need further comparison of resection with loco-regional
therapies prior to being adopted by these guidelines.
Vascular invasion is a known predictor of recurrence and survival, directly associated with histological differentiation, degree
and size of the main nodule. Characteristically, microscopic vascular invasion involves 20% of tumors of 2 cm in diameter, 30–
60% of cases in nodules 2–5 cm and up to 60–90% in nodules
above 5 cm in size [176]. A more accurate observation of microvascular invasion has led to the identification of invasion of a
muscular wall vessel or of more than 1 cm beyond the tumor
edge as the 2 worst risk factors for prognosis [157]. Outcome of
patients with single resected tumors varied from median survival
 87 months for patients with no vascular invasion, 38–
71 months for those with microvascular invasion with 0–1 risk
factors, and 8–12 months for those with microvascular invasion
and 2 risk factors or macrovascular invasion. This classification
requires external validation [157].
Adjuvant treatments to prevent recurrence
Tumor recurrence complicates 70% of cases at 5 years, reflecting
either intrahepatic metastases (true recurrences) or the development of de novo tumors [161,157,180–182,195,196]. These entities can be differentiated by means of comparative genomic
hybridization, integration pattern of hepatitis B virus, DNA fingerprinting using loss of heterozygosity assays, or DNA microarray studies [197]. No clinical definition of both entities has
been established, but the cut-off of 2 years has been adopted to
grossly classify early and late recurrences [149,198].
Several strategies to prevent and treat recurrence have been
tested in the setting of randomized studies. Almost all published
RCT have been conducted in Asia. Interferon is the most
frequently evaluated drug so far. Different meta-analyses have
evaluated the effect of adjuvant interferon treatment [199–201].
In one analysis including 13 studies (9 small RCT) there was a
significant improvement in recurrence-free survival with interferon (estimated 3-year RFS of 54% versus 30% of placebo)
[200]. Similar results were reported in other studies, in which
different patient populations were studied. In the first Western
RCT assessing interferon-alpha in 150 patients, negative results
were obtained, but a positive trend in preventing de novo late
recurrences was identified, providing the rationale for assessing
this strategy in future research [181]. Considering the available
information, the panel does not recommend adjuvant interferon
due to the lack of significant patient numbers and partially
conflicting data. Interestingly, recently miR-26 was identified as
a potential marker predicting response to adjuvant interferon
therapy [135]. Future studies in the adjuvant setting should
include this type of molecular marker to more precisely categorize
patients responding to adjuvant therapy.
Other strategies tested include chemotherapy, chemoembolization, internal radiation, immune therapies and retinoids. Adjuvant chemoembolization and chemotherapy do not bring any
benefit in terms of prevention of relapse [202]. Internal radiation with 131I-labeled lipiodol showed a positive effect in a
small trial and cohort study [203,204]. Adoptive immunotherapy with activated lymphocytes with interleukin-2 reduced first
recurrence in a trial with 150 patients (3-year recurrence: 33%
versus 48% in the control group) [205]. A similar beneficial
effect, described with retinoids and vitamin K2 preventing de

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

923

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
novo tumors, has not been recently confirmed in the setting of
two large RCT studies [206–208]. Overall, according to a recent
Cochrane systematic review, 12 RCTs were identified with less
than 1000 patients randomized leading to an unclear body of
evidence for efficacy of any of the adjuvant and neo-adjuvant
protocols reviewed [209]. Thus, none of these strategies are recommended in clinical practice.
Larger trials with a lower risk of systematic error will have to
be conducted according to previously reported guidelines [149].
The primary end-point of the studies should be time to recurrence
or overall survival. Due to the lack of proven effective treatments,
it is justified to randomize patients to an untreated control arm.
Selection of patients should be based on the BCLC staging system,
and stratification prior to randomization should be done according to tumor size, number of nodules/satellites, and vascular invasion. Due to the nature of these investigations, multi-institutional
studies are required. The positive results reported with sorafenib
for advanced HCC warrant an international study in the adjuvant
setting with this multikinase inhibitor.

Liver transplantation

•

Liver transplantation is considered to be the first-line
treatment option for patients with single tumors less than
5 cm or ≤3 nodules ≤3 cm (Milan criteria) not suitable for
resection
(evidence 2A; recommendation 1A)

•

Peri-operative mortality and one-year mortality
are expected to be approximately 3% and ≤10%,
respectively

•

Extension of tumor limit criteria for liver transplantation
for HCC has not been established. Modest expansion
of Milan criteria applying the “up-to-seven” in patients
without microvascular invasion achieves competitive
outcomes, and thus this indication requires prospective
validation
(evidence 2B; recommendation 2B)

•

Neo-adjuvant treatment can be considered for locoregional therapies if the waiting list exceeds 6 months
due to good cost-effectiveness data and tumor response
rates, even though impact on long-term outcome is
uncertain
(evidence 2D; recommendation 2B)

•

Down-staging policies for HCCs exceeding conventional
criteria cannot be recommended and should be explored
in the context of prospective studies aimed at survival
and disease progression end-points
(evidence 2D; recommendation 2C)
Assessment of downstaging should follow modified
RECIST criteria

Liver transplantation is the first treatment choice for patients
with small multinodular tumors (63 nodules 63 cm) or those with
single tumors 65 cm and advanced liver dysfunction. Theoretically, transplantation may simultaneously cure the tumor and
the underlying cirrhosis. The broad selection criteria applied two
decades ago led to poor results in terms of recurrence (32–54% at
5 years) and survival (5-year survival <40%), but allowed the identification of the best candidates for this procedure [210,211]. Following this concept, some pioneering groups selecting ‘‘optimal
candidates’’ reported 70% 5-year survival with a recurrence rate
below 15% [161,212–215]. In a landmark manuscript the so-called
Milan criteria were established for patients with a single HCC
65 cm or up to three nodules 63 cm [212]. Following these criteria
and according to modern standards, peri-operative mortality, 1
and 5-year mortality are expected to be 3%, 610%, and 630%,
respectively. Data on 10-year survival is scarce, and the panel
endorses the practice of reporting these figures for surgical interventions following the intention-to-treat principle, in order to better discriminate differences in outcome between resection and
transplantation not apparent at the conventional 5-year cut-off.
A recent systematic review including 90 studies, comprising a
total of 17,780 patients over 15 years, identified the Milan criteria
as an independent prognostic factor for outcome after liver transplantation [177]. Overall 5-year survival of patients within the
Milan criteria (65–78%) was similar compared with non-HCC
indications according to European (ELTR) and American registries
(OPTN) (65–87%) [177,216,217]. ELTR reports 10-year survival
rates of around 50% in more than 12,000 cases performed
[216]. As a consequence of their success, the Milan criteria have
been integrated in the BCLC staging system [148,149] and in
the UNOS pre-transplant staging for organ allocation in the US
[218], and remain the benchmark for any other prognostic criteria proposed for expanding the indication to liver transplantation
in cirrhotic patients with HCC [219].
The major drawback of liver transplantation as a treatment of
HCC is the scarcity of donors. Increases in waiting time have led
to 20% of transplant candidates dropping out of the lists before
receiving the procedure, thus jeopardizing the outcome if analyzed according to intention-to-treat [161,220]. Four concepts
have been addressed by the panel in the context of transplantation for patients with HCC: (1) priority and delisting policies;
(2) neoadjuvant treatments in the waiting list; (3) extension of
criteria and downstaging for transplantation; and (4) living donor
liver transplantation. The recently reported International Consensus Conference on Liver Transplantation has been instrumental in
complementing the current guidelines [219].
Priority and delisting policies

•

924

Living donor liver transplantation is an alternative option
in patients with a waiting list exceeding 6-7 months, and
offers a suitable setting to explore extended indications
within research programs
(evidence 2A; recommendation 2B)

UNOS developed a priority system to manage waiting lists for
transplantation based on the MELD score [218], which was originally generated to predict 3-month survival in patients with
End-Stage Liver Disease [221]. Since MELD is unable to predict
the drop-out rate of patients with HCC, several priority scores
have been assigned to these patients ranging from 24 (single
<2 cm) and 29 points (single 2–5 cm or 3 nodules each <3 cm)
in early proposals to none and 22 points respectively in the current era. The main difficulty for establishing priority policies is to
define the at-risk patients for drop-out, which in some studies are
identified as those patients with multinodular tumors, neoadjuvant treatment failures or those with baseline serum AFP levels

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
>200 ng/ml or steady increase of >15 ng/ml/month [140]. At the
opposite end of the spectrum, some patients with UNOS-T1
tumor (single <2 cm) may benefit from alternative non-transplant treatments and avoid futile transplantation, at least until
recurrence occurs [222].
Strategies advocating ‘‘salvage transplantation’’ approaches in
low-risk populations should be investigated in prospective studies focused on intention-to-treat analysis and survival benefit, as
they also depend on waiting time and local scenarios of donor
availability. Similarly, patients undergoing resection with pathological high risk of recurrence have been proposed to be enlisted
for liver transplantation [223]. Since waiting times vary significantly worldwide, it is recommended that policymakers modulate priority policies along with these variables.
There is even less information available about policies of
delisting. The current panel recommends putting on hold those
patients whose HCC progressed beyond Milan while on the waiting list and explore neo-adjuvant therapies for them. The panel
recommends delisting those patients developing macrovascular
invasion or extrahepatic spread.
Neo-adjuvant treatments in the waiting list
Adjuvant therapies for patients within the Milan criteria while on
the waiting list are used in most centers to prevent tumor progression. Robust data from RCT are lacking and thus, the potential
benefits advocated for local ablation or chemoembolization are
derived from observational studies and cost–effectiveness analyses. The main studies assessing neo-adjuvant treatments are case
series, case–control studies and cohort studies showing that RFA
achieves the higher rates of complete necrosis (12–55%)
[224,225] compared with TACE (22–29%) [226–228].
The impact of these treatments on drop-out rate, recurrence
and survival is only estimated from non-randomized studies.
From initial studies reporting drop-out rates, an actuarial probability of 15–30% at 1 year was established [161,220]. Among the
case series and cohort studies reported, some investigations suggest a favorable impact of treatment in decreasing the dropout
rate to levels ranging from 0% to 25% [222,224]. Similarly, since
treatments on the waiting list have been studied in an uncontrolled fashion, their effects on survival after LT are difficult to
assess. Since the publication of the seminal study [226], case–
control studies including index treated cases and matched controls indicate similar survival rates as untreated individuals
[227,228]. Markov-based cost–effectiveness analysis, on the contrary, pointed to benefits for neo-adjuvant treatments when
waiting times exceed 6 months [229]. The use of sorafenib for
the treatment of UNOS-T2 patients in the waiting list is not recommended according to the small pilot studies and cost–effectiveness studies published so far [230,231]. The real effect of
loco-regional or molecular therapies on patient outcomes and
on global gains of life expectancy from a societal perspective is
uncertain. Therefore, considering the strength of evidence available, it is recommended to treat patients waiting for transplant
with local ablation, and as a second choice with chemoembolization when waiting times are estimated to exceed 6 months.
Extension of indications and downstaging for liver transplantation
Analysis of the expansion of criteria beyond Milan and downstaging to Milan has been extensively explored. In summary, the

main concept is that to establish a new policy allowing expansion
of criteria for transplantation, it is essential to develop robust
data for the specific category of patients included in the proposed
expansion. Novel criteria might have a major impact on all transplant programs and the data needed to support any change
should be impeccable. In addition, the impact of the expansion
on the non-HCC patients waiting for liver transplantation should
be taken into account.
The current understanding is that expansion to UCSF criteria
(single nodule 66.5 cm or 2–3 nodules 64.5 cm and total tumor
diameter 68 cm) – which involves around 5–10% of all enlisted
patients [220,232] – has already been challenged from the pathological point of view by the up-to-seven criteria (i.e. those HCCs
having the number 7 as the sum of the size of the largest tumor
and the number of tumors) [233] This pathology-based proposal
has been recently validated in an independent series [234]. The
major concerns about the expansion proposals are the lack of
specific data on overall survival and drop-out rate on the waiting
list for the patients outside the current criteria but fulfiling the
expanded criteria. Other recent studies challenging the Milan criteria have proposed different algorithms to optimize patient
selection. Nonetheless, 5-year outcome prediction could vary
from 70% to 40% according to the presence of microvascular
invasion. Thus, preoperative markers of vascular invasion would
be required prior to adopting these criteria. In a meta-analysis to
evaluate tumor size and nodules, a cut-off of sum of diameters
above 10 cm was considered to increase fourfold the risk of
death [235], while a combination of tumor volume and AFP levels was considered the best strategy in other studies [140,141].
Molecular markers, such as allelic imbalance reflecting chromosomal instability, have also been shown to predict recurrence
after transplantation [236]. Considering the strength of the evidence, it is recommended not to allow the extension of the criteria for transplant eligibility, except in the context of research
protocols.
Regarding downstaging, there is not a single RCT, large
case–control study or large well-designed cohort study available on patients treated consistently and properly followed.
Small prospective studies suggest that downstaging to Milan
criteria from patients with liver-only disease treated by radiofrequency or chemoembolization achieves 5-year survival outcomes similar to those within Milan [237,238]. It is unclear
whether downstaging therapies yield measurable anti-cancer
effects or only provide a time frame in which to evaluate the
natural history of HCC, with the ultimate risk of transforming
pre-transplant drop-outs into post-transplant recurrences
[239,240]. There is no clear upper limit for eligibility of downstaging [240].
Considering the current data, downstaging of patients beyond
Milan criteria cannot be adopted as a tool to refine patient selection and further research is required. This research should be
based on the principle that 5-year survival outcomes of patients
undergoing transplantation after successful downstaging should
be similar to those of patients transplanted following Milan criteria [219]. The panel considers, though, that a special policy
should be adopted for patients already on the waiting list for liver
transplantation with tumors progressing beyond Milan and liveronly disease. In this special circumstance, as stated above, it is
recommended to place the candidate on hold until downstaging
by local ablation or chemoembolization is achieved and maintained for a period of at least 3 months.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

925

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
Living donor liver transplantation
Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using the right hepatic
lobe of a healthy donor has emerged as an alternative to deceased
liver transplantation [241,242]. In 2000, there was great enthusiasm for LDLT, and it was estimated that it would represent a significant proportion of the patients transplanted with HCC [243].
Unfortunately, the associated risks of death (estimated in 0.3%)
and life-threatening complications ( 2%) for the healthy donor
have diminished the interest of the transplant community [244–
246]. Currently, LDLT comprises less than 5% of adult liver transplants, significantly less than in kidney transplantation where living donors represent 40% of all cases performed [246]. The risks
and benefits of LDLT should take into account both donor and recipient, a concept known as double equipoise [219,247,248]. Due to
the complexity of the procedure, LDLT must be restricted to centers of excellence in hepatic surgery and transplantation.
Outcome results with LDLT compared with deceased LT have
been controversial. Although some studies suggested that LDLT
was associated with higher risk of recurrence, these data have
not been confirmed [249,250]. Cost–effectiveness studies suggested that LDLT can be offered to patients with HCC if the waiting list exceeds 7 months [248], a policy adopted by the panel.
Some authors recommend a period of observation prior transplant of 3 months, in order to avoid transplanting potentially
aggressive tumors, a proposition that needs to be confirmed in
further investigations [250,251]. LDLT has been proposed as an
ideal setting to explore extended indications for HCC, considering
the lack of graft allocation and priority policies [252]. Therefore,
the panel does not recommend this procedure for any extended
indication, except in the context of research studies.

Local ablation

•

Local ablation with radiofrequency or percutaneous
ethanol injection is considered the standard of care for
patients with BCLC 0-A tumors not suitable for surgery
(evidence 2A; recommendation 1B)
Other ablative therapies, such as microwave or
cryoablation, are still under investigation

•

Radiofrequency ablation is recommended in most
instances as the main ablative therapy in tumors less
than 5 cm due to a significantly better control of the
disease
(evidence 1iD; recommendation 1A)
Ethanol injection is recommended in cases where
radiofrequency ablation is not technically feasible
(around 10-15%)

•

In tumors <2 cm, BCLC 0, both techniques achieve
complete responses in more than 90% of cases
with good long-term outcome. Whether they can be
considered as competitive alternatives to resection is
uncertain
(evidence 1iA; recommendation 1C)

926

Local ablation is considered the first line treatment option for
patients at early stages not suitable for surgical therapies. Over
the past 25 years, several methods for chemical or thermal tumor
destruction have been developed and clinically tested [253]. The
seminal technique used is percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI),
which induces coagulative necrosis of the lesion as a result of cellular dehydration, protein denaturation, and chemical occlusion
of small tumor vessels. Subsequently, thermal ablative therapies
emerged, and are classified as either hyperthermic treatments
(heating of tissue at 60–100 °C) – including radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation, and laser ablation – or cryoablation (freezing of tissue at  20 °C and  60 °C). Most procedures
are performed using a percutaneous approach, although in some
instances ablation with laparoscopy is recommended. PEI is a
well-established technique for the treatment of nodular-type
HCC that achieves complete necrosis in 90% of tumors <2 cm,
70% in those of 2–3 cm and 50% in those between 3 and 5 cm
[162,253,254]. It has been speculated that ethanol diffusion is
blocked either by the intratumoral fibrotic septa and/or the
tumor capsule. This undermines the curative capacity of this
technique, particularly in tumors larger than 2 cm. The recent
introduction of a specific device for single-session PEI, a multipronged needle with three retractable prongs, has resulted in a
rate of sustained complete response of 80–90% in tumors smaller
than 4 cm [255]. In patients with Child–Pugh A cirrhosis and
early-stage tumors, treatment with PEI has been shown to result
in 5-year survival rates of 47–53% [256,257]. The major limitation
of PEI is the high local recurrence rate, which may reach 43% in
lesions exceeding 3 cm [258]. Another chemical ablation technique, percutaneous acetic acid injection (PAI), has not offered
substantial advantages to PEI [259].
RFA has been the most widely assessed alternative to PEI for
local ablation of HCC. The energy generated by RF ablation
induces coagulative necrosis of the tumor producing a safety ring
in the peritumoral tissue, which might eliminate small-undetected satellites. Consistent with previous studies, RF requires
fewer treatment sessions to achieve comparable anti-tumoral
effects. Five randomized controlled trials have compared RFA versus PEI for the treatment of early-stage HCC. These investigations
consistently showed that RFA has a higher anticancer effect than
PEI, leading to a better local control of the disease (2 year local
recurrence rate: 2–18% versus 11–45%) [260–264]. The assessment of the impact of RFA on survival has been more controversial. Survival advantages favouring RF versus PEI were identified
in the Japanese study including 232 patients [261], but no differences in survival were reported in the two European RCT
[263,264]. Two additional RCT from the same group reported survival advantages in the subgroup analysis of tumors larger than
2 cm favouring RF compared with either PEI or PAI [260,262].
In patients with early-stage HCC treated with percutaneous ablation, long-term survival is influenced by multiple different interventions, given that a high percentage of patients will develop
recurrent intrahepatic HCC nodules within 5 years of the initial
treatment and will receive additional therapies. Nevertheless,
three independent meta-analyses including all RCT, have confirmed that treatment with RFA offers a survival benefit as compared with PEI in tumors larger than 2 cm [265–267]. The main
drawback of RF is its higher rates of major complications (4%;
95% CI, 1.8–6.4%) compared to PEI (2.7%; 95% CI, 0.4–5.1%)
[267,268].

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Considering the reported data, the best results obtained in series of HCC patients treated by RFA provide 5-year survival rates of
40–70% [269,270], and even beyond in highly selected candidates
[142]. The best outcomes have been reported in Child–Pugh A
patients with small single tumors, commonly less than 2 cm in
diameter [159,162]. Independent predictors of survival are initial
complete response, Child–Pugh score, number or size of nodules,
and base-line alpha-fetoprotein levels. Thus, Child–Pugh A
patients with non-surgical small tumors – that are expected to
achieve complete responses – are the ideal candidates to RFA.
Around 10–15% of tumors with difficult-to-treat locations can
be approached by PEI [271]. Treatment of patients with larger
tumors (3–5 cm), multiple tumors (3 nodules <3 cm) and
advanced liver failure (Child–Pugh B) along with combination of
both techniques could be reasonable on an individual basis.
Although these treatments provide good results, they are unable
to achieve response rates and outcomes comparable to surgical
treatments, even when applied as the first option [194].
An open question is whether RFA can compete with surgical
resection as a first-line treatment for patients with small, solitary
HCC. Two RCT have been reported with opposite results
[272,273]. While the first one did not identify outcome differences,
the second trial suggested a survival advantage for surgical resection. Uncontrolled investigations have reported similar results for
resection and RFA in BCLC 0 patients [159]. Further trials should
overcome methodological issues which prevent the drawing of
robust conclusions from the current studies. In addition, while
complete removal of neoplastic tissue (R0) is common after surgical resection, some indications highlight the need to proceed with
caution after analyzing the pathological specimens of tumors
ablated with RFA. Complete tumor necrosis of less than 50% has
been reported in tumors >3 cm because of the heat loss due to perfusion-mediated tissue cooling within the area ablated [274]. In
addition, HCC tumors in a subcapsular location or adjacent to the
gallbladder have a higher risk of incomplete ablation [275] or
major complications [268,276,277]. Thus, at this point there are
no data to support RFA as a replacement of resection as the firstline treatment for patients with early HCC (BCLC A) stage.

Treatments under investigation
Microwave ablation, laser ablation and cryoablation have been
proposed for local ablation in HCC. Microwave ablation has an
important advantage compared to RFA, which is that treatment
efficacy is less affected by vessels located in the proximity of
the tumor. Initial studies were limited by inducing a small volume of coagulation [278], and led to suboptimal performances
when compared with RFA in the sole reported RCT [279]. Newer
devices remain to be tested. Regarding laser ablation, no RCT has
been published so far. In a recent multicenter retrospective analysis including 432 nonsurgical patients with early-stage HCC, 5year overall survival was 34% (41% in Child–Pugh class A
patients) [280]. Cryoablation had limited application in HCC,
and no RCT have been reported [281]. The complication rate is
not negligible, particularly because of the risk for ‘‘cryoshock’’, a
life threatening condition resulting in multiorgan failure, severe
coagulopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation following cryoablation.
Non-Chemical Non-Thermal Ablation Techniques are currently
undergoing clinical investigation. Irreversible electroporation is

currently in clinical evaluation, after pre-clinical positive
approach [282]. HIFU is a novel ablative approach reported
in cohorts of patients with small tumors, but no randomized
studies are available [283]. Light-activated drug therapy uses
light-emitting diodes to activate talaporfin sodium in HCC after
intravenously administration. Phase 3 studies with this therapy
are ongoing [284].

Chemoembolization and transcatheter therapies

•

Chemoembolization is recommended for patients with
BCLC stage B, multinodular asymptomatic tumors
without vascular invasion or extra hepatic spread
(evidence 1iiA; recommendation 1A)
The use of drug-eluting beads has shown similar
response rates than gelfoam-lipiodol particles
associated with less systemic adverse events
(evidence 1D; recommendation 2B)
Chemoembolization is discouraged in patients
with decompensated liver disease, advanced liver
dysfunction, macroscopic invasion or extrahepatic
spread
(evidence 1iiA; recommendation 1B)
Bland embolization is not recommended

•

Internal radiation with 131I or 90Y glass beads has shown
promising anti-tumoral results with a safe profile, but
cannot be recommended as standard therapy. Further
research trials are needed to establish a competitive
efficacy role in this population
(evidence 2A; recommendation 2B)

•

Selective intra-arterial chemotherapy or lipiodolization
are not recommended for the management of HCC
(evidence 2A; recommendation 2B)

•

External three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is
under investigation, and there is no evidence to support
this therapeutic approach in the management of HCC
(evidence 3A; recommendation 2C)

Chemoembolization
Chemoembolization (TACE) is the most widely used primary
treatment for unresectable HCC [160,165,194], and the recommended first line-therapy for patients at intermediate stage of
the disease [56,139,149]. HCC exhibits intense neo-angiogenic
activity during its progression. The rationale for TACE is that
the intra-arterial infusion of a cytotoxic agent followed by
embolization of the tumor-feeding blood vessels will result in
a strong cytotoxic and ischemic effect. TACE should be distinguished from chemo-lipiodolization – delivery of an emulsion
of chemotherapy mixed with lipiodol –, bland transcatheter
embolization (TAE), where no chemotherapeutic agent is delivered, and intra-arterial chemotherapy, where no embolization
is performed. Details on the distinct types and definitions of

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

927

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
image-guided transcatheter embolization have been reviewed
elsewhere [285,286].
Conventional chemoembolization (TACE)
This procedure combines transcatheter delivery of chemotherapy emulsioned with lipiodol followed by vascular stagnation
achieved with embolic agents. Chemoembolization achieves
partial responses in 15–55% of patients, and significantly delays
tumor progression and macrovascular invasion. The survival
benefit of TAE or chemoembolization has been the subject of
a few RCT, which provided contradictory results [287–293].
Survival benefits were obtained in two studies [292,293], one
of which identified treatment response as an independent
predictor of survival [293]. Meta-analysis of these seven RCT,
including a total of 516 patients, showed a beneficial survival
effect of embolization/chemoembolization in comparison to
the control group [139]. Sensitivity analysis showed a significant benefit of chemoembolization with cisplatin or doxorubicin in four studies, but none with embolization alone in three
studies [139]. Overall, the median survival for intermediate
HCC cases is expected to be around 16 months, whereas after
chemoembolization the median survival is about 20 months.
As a result of these investigations, TACE has been established
as the standard of care for patients who meet the criteria for
the intermediate-stage of the BCLC staging system, i.e. those
with multinodular HCC, absence of cancer-related symptoms
and no evidence of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread.
Recently, a meta-analysis by Cochrane investigators has
challenged the efficacy of TACE [294]. Several biases contained
in this approach, including the use of trials with inappropriate
control arms or target populations leading to poor outcomes,
diminish any impact of this investigation. The benefits of
combining TACE with local ablation procedures or systemic
therapies are under investigation.
The benefits of chemoembolization should not be offset by
treatment-induced liver failure. Treatment-related deaths are
expected in less than 2% of cases if proper selection of candidates is in place. The best candidates are patients with preserved liver function and asymptomatic multinodular tumors
without vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread [285,293].
Macroscopic vascular invasion of any type and extrahepatic
spread are major contraindications for chemoembolization.
One positive trial showed no benefit in the subgroup analysis
restricted to patients presenting with portal vein invasion
[292]. Liver functional reserve is also a critical component for
a careful selection. Patients should present relatively wellpreserved liver function (mostly Child–Pugh A or B7 without
ascites), while those with liver decompensation or more
advanced liver failure should be excluded since the ischemic
insult can lead to severe adverse events [289]. Absolute and
relative contraindications for chemoembolization have been
reviewed elsewhere [169]. There is no good evidence for
which is the best chemotherapeutical agent and the optimal
re-treatment strategy, even though it is recommended to apply
the procedures 3–4 times per year and to use doxorubicin or
cisplatin as the standard chemotherapy. More intense regimes,
i.e. TACE every 2 months, might induce liver failure in an
unacceptable proportion of patients [289]. Superselective chemoembolization is recommended to minimize the ischemic insult
to non-tumoral tissue.

928

Chemoembolization with Drug-Eluting Beads (TACE-DEB)
Strategies to improve anti-tumoral activity and clinical benefits
with chemoembolization have been launched. The ideal TACE
scheme should allow maximum and sustained intratumoral
concentration of the chemotherapeutic agent with minimal
systemic exposure, along with calibrated tumor vessel obstruction. Embolic microspheres have the ability to sequester chemotherapeutic agents and release them in a controlled mode
over a 1-week period. This strategy has been shown to
increase the local concentration of the drug with negligible
systemic toxicity [166]. A randomized phase II study comparing TACE and TACE-DEB reported a significant reduction in
liver toxicity and drug-related adverse events for the latter
arm, associated with a non-significant trend of better antitumoral effect [295].
Radioembolization and external radiation
Radioembolization is defined as the infusion of radioactive substances such as Iodine-131 (131I)-labeled lipiodol [296] or microspheres containing Yttrium-90 (90Y) [297–299] or similar agents
into the hepatic artery. Given the hypervascularity of HCC, intraarterially-injected microspheres will be preferentially delivered
to the tumor-bearing area and selectively emit high-energy,
low-penetration radiation to the tumor. A seminal RCT comparing chemoembolization versus internal radiation with 131I has
not been followed by additional investigations [296]. Currently,
the most popular radioembolization technique uses microspheres
coated with 90Y, a ß-emitting isotope. This treatment requires a
third level specialized center with sophisticated equipment and
trained interventional radiologists. Severe lung shunting and
intestinal radiation should be prevented prior to the procedure.
Due to the minimally embolic effect of 90Y microspheres, treatment can be safely used in patients with portal vein thrombosis
[298].
Cohort studies reporting long-term outcomes showed a
median survival time of 17.2 months for patients at intermediate stages [297] and 12 months for patients at advanced
stages and portal vein invasion [298–300]. Objective response
rates range from 35% to 50% [297–299]. Around 20% of
patients present liver-related toxicity and 3% treatment-related
death [297]. Despite the amount of data reported, there are no
RCT testing the efficacy of 90Y radioembolization compared
with chemoembolization or sorafenib in patients at intermediate or advanced stage, respectively. Further research trials
are needed to establish a competitive efficacy role in these
populations.
Other loco-regional treatments
The use of conventional external-beam radiation therapy
in HCC treatment has been limited by the low radiation
tolerance of the cirrhotic liver, which often resulted in
radiation-induced liver disease, previously known as radiation-induced hepatitis [301]. The benefits of external threedimensional conformal radiotherapy have only been tested
in uncontrolled investigations [302]. There is no scientific evidence to recommend these therapies as primary treatments
of HCC and further research testing modern approaches is
encouraged.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
subclass of HCC has been defined, several signaling pathways
have been implicated in tumor progression and dissemination:

Systemic therapies

•

Sorafenib is the standard systemic therapy for HCC. It is
indicated for patients with well-preserved liver function
(Child-Pugh A class) and with advanced tumors (BCLC C)
or those tumors progressing upon loco-regional
therapies
(evidence 1iA; recommendation 1A)

•

There are no clinical or molecular biomarkers available
to identify the best responders to sorafenib
(evidence 1A; recommendation 2A)

•

Systemic chemotherapy, tamoxifen, immunotherapy,
anti-androgen, and herbal drugs are not recommended
for the clinical management of HCC patients
(evidence 1-2A; recommendation 1A/B)

•

There is no available second-line treatment for patients
with intolerance or failure to sorafenib. Best supportive
care or the inclusion of patients in clinical trials is
recommended in this setting
(recommendation 2B)

•

In specific circumstances, radiotherapy can be used to
alleviate pain in patients with bone metastasis
(evidence 3A; recommendation 2C)

•

Patients at BCLC D stage should receive palliative
support including management of pain, nutrition
and psychological support. In general, they should
not be considered for participating in clinical trials
(recommendation 2B)

Molecular pathogenesis and targets for therapies
Molecular targeted therapies have changed the landscape of
cancer management. Around 20 molecular targeted therapies
have been approved during recent years for patients with
breast, colorectal, non-small cell lung, renal cancer and HCC,
among other malignancies [164,303]. Recently a multikinase
inhibitor, sorafenib, has shown survival benefits in patients
with advanced HCC [168]. This advancement represents a
breakthrough in the treatment of this complex disease, and
proves that molecular therapies can be effective in this cancer.
A better understanding of the molecular hepatocarcinogenesis
is critical for identifying novel targets and oncogenic addition
loops [304–306]. No pathognomonic molecular mechanism or
single dominant pathway exists in hepatocarcinogenesis and
this explains why a single-targeted agent will not achieve sustained complete response in HCC. Consequently, it is conceivable to inhibit signals at different levels of one of the main
pathways, or to inhibit two or three different pathways at the
same time.
Hepatocarcinogenesis is a complex multistep process where
multiple signaling cascades are altered leading to a heterogeneous biological portrait of the disease [304–306]. Although no
oncogenic addition loop defining growth dependence for any

(1) Vascular growth factor (VEGF) signaling is the cornerstone of
angiogenesis in HCC, and high level amplifications have
been identified [175,307]. VEGFR signaling can be targeted
either by the monoclonal antibody bevacizumab directed
against VEGF, or by inhibiting the intracellular tyrosine
kinase by small molecules such as sorafenib, sunitinib,
brivanib, linifanib, vatalinib, cediranib, and others. Other
activated angiogenic pathways are Ang2 and FGF signaling.
(2) Epidermal growth factor (EGF) signaling is frequently overexpressed in HCC [308]. EGFR can be targeted either by
the monoclonal antibody cetuximab or by small molecules
that inhibit the intracellular tyrosine kinase such as erlotinib, gefitinib, or lapatinib.
(3) Ras MAPK signaling has been shown to be activated in half
of early and almost all advanced HCCs [305,309]. Activation of this pathway is dependant upon overexpression
of ligands and hypermethylation of promoters of tumor
suppressors inducing transcription of genes of the AP-1
family, such as c-Fos and c-Jun involved in proliferation
and differentiation [310]. Mutations of K-Ras are infrequent in HCC (<5%). No selective Ras/ERK/MAPK inhibitor
has been approved, but sorafenib and regorafenib have
shown partial cascade blockage [311].
(4) The PI3K/PTEN/Akt/mTOR pathway. This pathway controls
cell proliferation, cell cycle and apoptosis, and is activated
by various RTKs such as EGFR or IGFR and by inactivation
of the tumor suppressor PTEN. It is activated in 40–50% of
HCCs [312,313]. Several compounds inhibiting mTOR (rapamycin, temsirolimus and everolimus) are tested in phase II
and III studies.
(5) HGF/c-MET pathway. Dysregulation of the c-MET receptor
and its ligand HGF, critical for hepatocyte regeneration after
liver injury, is a common event in HCC [314]. However, their
role in targeted therapy needs further investigation.
(6) Insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGFR) signaling. IGF-1R
and IGF-II expression is increased in HCC, whereas IGFRII is downregulated in a subgroup of HCCs [315,316]. Several IGF-1R inhibitors are now under early clinical investigation in HCC.
(7) Wnt/ß-Catenin pathway is crucial for hepatocarcinogenesis
[304–306,317–319]. Around one third of HCCs have activation of the Wnt signaling pathway (particularly HCVrelated HCCs), as a result of activating mutations in the
transcription factor ß-catenin [175,317,318], overexpression of Frizzled receptors or inactivation of E-cadherin or
members of the degradation complex (GSK3B, AXIN, adenomatosis polyposis coli (APC)) [319]. New compounds
to block this so-called undrugable pathway are under early
clinical investigation.
Additional pathways and their role in targeted therapy such
as the extrinsic/intrinsic apoptotic pathway, Hedgehog signaling,
JAK/STAT signaling, TGF-ß signaling, Notch pathway, ubiquitin–
proteasome pathway, nuclear factor-jB signaling, cell cycle control, and the role of the tumor microenvironment have to be
further defined. Similarly, the potential role of recently
described oncoMIRs relevant to hepatocarcinogenesis as molec-

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

929

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
ular targets should be confirmed by clinical investigations
[135,320].
Molecular targeted therapies
Hepatocellular carcinoma is recognized as among the most
chemo-resistant tumor types, and until 2007 no systemic drug
was recommended for patients with advanced tumors, an unparalleled situation in oncology. Sorafenib emerged as the first effective
systemic treatment in HCC after 30 years of research, and is currently the standard-of-care for patients with advanced tumors
[168]. After this study, around 56 molecular agents are being tested
in phase II and phase III clinical trials [321] (Table 4), the final
results of which might lead to updated treatment recommendations. A summary of the evidence-based data is set out below.
The panel recommends that drug development of novel molecules
in HCC should be based on the identification of oncogenic biomarkers to guide a more personalized and stratified therapy.
Sorafenib
Sorafenib, an oral multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was the first
and remains the only drug that has demonstrated survival benefits in patients with advanced HCC. Following an initial phase II
study showing a signal of efficacy [322], a large double-blinded
placebo controlled phase III investigation was conducted, leading
to positive survival results [168]. In this trial, the benefit of
sorafenib was to increase the median overall survival from
7.9 months in the placebo group to 10.7 months in the sorafenib
group (HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55–0.87; p = 0.00058), which represents a 31% decrease in the relative risk of death. In addition,
sorafenib showed a significant benefit in terms of time to progression (TTP) assessed by independent radiological review with
a median TTP of 5.5 months for sorafenib and 2.8 months for
placebo. The magnitude of survival benefit was similar to that
demonstrated in a parallel phase III trial conducted in the

Table 4. Ongoing randomized phase II–III trials aimed to change the standard
of care in HCC management during the period 2012–13.

Indication

Randomized studies

Adjuvant
Intermediate HCC

1.
1.
2.
3.

Sorafenib vs. placebo
Chemoembolization ± sorafenib
Chemoembolization ± brivanib
Chemoembolization ± everolimus

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.

Sorafenib ± erlotinib
Sorafenib vs. brivanib
Sorafenib vs. sunitinib*
Sorafenib vs. linifanib**
Sorafenib ± Yttrium-90
Sorafenib ± doxorubicin
Brivanib vs. placebo**
Everolimus vs. placebo
Ramucirumab vs. placebo

Advanced HCC
First line

Second line

⁄

Halted 2010 for futility/toxicity.
See addendum at the end of the Guidelines.

⁄⁄

930

Asian-Pacific population, in which hepatitis B was the main cause
of HCC [323]. In this later trial, the median overall survival was
6.5 months in the sorafenib group versus 4.2 months in the placebo group (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.93; p = 0.014). The worse
outcome of patients included in this trial, regardless of treatment
allocation, compared with the SHARP investigation, is due to the
fact that the patients had more advanced diseases (ECOG 1–2 or
metastatic disease). From these trials, sorafenib emerged as well
tolerated; the most common grade 3 drug-related adverse events
observed in these studies included diarrhea and hand-foot skin
reaction, which occurred in 8–9%, and 8–16% of patients, respectively. Drug discontinuation due to adverse events was 15% in the
sorafenib arm and 7% in the placebo arm. Drug-related adverse
events were considered manageable, and no death related with
toxicity was described. As a result, sorafenib received the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) authorization in October 2007
and was approved by the USA United Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2007.
The panel of experts recommends using sorafenib as the standard systemic therapy for HCC. It is indicated for patients with
well-preserved liver function (Child–Pugh A class) and with
advanced tumors – BCLC C – or those tumors progressing on
loco-regional therapies (concept of treatment migration). No
clear recommendation can be made in Child–Pugh B patients,
although cohort studies have reported a similar safety profile in
patients of this class with no decompensation [324,325]. It is recommended to maintain sorafenib at least until progression, and
beyond that point second-line studies can be considered. Sorafenib is currently being tested in the adjuvant setting after resection or complete local ablation for early stages, in combination
with chemoembolization for intermediate stages [326], in combination with erlotinib or systemic doxorubicin in advanced stages
and as first-line treatment in Child–Pugh B patients. Preliminary
data from a randomized phase II study suggest a potential additive effect in combination with doxorubicin, although a significant increase in cardiotoxicity was reported [327].
Other targeted molecules under clinical development
Growth factors and proliferative pathway inhibitors.
mTOR inhibitors. Rapamycin (sirolimus) and its analogs (temsirolimus and everolimus) are agents blocking the mTOR signaling
cascade and have been tested in preclinical and early clinical
investigations [328]. Everolimus, an mTOR blocker approved for
kidney cancer therapy, is being tested in phase III for a secondline indication.
EGFR inhibitors. Five EGFR inhibitors have been tested: erlotinib,
gefitinib, cetuximab, lapatinib and vandetanib. Erlotinib showed
activity in a phase II study with mixed HCC populations with median survival of 13 months [329], and is currently being tested in
combination with sorafenib in phase III. The other drugs either have
not shown meaningful signals of efficacy in phase II, such as gefitinib and lapatinib [330], or are still in early stages of investigation.
Anti-angiogenic agents. Sunitinib. Sunitinib is an oral multi-tyrosine
kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Three reported phase II studies have shown
potential signals of activity, but with conflictive adverse events
and treatment-related deaths due to severe liver dysfunction in
5–10% of patients [331–333]. A recent multicenter, open-label
sorafenib-controlled randomized phase III trial was prematurely

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
discontinued for safety issues and futility reasons [334]. This drug
is presently not recommended for treatment of HCC.
Brivanib alaninate. Brivanib, an oral VEGFR and FGFR tyrosine
kinase inhibitor, was evaluated in two phase II studies in first and
second-line patients with an advanced tumor. The median overall
survival was 10 months in the first-line treated group and
9.8 months in the second-line treated group, with manageable
adverse events [335]. Brivanib is currently tested in three phases
III trials in HCC patients: in first-line blinded to sorafenib, in second-line blinded to placebo and in combination with
chemoembolization.
Bevacizumab. Bevacizumab, a recombinant, humanized
monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF, has emerged as
an important therapeutic agent in several malignancies and
has been approved in the treatment of colorectal cancer, nonsmall-cell lung cancer and breast carcinoma. Bevacizumab has
been evaluated as single agent [336], or in combination with
erlotinib [337] or chemotherapy [338]. As a standalone agent,
it showed objective responses of 10% with median time to progression of 6.5 months [336]. Combination treatment of bevacizumab with EGFR targeting agents reported a median
survival of 15 months for mixed HCC patient populations
[337]. Combinations of bevacizumab with chemotherapy, such
as gemcitabine and oxaliplatin or capecitabine-based regimes,
obtain objective responses of 10–20% with median survivals
of 9–10 months [338]. No phase III investigations with this
agent are ongoing.
Linifanib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGF and
PDGF, and ramucirumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGFR2
[339] are currently being tested in phase III studies in first-line
and second-line indication, respectively. Other new anti-angiogenic agents, such as vatalanib, axitinib and cediranib are at very
early stages of investigation. Other molecules such as c-MET
inhibitors, MEK inhibitors, TGF-beta and JAK2 inhibitors are being
tested in early clinical investigations [321].
Other systemic therapies
Several systemic therapies, including chemotherapy, hormonal
compounds, immunotherapy and others showed inconclusive or
negative results. These agents are not currently recommended
for management of HCC.
Chemotherapy
The problem of using chemotherapy in HCC stems from the coexistence of two diseases. Cirrhosis can perturb the metabolism
of chemotherapeutic drugs and enhance their toxicity. In
addition, some chemotherapy-related complications, such as
systemic infections, are particularly severe in inmmunocompromised patients, like cirrhotics. On the other hand, HCC has been
shown to be chemoresistant to the most common chemotherapies, which as single agents have reported modest anti-tumoral
response [139,340–342]. Systemic doxorubicin has been evaluated in more than 1000 patients in clinical trials with an objective response rate of around 10%. In a 446-patient trial,
nolatrexed, an inhibitor of thymidylate synthase, was compared
to systemic doxorubicin with negative results (median survival
5 months versus 7.5 months, respectively) and response rates
for the doxorubicin arm of 4%. Other systemic therapies such

as gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, cisplatin and capecitabine used as
single agents or in combinations have reported heterogeneous
responses ranging from 0% to 18% in uncontrolled investigations
[340].
Systemic chemotherapy using combinations of two or
more agents has been tested in recent RCT. A large RCT
which compared combination chemotherapy (Cisplatin/Interferon a2b/Doxorubicin/Fluorouracil-PIAF regime) versus doxorubicin chemotherapy showed objective response rates of
20.9% and 10.5%, respectively [342]. The median survival of
the PIAF and doxorubicin groups was 8.67 months and
6.83 months, respectively, without differences between
groups. PIAF was associated with a significantly higher rate
of myelotoxicity compared with doxorubicin. Treatmentrelated mortality was 9% in the PIAF regimen arm as a
result of HBV reactivation and liver failure. A second RCT
conducted in Asia compared the efficacy of the Folfox regimen combining 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and oxaliplatin
against doxorubicin alone. This study included 371 patients
with Child–Pugh A/B advanced non-operable or metastatic
HCC (BCLC B/C). There was a non-significant trend favoring
the Folfox group (median survival 6.4 mo versus 4.9 mo;
p = 0.07) associated to a better time to progression (2.9 mo
versus 1.7 mo) [343]. Chemotherapy for HCC in non-cirrhotic
patients is an underexplored area [344]. Thus, considering
the available evidence, systemic chemotherapy is not recommended for the treatment of HCC, nor as a control regime
for any trial due to the well-known toxic effects. Phase III
investigations combining chemotherapy and sorafenib are
ongoing.
Hormonal compounds
Hormonal compounds have not shown survival benefits in
HCC. A meta-analysis of seven RCT comparing tamoxifen
versus conservative management, comprising 898 patients,
showed neither anti-tumoral effects nor survival benefits
for tamoxifen [139]. Two large RCT were reported afterwards assessing tamoxifen [345,346] with negative results
in terms of survival. Thus, this treatment is discouraged in
advanced HCC. Antiandrogen therapy is not recommended
[347].
Immunotherapy
HCC is a typical inflammation associated cancer. A number of
different studies have demonstrated a correlation between
immune responses to tumors and patient outcome [348].
Immune-based therapy phase I–II trials have been performed
at centers with the appropriate expertise but results have not
been confirmed by independent investigators [349]. The concept
of immunotherapy requires further investigations from phase II
and III studies.
Other treatments
A large RCT compared seocalcitol – a vitamin D like antiproliferative molecule – versus placebo in 746 patients and showed no differences in overall survival (9.6 months seocalcitol versus
9.2 months placebo) [350]. Finally, negative results were also
reported with a tubulin inhibitor (T-67) in a large multicenter
RCT [351].

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

931

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
Trial design

1.

The panel endorses the trial design and selection of endpoints for clinical trials in HCC proposed in previous JNCI
guidelines (Fig. 5) and lists the high-end trials currently
ongoing which, in case of demonstrating
clinically relevant superiority vs. the standard of care,
might change the current guidelines (Table 4)

2.

Assessment of response:

•

•

Assessment of response in HCC should be
based on the modification of the RECIST criteria
(mRECIST; Table 5)
(recommendation 2B)
Use of changes in serum levels of biomarkers for
assessment of response (i.e. AFP levels) is under
investigation

statements will evolve as new evidence becomes available,
including more precise information on the natural history of
HCC, new drugs or predictive biomarkers. The panel endorses
the trial design and selection of end-points for clinical trials in
HCC proposed in previous Journal National Cancer Institute
guidelines [149]. In addition, the panel wants to emphasize that
the integrity of research is absolutely vital for the advancement
of evidence-based medicine. If a study proposing a major change
in clinical practice is accepted yet its findings are fraudulent, as
recently occurred in HCC with a study that required retraction
[352], the threat to patient safety and management could be
enormous.
The main recommendations for trial design are summarized
below:
(1) End-points. Survival and time to recurrence were proposed as primary end-points for phase III studies assessing primary and adjuvant therapies, respectively.
Composite end-points such as disease free survival
(DFS) or progression free survival (PFS) are suboptimal
in HCC research, and should be included as secondary
end-points. Randomized phase II studies were considered pivotal prior to conducting phase III trials in HCC.
These studies classically consider response rate as the
gold-standard for efficacy, but time to progression was
recommended as the primary end-point when testing
molecular targeted therapies [149]. The panel considers
that further data is needed to establish response rate
as per mRECIST as surrogate of survival. Quality of life
assessment in HCC research suffers from the lack of a
reliable, standardized and adequately validated questionnaire, and thus, it is currently recommended as ancillary
information.
(2) Trial design is summarized in Fig. 5. Selection of patients
should be based on BCLC staging and Child–Pugh A class,
in order to minimize the competitive risk of death
associated with liver failure. The control arm for clinical

Dynamic CT or MRI are recommended tools to
assess response one month after resection, locoregional or systemic therapies
(recommendation 1A)
Follow-up strategies for detection of recurrence
include one imaging technique every 3 months
during the first year, and every six months thereafter
to complete at least two years. Afterwards, regular
ultrasound is recommended every 6 months.
Assessment of time to progression is recommended
with CT and/or MRI every 6-8 weeks

The increasing number of ongoing clinical trials in HCC has
created the need for a common frame to test novel drugs
accepted by all disciplines. As a consequence, new guidelines
on the design of clinical trials and end-points in HCC have been
reported by a multidisciplinary panel of experts [149]. These

Standard of care

First line

BCLC 0-A
(early HCC)

BCLC B
(intermediate HCC)

BCLC C
(advanced HCC)

Resection, transplantation,
percutaneous ablation

ChemoembolizationTACE

Sorafenib

Adjuvant

Primary treatment

Primary treatment

Plabebo

vs.

drug

TACE

vs.

TACE +
drug/device

Sorafenib

vs.

Sorafenib +
drug

In case phase II findings were very promising

TACE

vs.

Drug/device

Second line
Fig. 5. Summary of trial design strategies and control groups. Adapted from Llovet et al. [164].

932

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

Sorafenib

vs.

drug

Plabebo

vs .

drug

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Table 5. Assessment of response comparing RECIST and mRECIST.⁄

Target lesions
Response category

RECIST

mRECIST

CR

Disappearance of all target lesions

PR

At least a 30% decrease in the sum of the diameters of
target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of
the diameters of target lesions

SD

Any cases that do not qualify for either PR or PD

Disappearance of any intratumoral arterial enhancement
in all target lesions
At least a 30% decrease in the sum of the diameters
of viable (enhancement in the arterial phase) target
lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of the
diameters of target lesions
Any cases that do not qualify for either PR or PD

PD

An increase of at least 20% in the sum of the diameters
of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum of
the diameters of target lesions recorded since treatment
started

An increase of at least 20% in the sum of the diameters
of viable (enhancing) target lesions, taking as reference
the smallest sum of the diameters of viable (enhancing)
target lesions recorded since treatment started

Non-target lesions
Response category

RECIST

mRECIST

CR

Disappearance of all non-target lesions

IR/SD

Persistence of one or more non-target lesions

Disappearance of any intratumoral arterial enhancement
in all non-target lesions
Persistence of intratumoral arterial enhancement in one
or more non-target lesions
Appearance of one or more new lesions and/or
unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions

PD

Appearance of one or more new lesions and/or
unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions
mRECIST recommendations
Pleural effusion and
ascites
Porta hepatis lymph
node
Portal vein
thrombosis
New lesion

Cytopathologic confirmation of the neoplastic nature of any effusion that appears or worsens during treatment is
required to declare PD.
Lymph nodes detected at the porta hepatis can be considered malignant if the lymph node short axis is at least 2
cm.
Malignant portal vein thrombosis should be considered as a non-measurable lesion and thus included in the nontarget lesion group.
A new lesion can be classified as HCC if its longest diameter is at least 1 cm and the enhancement pattern is
typical for HCC. A lesion with atypical radiological pattern can be diagnosed as HCC by evidence of at least 1 cm
interval growth.

RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors; mRECIST, modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; IR,
incomplete response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease.
⁄
Adapted from Llovet et al. [149] and Lencioni and Llovet [100].

trials should be the standard of care, meaning chemoembolization for intermediate HCCs and sorafenib for
advanced cases. Therefore, for the assessment of firstline systemic treatments for advanced HCC a design adding a new agent to sorafenib versus sorafenib alone is
recommended. Comparison of single agents head-tohead with the standard of care therapy might jeopardize
the recruitment of patients for ethical reasons, unless
the novel agent showed very promising efficacy in early
phase II studies. For second-line treatments, the new
agent should be randomized against placebo/best supportive care, and the selection criteria should include
patients with contraindications or failures to sorafenib.
Randomized studies testing molecular targeted therapies
should optimally include biomarker analysis (tissue and/
or serum samples) to enable the identification of molecular markers of response and for pharmacokinetic purposes, as reported in other cancers.

(3) Assessment of tumor response. The main end-point in cancer research is overall survival. Nonetheless, tumor
response and time to progression have been considered
pivotal for surrogate assessment of efficacy. In oncology,
tumor response was initially measured according to the
World Health Organization (WHO) criteria [353], and
afterwards according to the Response Evaluation Criteria
In Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines [354,355]. These
criteria were designed primarily for evaluation of cytotoxic agents. They do not address measures of antitumor
activity other than tumor shrinkage. As acknowledged in
the original RECIST publication, assessments based solely
on changes in tumor size can be misleading when
applied to other anticancer drugs, such as molecular
targeted therapies, or other therapeutic interventions
[354]. EASL and AASLD guidelines adopted a modified
version of a WHO criterion in which the evaluation of
the treatment response accounted for the induction of

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

933

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
intra-tumoral necrotic areas in estimating the decrease
in tumor load, and not just a reduction in overall tumor
size [1,56].
Results from a number of previous clinical studies in HCC
have demonstrated that RECIST criteria do not mirror the
extent of tumor necrosis induced by interventional therapies or new molecular targeting drugs [168,356]. Viable
tumor formation needs to be assessed using CT or MRI
studies and viable tumor should be defined as uptake of
contrast agent in the arterial phase of dynamic imaging
studies. Consequently, a modification of the RECIST criteria was first proposed by a panel of experts [149], and
further expanded [100]. This proposal is based on the fact
that diameter of the target lesions with viable tumor
should guide all measurements. In addition, specific modifications of the original criteria regarding assessment of
vascular invasion, lymph nodes, ascites, pleural effusion
and news lesions have been summarized in Table 5.
Objective response rates using mRECIST have been
reported of 57% in patients treated with chemoembolization [357], 90Y [358],  20% with sorafenib [359,360] and
15–25% using brivanib [335]. The panel of experts recommends to assess tumor response according to mRECIST
criteria, and to test whether these criteria have better
performance than conventional RECIST, and correlate
with pathological studies and outcome prediction
(Table 6).

Final considerations

1.

•

The panel has listed and categorized here the main
unmet needs in the field of HCC research in a categorized manner (see Table 6). It is strongly recommended
that physicians, investigators, health policy agencies,
pharmaceutical industry and care providers devote future
resources as a priority to:
• Evaluating adjuvant therapies after resection/local
ablation
• Exploring downstaging strategies to rescue patients
with HCCs beyond conventional Milan criteria
• Evaluating the benefits of combining molecular
therapies with local ablation and loco-regional
treatments
• Building the backbone package treatment for
advanced tumors and second-line therapies
• Including cost-benefit approaches in research
studies with collection of health economic analysis
such as incremental cost effectiveness ratio in order
to facilitate clinical decision-making
• Providing adequate quality of life assessment tools.
The panel considers quality of life as a relevant
end-point for research studies, and thus, refinement
of instruments for such assessment in HCC patients
is needed

3.

Translating efficacy into effectiveness: Despite effective
surveillance and treatment strategies are available in
HCC, the proportions of patients receiving these
interventions are suboptimal [47]. Measures to increase
access to surveillance, early diagnosis and effective
treatment should be implemented in order to increase the
effectiveness

1. Clinical development of drugs
Targeting pathways with few candidates in the pipeline
such as Wnt/β-catenin, Hedgehog/Gli, Notch and ERK
pathway
Improve models for pre-clinical testing of novel drugs
2. Identification and validation of biomarkers
Prognostic biomarkers: independent validation of prognosis
at all stages of the disease from serum (AFP, Ang2, VEGF)
and tissue (gene signatures EpCAM, G3-proliferation, poor
survival signature; miR26)
Predictive biomarkers: response to specific systemic
targeted therapies
Surrogates of microvascular invasion
3. Properly designed and powered clinical trials for:

•
•
•
•

Moving towards personalized/stratified
medicine. Molecular therapies blocking
angiogenesis (VEGF, PDGF, Ang2, FGF) or
proliferation cascades disrupted in HCC (EGFR,
Ras, Akt, mTOR, IGF-1R, MET) are tested in
advanced clinical trials. Discovery of biomarkers can
be instrumental for trial enrichment and identification
of treatment responders, and, therefore, constitutes
a major short term goal

2.

Table 6. Unmet needs in HCC research.

•
•

The panel considers that collection of tissue and serum
samples in research studies is highly desirable and
recommended. Such biobanking should permit the
achievement of two clinical goals:
• Refinement of prognostication and BCLC
staging system. Molecular data such as gene
signatures (poor survival, EpCAM) or biomarkers
(AFP, VEGF, Ang2 and miR26) have been shown to
have independent prognostic significance and are
likely to be incorporated into staging systems after
external independent validation

Adjuvant therapy after curative treatments
Therapies to prevent drop-outs in the waiting list and
downstaging strategies
Combinations of local with systemic therapies
Combinations of systemic targeted therapies
Second-line therapies
Radioembolization

4. Systematic inclusion of cost-benefit analyses in clinical trials
5. Search for tools to assess quality of life in clinical trials

934

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY

1. The study comparing brivanib vs. placebo in patients with
advanced HCC failing or intolerant to sorafenib was reported
not meeting the primary end-point survival. http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/email/alert (Jan 2012).
2. The study comparing linifanib vs. sorafenib in first-line was
halted by the DSMC at the interim analysis. Abbott’s LiGHT
(Linifanib Study M10-963) Early Study Closure).

Eric Raymond has received research support, lecture and consultant fees and took part in clinical trials for Pfizer, Novartis,
Bayer, MSD.
Tania Roskams has nothing to disclose.
Jordi Bruix has received research support, lecture and consultant fees and took part in clinical trials for Bayer, Biocompatibles,
BMS, GSK, Kowa, Novartis, Sumitomo, Arqule.
Massimo Colombo has received research support, lecture and
consultant fees and took part in clinical trials for MSD, Roche,
Gilead Science, Vertex, Tibotec, Bayer.
Andrew Zhu has received support, consultant fees and took
part in clinical trials for Bayer, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis.

Disclosures

Acknowledgements

These guidelines reflect the state of knowledge, current at the
time of publication, on effective and appropriate care, as well
as clinical consensus judgments when knowledge is lacking.
The inevitable changes in the state of scientific information and
technology mandate that periodic review, updating, and revisions
will be needed. These guidelines do not apply to all patients, and
each must be adapted and tailored to each individual patient.
Proper use, adaptation modifications or decisions to disregard
these or other guidelines, in whole or in part, are entirely
the responsibility of the clinician who uses the guidelines. The
content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the
views or policies of the Department of Health and Human
Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products,
organizations or imply endorsement by any European or USA
Government.

The contributors thank the EASL office and the Journal of Hepatology editorial office for editorial assistance.

Addendum
During the editing process of the guidelines additional information on two phase 3 RCT mentioned in Table 4 was reported.

Conflict of interest
Josep M. Llovet has received research support, and/or lecture and/
or consultant fees and/or took part in clinical trials for Bayer
Pharmaceutical, BMS, Biocompatibles, Novartis, Abbot, Imclone,
Jennerex.
Michel Ducreux has received research support, and/or lecture
fees and/or took part in clinical trials for Bayer and Abbot.
Mauro Bernardi has nothing to disclose.
Thierry de Baére has received lecture fees for Terumo,
Biocompatibles, Bayer.
Arian Di Bisceglie has received research support, and/or lecture, and/or consultant and advisory board member fees and/or
took part in clinical trials for Roche, Gilead, Idenix, Vertex, BMS,
Abbot, MSD, Anadys, Bayer, Globe Immune, Bayer, Pharmasset,
Salix.
Jean-François Dufour has received research support, and/or
lecture and/or consultant fees and/or took part in clinical trials
for Novartis, Bayer, BMS, Merck, Roche.
Peter Galle has received research support, and/or lecture and/
or consultant fees and/or took part in clinical trials for Bayer,
BMS, Pfizer, Lilly.
Tim Greten has received lecture and/or consultant fees for
Bayer Health Care.
Riccardo Lencioni has received research support for Bayer.
Vincenzo Mazzafero has received research support, and/or
lecture and/or consultant fees and/or took part in clinical trials
for AIRC (Italian Association for Cancer Research), European Community (FP7 program), Bayer Health Care, Bayer SPA, MDS Nordion, Astellas, BMS Bayer Schering Pharma AG.

References
[1] Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, Beaugrand M, Lencioni R, Burroughs AK, et al.
EASL Panel of Experts on HCC. Clinical management of hepatocellular
carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European
Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol 2001;35:421–430.
[2] National Cancer Institute. PDQÒ levels of evidence for adult and pediatric
cancer treatment studies. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Date
last modified 26/August/2010. <http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/levelsevidence-adult-treatment/healthprofessional/>; 2011 [accessed 01.03.11].
[3] Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA
Cancer J Clin 2005;55:74–108.
[4] IARC. <http://www-dep.iarc.fr/>; 2011 [accessed 01.11.11].
[5] El-Serag HB, Mason AC. Rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the
United States. N Engl J Med 1999;340:745–750.
[6] Tanaka H, Imai Y, Hiramatsu N, Ito Y, Imanaka K, Oshita M, et al. Declining
incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in Osaka, Japan from 1990 to 2003.
Ann Intern Med 2008;148:820–826.
[7] Bosetti C, Boffetta P, Lucchini F, Negri E, La Vecchia C. Trends in mortality
from hepatocellular carcinoma in Europe, 1980–2004. Hepatology
2008;48:137–145.
[8] Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics,
2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:71–96.
[9] Chang MH, You SL, Chen CJ, Liu CJ, Lee CM, Lin SM, et al. Taiwan Hepatoma
Study Group. Decreased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatitis
B vaccinees: a 20-year follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:
1348–1355.
[10] Sangiovanni A, Prati GM, Fasani P, Ronchi G, Romeo R, Manini M, et al. The
natural history of compensated cirrhosis due to hepatitis C virus: a 17-year
cohort study of 214 patients. Hepatology 2006;43:1303–1310.
[11] Ioannou G, Splan M, Weiss N, McDonald G, Beretta L, Lee S. Incidence and
predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Clin
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:938–945.
[12] Lok AS, Seeff LB, Morgan TR, Di Bisceglie AM, Sterling RK, Curto TM, et al.
Incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and associated risk factors in
hepatitis
C-related
advanced
liver
disease.
Gastroenterology
2009;136:138–148.
[13] Ripoll C, Groszmann RJ, Garcia-Tsao G, Bosch J, Grace N, Burroughs A, et al.
Hepatic venous pressure gradient predicts development of hepatocellular
carcinoma independently of severity of cirrhosis. J Hepatol
2009;50:923–928.
[14] Masuzaki R, Tateishi R, Yoshida H, Goto E, Sato T, Ohki T. Prospective risk
assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma development in patients with
chronic
hepatitis
C
by
transient
elastography.
Hepatology
2009;49:1954–1961.
[15] Jung KS, Kim SU, Ahn SH, Park YN, Kim do Y, Park JY, et al. Risk assessment
of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma development using
liver stiffness measurement (FibroScan). Hepatology 2011;53:885–894.
[16] Lok AS. Prevention of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma.
Gastroenterology 2004;127:S303–S309.
[17] Yang HI, Lu SN, Liaw YF, You SL, Sun CA, Wang LY, et al. Taiwan
Community–Based Cancer Screening Project Group. Hepatitis B e antigen
and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2002;347:168–174.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

935

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
[18] Chen CJ, Yang HI, Su J, Jen CL, You SL, Lu SN, et al. REVEAL-HBV Study Group.
Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma across a biological gradient of serum
hepatitis B virus DNA level. JAMA 2006;295:65–73.
[19] Yu MW, Yeh SH, Chen PJ, Liaw YF, Lin CL, Liu CJ, et al. Hepatitis B virus
genotype and DNA level and hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective study
in men. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:265–272.
[20] Iloeje UH, Yang HI, Su J, Jen CL, You SL, Chen CJ. Risk Evaluation of Viral Load
Elevation and Associated Liver Disease/Cancer–In HBV (the REVEAL–HBV)
Study Group. Predicting cirrhosis risk based on the level of circulating
hepatitis B viral load. Gastroenterology 2006;130:678–686.
[21] Raimondi S, Bruno S, Mondelli MU, Maisonneuve P. Hepatitis C virus
genotype 1b as a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma development: a
meta-analysis. J Hepatol 2009;50:1142–1154.
[22] Hsu IC, Metcalf RA, Sun T, Welsh JA, Wang NJ, Harris CC. Mutational hotspot
in the p53 gene in human hepatocellular carcinomas. Nature
1991;350:427–428.
[23] Deugnier YM, Guyader D, Crantock L, Lopez JM, Turlin B, Yaouanq J, et al.
Primary liver cancer in genetic hemochromatosis: a clinical, pathological,
and pathogenetic study of 54 cases. Gastroenterology 1993;104:228–234.
[24] Perlmutter DH. Pathogenesis of chronic liver injury and hepatocellular
carcinoma in alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency. Pediatr Res 2006;60:
233–238.
[25] Polio J, Enriquez RE, Chow A, Wood WM, Atterbury CE. Hepatocellular
carcinoma in Wilson’s disease. Case report and review of the literature. J
Clin Gastroenterol 1989;11:220–224.
[26] El-Serag HB, Richardson PA, Everhart JE. The role of diabetes in hepatocellular carcinoma: a case–control study among United States Veterans. Am J
Gastroenterol 2001;96:2462–2467.
[27] Marrero J, Fontana R, Fu S, Conjeevaram H, Su G, Lok A. Alcohol, tobacco and
obesity are synergistic risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol
2005;42:218–224.
[28] Trichopoulos D, Bamia C, Lagiou P, Fedirko V, Trepo E, Jenab M, et al.
Hepatocellular carcinoma risk factors and disease burden in a European
cohort: a nested case–control study. J Natl Cancer Inst
2011;103:1686–1695.
[29] Marcellin P, Pequignot F, Delarocque-Astagneau E, Zarski JP, Ganne N,
Hillon P, et al. Mortality related to chronic hepatitis B and chronic hepatitis
C in France: evidence for the role of HIV coinfection and alcohol
consumption. J Hepatol 2008;48:200–207.
[30] Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, Futreal PA, Harshman K, Tavtigian S,
et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility
gene BRCA1. Science 1994;266:66–71.
[31] Marra G, Boland CR. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: the
syndrome, the genes, and historical perspectives. J Natl Cancer Inst
1995;87:1114–1125.
[32] Tanabe KK, Lemoine A, Finkelstein DM, Kawasaki H, Fujii T, Chung RT, et al.
Epidermal growth factor gene functional polymorphism and the risk of
hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. JAMA 2008;299:53–60.
[33] Clifford RJ, Zhang J, Meerzaman DM, Lyu MS, Hu Y, Cultraro CM, et al.
Genetic variations at loci involved in the immune response are risk factors
for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2010;52:2034–2043.
[34] World Health Organization. Hepatitis B vaccines. Weekly epidemiological
record of the World Health Organization 2009;84;405–420.
[35] European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice
Guidelines: management of chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol
2009;50:227–242.
[36] European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice
Guidelines: management of hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol
2011;55:245–264.
[37] Niederau C, Heintges T, Lange S, Goldmann G, Niederau CM, Mohr L, et al.
Long-term follow-up of HBeAg-positive patients treated with interferon
alfa for chronic hepatitis B. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1422–1427.
[38] Yuen MF, Sablon E, Hui CK, Yuan HJ, Decraemer H, Lai CL. Factors associated
with hepatitis B virus DNA breakthrough in patients receiving prolonged
lamivudine therapy. Hepatology 2001;34:785–791.
[39] Liaw YF, Sung JJ, Chow WC, Farrell G, Lee CZ, Yuen H, et al. Cirrhosis Asian
Lamivudine Multicentre Study Group. Lamivudine for patients with chronic
hepatitis B and advanced liver disease. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1521–1531.
[40] Singal AG, Volk ML, Jensen D, Di Bisceglie AM, Schoenfeld PS. A sustained
viral response is associated with reduced liver-related morbidity and
mortality in patients with hepatitis C virus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2010;8:280–288.
[41] Nishiguchi S, Kuroki T, Nakatani S, Morimoto H, Takeda T, Nakajima S, et al.
Randomised trial of effects of interferon-alpha on incidence of hepatocel-

936

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]
[48]

[49]

[50]
[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]
[57]
[58]

[59]

[60]
[61]
[62]

[63]
[64]

lular carcinoma in chronic active hepatitis C with cirrhosis. Lancet
1995;346:1051–1055.
Valla DC, Chevallier M, Marcellin P, Payen JL, Trepo C, Fonck M, et al.
Treatment of hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis: a randomized, controlled
trial of interferon alfa-2b versus no treatment. Hepatology
1999;29:1870–1875.
Lok AS, Everhart JE, Wright EC, Di Bisceglie AM, Kim HY, Sterling RK, et al.
HALT-C Trial Group. Maintenance peginterferon therapy and other factors
associated with hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with advanced
hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2011;140:840–849.
Di Bisceglie AM, Stoddard AM, Dienstag JL, Shiffman ML, Seeff LB,
Bonkovsky HL, et al. HALT-C Trial Group. Excess mortality in patients with
advanced chronic hepatitis C treated with long-term peginterferon. Hepatology 2011;53:1100–1108.
Bruix J, Poynard T, Colombo M, Schiff E, Burak K, Heathcote EJ, et al. EPIC3
Study Group. Maintenance therapy with peginterferon alfa-2b does not
prevent hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2011;140:1990–1999.
Prorok PC. Epidemiologic approach for cancer screening. Problems in
design and analysis of trials. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1992;14:
117–128.
El-Serag HB. Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1118–1127.
Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new
technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative
guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ
1992;146:473–481.
Sarasin FP, Giostra E, Hadengue A. Cost–effectiveness of screening for
detection of small hepatocellular carcinoma in western patients with
Child–Pugh class A cirrhosis. Am J Med 1996;101:422–434.
Fattovich G, Stroffolini T, Zagni I, Donato F. Hepatocellular carcinoma in
cirrhosis: incidence and risk factors. Gastroenterology 2004;127:S35–S50.
Yoshida H, Shiratori Y, Moriyama M, Arakawa Y, Ide T, Sata M, et al.
Interferon therapy reduces the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma: national
surveillance program of cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients with chronic
hepatitis C in Japan. IHIT Study Group. Inhibition of hepatocarcinogenesis
by interferon therapy. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:174–181.
Sangiovanni A, Del Ninno E, Fasani P, De Fazio C, Ronchi G, Romeo R, et al.
Increased survival of cirrhotic patients with a hepatocellular carcinoma
detected during surveillance. Gastroenterology 2004;126:1005–1014.
Ganne-Carrié N, Chastang C, Chapel F, Munz C, Pateron D, Sibony M, et al.
Predictive score for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma and
additional value of liver large cell dysplasia in Western patients with
cirrhosis. Hepatology 1996;23:1112–1118.
Velázquez RF, Rodríguez M, Navascués CA, Linares A, Pérez R, Sotorríos NG,
et al. Prospective analysis of risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma in
patients with liver cirrhosis. Hepatology 2003;37:520–527.
Trevisani F, Santi V, Gramenzi A, Di Nolfo MA, Poggio PD, Benvegnù L. For
the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA.) group. Surveillance for early diagnosis
of hepatocellular carcinoma: is it effective in intermediate/advanced
cirrhosis? Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2448–2457.
Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update.
Hepatology 2011;53:1020–1022.
Di Bisceglie AM. Issues in screening and surveillance for hepatocellular
carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004;127:S104–S107.
Fattovich G, Bortolotti F, Donato F. Natural history of chronic hepatitis B:
special emphasis on disease progression and prognostic factors. J Hepatol
2008;48:335–352.
Sánchez-Tapias JM, Costa J, Mas A, Bruguera M, Rodés J. Influence of
hepatitis B virus genotype on the long-term outcome of chronic hepatitis B
in western patients. Gastroenterology 2002;123:1848–1856.
Martínez SM, Crespo G, Navasa M, Forns X. Noninvasive assessment of liver
fibrosis. Hepatology 2011;53:325–335.
Bosch FX, Ribes J, Díaz M, Cléries R. Primary liver cancer: worldwide
incidence and trends. Gastroenterology 2004;127:S5–S16.
Yasui K, Hashimoto E, Komorizono Y, Koike K, Arii S, Imai Y. Characteristics
of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis who develop hepatocellular
carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:428–433.
Craxì A, Cammà C. Prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Liver Dis
2005;9:329–346.
Bruno S, Stroffolini T, Colombo M, Bollani S, Benvegnù L, Mazzella G, et al.
Italian Association of the Study of the Liver Disease (AISF). Sustained
virological response to interferon-alpha is associated with improved
outcome in HCV-related cirrhosis: a retrospective study. Hepatology
2007;45:579–587.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
[65] Sung JJ, Tsoi KK, Wong VW, Li KC, Chan HL. Meta-analysis: treatment of
hepatitis B infection reduces risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Aliment
Pharmacol Ther 2008;28:1067–1077.
[66] Lampertico P, Viganò M, Manenti E, Iavarone M, Sablon E, Colombo M. Low
resistance to adefovir combined with lamivudine: a 3-year study of 145
lamivudine-resistant
hepatitis
B
patients.
Gastroenterology
2007;133:1445–1451.
[67] Bolondi L. Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. J Hepatol
2003;39:1076–1084.
[68] Kim CK, Lim JH, Lee WJ. Detection of hepatocellular carcinomas and
dysplastic nodules in cirrhotic liver: accuracy of ultrasonography in
transplant patients. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20:99–104.
[69] Singal A, Volk ML, Waljee A, Salgia R, Higgins P, Rogers MA, et al. Metaanalysis: surveillance with ultrasound for early-stage hepatocellular
carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009;30:
37–47.
[70] Sato T, Tateishi R, Yoshida H, Ohki T, Masuzaki R, Imamura J, et al.
Ultrasound surveillance for early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma
among patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatol Int 2009;3:544–550.
[71] Lencioni R, Piscaglia F, Bolondi L. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the
diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2008;48:848–857.
[72] Marrero JA, Su GL, Wei W, Emick D, Conjeevaram HS, Fontana RJ, et al. Desgamma carboxyprothrombin can differentiate hepatocellular carcinoma
from nonmalignant chronic liver disease in American patients. Hepatology
2003;37:1114–1121.
[73] Tsukuma H, Hiyama T, Tanaka S, Nakao M, Yabuuchi T, Kitamura T, et al.
Risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma among patients with chronic liver
disease. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1797–1801.
[74] Chen JG, Parkin DM, Chen QG, Lu JH, Shen QJ, Zhang BC, et al. Screening for
liver cancer: results of a randomised controlled trial in Qidong, China. J Med
Screen 2003;10:204–209.
[75] McMahon BJ, Bulkow L, Harpster A, Snowball M, Lanier A, Sacco F, et al.
Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in Alaska natives infected with
chronic hepatitis B: a 16-year population-based study. Hepatology
2000;32:842–846.
[76] Di Bisceglie AM, Sterling RK, Chung RT, Everhart JE, Dienstag JL, Bonkovsky
HL, et al. HALT-C Trial Group. Serum alpha-fetoprotein levels in patients
with advanced hepatitis C: results from the HALT-C Trial. J Hepatol
2005;43:434–441.
[77] Yamashita T, Forgues M, Wang W, Kim JW, Ye Q, Jia H, et al. EpCAM and
alpha-fetoprotein expression defines novel prognostic subtypes of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res 2008;68:1451–1461.
[78] Villanueva A, Minguez B, Forner A, Reig M, Llovet JM. Hepatocellular
carcinoma: novel molecular approaches for diagnosis, prognosis, and
therapy. Annu Rev Med 2010;61:317–328.
[79] Hoshida Y, Nijman SM, Kobayashi M, Chan JA, Brunet JP, Chiang DY,
et al. Integrative transcriptome analysis reveals common molecular
subclasses of human hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res 2009;69:
7385–7392.
[80] Trevisani F, D’Intino PE, Morselli-Labate AM, Mazzella G, Accogli E, Caraceni
P, et al. Serum alpha-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.
[81] Pateron D, Ganne N, Trinchet JC, Aurousseau MH, Mal F, Meicler C, et al.
Prospective study of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in Caucasian
patients with cirrhosis. J Hepatol 1994;20:65–71.
[82] Koike Y, Shiratori Y, Sato S, Obi S, Teratani T, Imamura M, et al. Des-gammacarboxy prothrombin as a useful predisposing factor for the development of
portal venous invasion in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a
prospective analysis of 227 patients. Cancer 2001;91:561–569.
[83] Sterling RK, Jeffers L, Gordon F, Sherman M, Venook AP, Reddy KR, et al.
Clinical utility of AFP-L3% measurement in North American patients with
HCV-related cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2196–2205.
[84] Wang M, Long RE, Comunale MA, Junaidi O, Marrero J, Di Bisceglie AM, et al.
Novel fucosylated biomarkers for the early detection of hepatocellular
carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:1914–1921.
[85] Zhang B, Yang B. Combined alpha fetoprotein testing and ultrasonography
as a screening test for primary liver cancer. J Med Screen 1999;6:
108–110.
[86] Zhang BH, Yang BH, Tang ZY. Randomized controlled trial of screening for
hepatocellular carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2004;130:417–422.
[87] Barbara L, Benzi G, Gaiani S, Fusconi F, Zironi G, Siringo S, et al. Natural
history of small untreated hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors of tumor growth rate and patient
survival. Hepatology 1992;16:132–137.

[88] Ebara M, Ohto M, Shinagawa T, Sugiura N, Kimura K, Matsutani S, et al.
Natural history of minute hepatocellular carcinoma smaller than three
centimetres complicating cirrhosis. A study in 22 patients. Gastroenterology 1986;90:289–298.
[89] Sheu JC, Sung JL, Chen DS, Yang PM, Lai MY, Lee CS, et al. Growth rate of
asymptomatic hepatocellular carcinoma and its clinical implications.
Gastroenterology 1985;89:259–266.
[90] Makuuchi M, Kokudo N, Arii S, Futagawa S, Kaneko S, Kawasaki S, et al.
Development of evidence-based clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and
treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in Japan. Hepatol Res
2008;38:37–51.
[91] Trinchet JC, Chaffaut C, Bourcier V, Degos F, Henrion J, Fontaine H, et al.
Ultrasonographic surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: a
randomized trial comparing 3- and 6-month periodicities. Hepatology
2011;54:1987–1997.
[92] Santagostino E, Colombo M, Rivi M, Rumi MG, Rocino A, Linari S, et al. A
6-month versus a 12-month surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in
559 hemophiliacs infected with the hepatitis C virus. Blood 2003;102:
78–82.
[93] Thompson Coon J, Rogers G, Hewson P, Wright D, Anderson R, et al.
Surveillance of cirrhosis for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review
and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:1–206.
[94] Trevisani F, Cantarini MC, Morselli Labate AM, De Notariis S, Rapaccini G,
Farinati F, et al. Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly Italian
patients with cirrhosis. Effects on cancer staging and patients survival. Am J
Gastroenterol 2004;99:1470–1476.
[95] Nouso K, Tanaka H, Uematsu S, Shiraga K, Okamoto R, Onishi H, et al. Cost–
effectiveness of the surveillance program of hepatocellular carcinoma
depends on the medical circumstances. J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2008;23:437–444.
[96] Trevisani F, De Notariis S, Rapaccini G, Farinati F, Benvegnù L, Zoli M, et al.
Semiannual and annual surveillance of cirrhotic patients for hepatocellular
carcinoma: effects on cancer stage and patients survival (Italian experience). Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:734–744.
[97] Santi V, Trevisani F, Gramenzi A, Grignaschi A, Mirici-Cappa F, Del Poggio P,
et al. Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) Group. Semiannual surveillance is
superior to annual surveillance for the detection of early hepatocellular
carcinoma and patient survival. J Hepatol 2010;53:291–297.
[98] Andersson KL, Salomon JA, Goldie SJ, Chung RT. Cost effectiveness of
alternative surveillance strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients
with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:1418–1424.
[99] Llovet JM, Burroughs A, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet
2003;362:1907–1917.
[100] Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 2010;30:52–60.
[101] Roskams T. Anatomic pathology impact on prognosis and response to
therapy. Clin Liver Dis 2011;15:245–259.
[102] Llovet JM, Bruix J. Novel advancements in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2008. J Hepatol 2008;48:S20–S37.
[103] Bolondi L, Gaiani S, Celli N, Golfieri R, Grigioni WF, Leoni S, et al.
Characterization of small nodules in cirrhosis by assessment of vascularity:
the problem of hypovascular hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology
2005;42:27–34.
[104] Forner A, Vilana R, Ayuso C, Bianchi L, Solé M, Ayuso JR, et al. Diagnosis of
hepatic nodules 20 mm or smaller in cirrhosis: prospective validation of
the noninvasive diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2008;47:97–104.
[105] Roskams T, Kojiro M. Pathology of early hepatocellular carcinoma:
conventional and molecular diagnosis. Semin Liver Dis 2010;30:17–25.
[106] Terasaki S, Kaneko S, Kobayashi K, Nonomura A, Nakanuma Y. Histological
features predicting malignant transformation of nonmalignant hepatocellular nodules: a prospective study. Gastroenterology 1998;115:1216–1222.
[107] Borzio M, Fargion S, Borzio F, Fracanzani AL, Croce AM, Stroffolini T, et al.
Impact of large regenerative, low grade and high grade dysplastic nodules
in hepatocellular carcinoma development. J Hepatol 2003;39:208–214.
[108] Stigliano R, Marelli L, Yu D, Davies N, Patch D, Burroughs AK. Seeding
following percutaneous diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma. What is the risk and the outcome? Seeding risk for
percutaneous approach of HCC. Cancer Treat Rev 2007;33:437–447.
[109] Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology
2005;42:1208–1236.
[110] Sangiovanni A, Manini MA, Iavarone M, Romeo R, Forzenigo LV, Fraquelli M,
et al. The diagnostic and economic impact of contrast imaging techniques
in the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Gut
2010;59:638–644.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

937

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
[111] Yu NC, Chaudhari V, Raman SS, Lassman C, Tong MJ, Busuttil RW, et al. CT
and MRI improve detection of hepatocellular carcinoma, compared with
ultrasound alone, in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2011;9:161–167.
[112] Sersté T, Barrau V, Ozenne V, Vullierme MP, Bedossa P, Farges O, et al.
Accuracy and disagreement of CT and MRI for the diagnosis of small
hepatocellular carcinoma and dysplastic nodules: role of biopsy. Hepatology 2011. doi:10.1002/hep.24746, [Epub ahead of print].
[113] Rimola J, Forner A, Reig M, Vilana R, de Lope CR, Ayuso C, et al.
Cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis: absence of contrast washout in delayed
phases by magnetic resonance imaging avoids misdiagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2009;50:791–798.
[114] Lencioni R, Cioni D, Della Pina C, Crocetti L, Bartolozzi C. Imaging diagnosis.
Semin Liver Dis 2005;25:162–170.
[115] International Consensus Group for Hepatocellular Neoplasia. Pathologic
diagnosis of early hepatocellular carcinoma: a report of the international
consensus
group
for
hepatocellular
neoplasia.
Hepatology
2009;49:658–664.
[116] Silva MA, Hegab B, Hyde C, Guo B, Buckels JA, Mirza DF. Needle track
seeding following biopsy of liver lesions in the diagnosis of hepatocellular
cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2008;57:1592–1596.
[117] Colombat M, Paradis V, Bièche I, Dargère D, Laurendeau I, Belghiti J, et al.
Quantitative RT-PCR in cirrhotic nodules reveals gene expression changes
associated with liver carcinogenesis. J Pathol 2003;201:260–267.
[118] Llovet JM, Chen Y, Wurmbach E, Roayaie S, Fiel MI, Schwartz M, et al. A
molecular signature to discriminate dysplastic nodules from early hepatocellular
carcinoma
in
HCV
cirrhosis.
Gastroenterology
2006;131:1758–1767.
[119] Wurmbach E, Chen YB, Khitrov G, Zhang W, Roayaie S, Schwartz M, et al.
Genome-wide molecular profiles of HCV-induced dysplasia and hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2007;45:938–947.
[120] Di Tommaso L, Franchi G, Park YN, Fiamengo B, Destro A, Morenghi E, et al.
Diagnostic value of HSP70, glypican 3, and glutamine synthetase in
hepatocellular nodules in cirrhosis. Hepatology 2007;45:725–734.
[121] Capurro M, Wanless IR, Sherman M, Deboer G, Shi W, Miyoshi E, et al.
Glypican-3: a novel serum and histochemical marker for hepatocellular
carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2003;125:89–97.
[122] Di Tommaso L, Destro A, Seok JY, Balladore E, Terracciano L, Sangiovanni A,
et al. The application of markers (HSP70 GPC3 and GS) in liver biopsies is
useful for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol
2009;50:746–754.
[123] Tremosini S, Forner A, Boix L, Rimola J, Rodríguez de Lope C, Reig M, et al.
Biopsy diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma <2 cm: prospective validation
of glypican 3, heat-shock protein 70 and glutamine synthetase staining in
fine needle biopsy samples. ILCA book of abstracts; 2011.
[124] Durnez A, Verslype C, Nevens F, Fevery J, Aerts R, Pirenne J, et al. The
clinicopathological and prognostic relevance of cytokeratin 7 and 19
expression in hepatocellular carcinoma. A possible progenitor cell origin.
Histopathology 2006;49:138–151.
[125] Kim H, Choi GH, Na DC, Ahn EY, Kim GI, Lee JE, et al. Human hepatocellular
carcinomas with ‘‘Stemness’’-related marker expression: keratin 19
expression and a poor prognosis. Hepatology 2011;54:1707–1717.
[126] Colli A, Fraquelli M, Casazza G, Massironi S, Colucci A, Conte D, et al.
Accuracy of ultrasonography, spiral CT, magnetic resonance, and alphafetoprotein in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.
Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:513–523.
[127] Burrel M, Llovet JM, Ayuso C, Iglesias C, Sala M, Miquel R, et al. MRI
angiography is superior to helical CT for detection of HCC prior to liver
transplantation: an explant correlation. Hepatology 2003;38:1034–1042.
[128] D’Amico G, Garcia-Tsao G, Pagliaro L. Natural history and prognostic
indicators of survival in cirrhosis: a systematic review of 118 studies. J
Hepatol 2006;44:217–231.
[129] Okuda K, Ohtsuki T, Obata H, Tomimatsu M, Okazaki N, Hasegawa H, et al.
Natural history of hepatocellular carcinoma and prognosis in relation to
treatment. Study of 850 patients. Cancer 1985;56:918–928.
[130] The Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) Investigators. A new
prognostic system for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study of
435 patients. Hepatology 1998;28:751–755.
[131] Llovet JM, Bustamante J, Castells A, Vilana R, Ayuso Mdel C, Sala M, et al.
Natural history of untreated nonsurgical hepatocellular carcinoma: rationale for the design and evaluation of therapeutic trials. Hepatology
1999;29:62–67.
[132] Villa E, Moles A, Ferretti I, Buttafoco P, Grottola A, Del Buono M, et al.
Natural history of inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma: estrogen receptors’

938

[133]

[134]

[135]

[136]

[137]

[138]

[139]

[140]

[141]

[142]

[143]

[144]

[145]
[146]

[147]

[148]
[149]

[150]

[151]

[152]

[153]

status in the tumor is the strongest prognostic factor for survival.
Hepatology 2000;32:233–238.
Cabibbo G, Enea M, Attanasio M, Bruix J, Craxì A, Cammà C. A meta-analysis
of survival rates of untreated patients in randomized clinical trials of
hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2010;51:1274–1283.
Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of
prognostic
and
predictive
biomarkers.
J
Natl
Cancer
Inst
2009;101:1446–1452.
Ji J, Shi J, Budhu A, Yu Z, Forgues M, Roessler S, et al. MicroRNA expression,
survival, and response to interferon in liver cancer. N Engl J Med
2009;361:1437–1447.
Villanueva A, Hoshida Y, Battiston C, Tovar V, Sia D, Alsinet C, et al.
Combining clinical, pathology, and gene expression data to predict recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2011;140:1501–1512.
Hoshida Y, Villanueva A, Kobayashi M, Peix J, Chiang DY, Camargo A, et al.
Gene expression in fixed tissues and outcome in hepatocellular carcinoma.
N Engl J Med 2008;359:1995–2004.
Llovet JM, Peña C, Shan M, Lathia C, Bruix J. Biomarkers predicting outcome
of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) randomized in
the phase III SHARP trial. Presidential plenary session, AASLD 59th annual
meeting, San Francisco. Hepatology 2008;48:372A.
Llovet JM, Bruix J. Systematic review of randomized trials for unresectable
hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization improves survival. Hepatology 2003;37:429–442.
Vibert E, Azuolay D, Hoti E, Iacopinelli S, Samuel D, Salloum C, et al.
Progression of alphafetoprotein before liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: a critical factor. Am J Transplant
2010;10:127–137.
Toso C, Trotter J, Wei A, Bigam DL, Shah S, Lancaster J, et al. Total tumor
volume predicts risk of recurrence following liver transplantation in
patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl 2008;8:1107–1115.
N’Kontchou G, Mahamoudi A, Aout M, Ganne-Carrié N, Grando V, Coderc E,
et al. Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term
results and prognostic factors in 235 Western patients with cirrhosis.
Hepatology 2009;50:1475–1483.
Riaz A, Kulik L, Lewandowski RJ, Ryu RK, Giakoumis Spear G, Mulcahy MF,
et al. Radiologic–pathologic correlation of hepatocellular carcinoma treated
with internal radiation using yttrium-90 microspheres. Hepatology
2009;49:1185–1193.
Vora SR, Zheng H, Stadler ZK, Fuchs CS, Zhu AX. Serum alpha-fetoprotein
response as a surrogate for clinical outcome in patients receiving systemic
therapy
for
advanced
hepatocellular
carcinoma.
Oncologist
2009;14:717–725.
Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC
Cancer Staging Handbook. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.
Llovet JM, Bruix J, Fuster J, Castells A, García-Valdecasas JC, Grande L, et al.
Liver transplantation for treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma: the
TNM classification does not have prognostic power. Hepatology
1998;27:1572–1577.
Chevret S, Trinchet JC, Mathieu D, Rached AA, Beaugrand M, Chastang C. A
new prognostic classification for predicting survival in patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma. Groupe d’Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome
Hépatocellulaire. J Hepatol 1999;31:133–141.
Llovet JM, Brú C, Bruix J. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC
staging classification. Semin Liver Dis 1999;19:329–338.
Llovet JM, Di Bisceglie AM, Bruix J, Kramer BS, Lencioni R, Zhu AX, et al.
Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl
Cancer Inst 2008;100:698–711.
Leung TW, Tang AM, Zee B, Lau WY, Lai PB, Leung KL, et al. 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.
Kitai S, Kudo M, Minami Y, Haji S, Osaki Y, Oka H, et al. Validation of a new
prognostic staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparison of
the biomarker-combined Japan Integrated Staging Score, the conventional
Japan Integrated Staging Score and the BALAD Score. Oncology
2008;75:S83–S90.
Marrero J, Fontana RJ, Barrat A, Askari F, Conjeevaram HS, Su GL, et al.
Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of 7 staging systems in
an American cohort. Hepatology 2005;41:707–716.
Cillo U, Vitale A, Grigoletto F, Farinati F, Brolese A, Zanus G, et al.
Prospective validation of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system. J
Hepatol 2006;44:723–731.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
[154] Guglielmi A, Ruzzenente A, Pachera S, Valdegamberi A, Sandri M, D’Onofrio
M, et al. Comparison of seven staging systems in cirrhotic patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma in a cohort of patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation with complete response. Am J Gastroenterol
2008;103:597–604.
[155] Kudo M. Review of 4th Single Topic Conference on HCC. Hepatocellular
carcinoma: international consensus and controversies. Hepatol Res
2007;37:S83–S87.
[156] Takayama T, Makuuchi M, Hirohashi S, Sakamoto M, Yamamoto J, Shimada
K, et al. Early hepatocellular carcinoma as an entity with a high rate of
surgical cure. Hepatology 1998;28:1241–1246.
[157] Roayaie S, Blume IN, Thung SN, Guido M, Fiel MI, Hiotis S, et al. A system of
classifying microvascular invasion to predict outcome after resection in
patients
with
hepatocellular
carcinoma.
Gastroenterology
2009;137:850–855.
[158] Roayaie S, Llovet JM, Obeidat K, Labow D, Sposito C, Pellegrinelli A, et al.
Hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma <2 cm in diameter. Hepatology, in press.
[159] Livraghi T, Meloni F, Di Stasi M, Rolle E, Solbiati L, Tinelli C, et al. Sustained
complete response and complications rates after radiofrequency ablation
of very early hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: is resection still the
treatment of choice? Hepatology 2008;47:82–89.
[160] Arii S, Yamaoka Y, Futagawa S, Inoue K, Kobayashi K, Kojiro M, et al. Results
of surgical and nonsurgical treatment for small-sized hepatocellular
carcinomas: a retrospective and nationwide survey in Japan. The Liver
Cancer Study Group of Japan. Hepatology 2000;32:1224–1229.
[161] Llovet JM, Fuster J, Bruix J. Intention-to-treat analysis of surgical treatment
for early hepatocellular carcinoma: resection versus transplantation.
Hepatology 1999;30:1434–1440.
[162] Sala M, Llovet JM, Vilana R, Bianchi L, Solé M, Ayuso C, et al. Barcelona
Clínic Liver Cancer Group. Initial response to percutaneous ablation
predicts survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology
2004;40:1352–1360.
[163] Lopez PM, Villanueva A, Llovet JM. Systematic review: evidence-based
management of hepatocellular carcinoma – an updated analysis of
randomized
controlled
trials.
Aliment
Pharmacol
Ther
2006;23:1535–1547.
[164] Llovet JM, Bruix J. Molecular targeted therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2008;48:1312–1327.
[165] Takayasu K, Arii S, Ikai I, Omata M, Okita K, Ichida T, et al. Prospective
cohort study of transarterial chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in 8510 patients. Gastroenterology 2006;131:461–469.
[166] Varela M, Real MI, Burrel M, Forner A, Sala M, Brunet M, et al.
Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with drug eluting beads:
efficacy and doxorubicin pharmacokinetics. J Hepatol 2007;46:474–481.
[167] Burrel M, Reig M, Forner A, Barrufet M, Rodríguez de Lope C, Tremosini S,
et al. Survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated by
transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) using DC beads. Implications for
clinical practice and trial design. J Hepatol, in press.
[168] Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. SHARP
Investigators Study Group. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2008;359:378–390.
[169] Raoul JL, Sangro B, Forner A, Mazzaferro V, Piscaglia F, Bolondi L, et al.
Evolving strategies for the management of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: Available evidence and expert opinion on the use of
transarterial chemoembolization. Cancer Treat Rev 2011;37:212–220.
[170] Huitzil-Melendez FD, Capanu M, O’Reilly EM, Duffy A, Gansukh B, Saltz LL,
et al. Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: which staging systems best
predict prognosis? J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2889–2895.
[171] Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, Fuchs H, Paton V, Bajamonde A, et al.
Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for
metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med
2001;344:783–792.
[172] Tsao MS, Sakurada A, Cutz JC, Zhu CQ, Kamel-Reid S, Squire J, et al. Erlotinib
in lung cancer – molecular and clinical predictors of outcome. N Engl J Med
2005;353:133–144.
[173] Flaherty KT, Puzanov I, Kim KB, Ribas A, McArthur GA, Sosman JA, et al.
Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J
Med 2010;363:809–819.
[174] Boyault S, Rickman DS, de Reyniès A, Balabaud C, Rebouissou S, Jeannot E,
et al. Transcriptome classification of HCC is related to gene alterations and
to new therapeutic targets. Hepatology 2007;45:42–52.
[175] Chiang DY, Villanueva A, Hoshida Y, Peix J, Newell P, Minguez B, et al. Focal
gains of VEGFA and molecular classification of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Cancer Res 2008;68:6779–6788.

[176] Llovet JM, Schwartz M, Mazzaferro V. Resection and liver transplantation
for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 2005;25:181–200.
[177] Mazzaferro V, Bhoori S, Sposito C, Bongini M, Langer M, Miceli R, et al.
Milan criteria in liver transplantation for HCC: an evidence-based analysis
on 15 years of experience. Liver Transpl 2011;17:S44–S57.
[178] Belghiti J, Hiramatsu K, Benoist S, Massault P, Sauvanet A, Farges O. Seven
hundred forty-seven hepatectomies in the 1990s: an update to evaluate the
actual risk of liver resection. J Am Coll Surg 2000;191:38–46.
[179] Lang H, Sotiropoulos GC, Dömland M, Frühauf NR, Paul A, Hüsing J, et al.
Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in non-cirrhotic liver without
underlying viral hepatitis. Br J Surg 2005;92:198–202.
[180] Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, Lam CM, Yuen WK, et al. Extended hepatic
resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: is it
justified? Ann Surg 2002;236:602–611.
[181] Mazzaferro V, Romito R, Schiavo M, Mariani L, Camerini T, Bhoori S, et al.
Prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence with alpha-interferon
after liver resection in HCV cirrhosis. Hepatology 2006;44:
1543–1554.
[182] Ishizawa T, Hasegawa K, Aoki T, Takahashi M, Inoue Y, Sano K, et al. Neither
multiple tumors nor portal hypertension are surgical contraindications for
hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2008;134:1908–1916.
[183] Makuuchi M, Sano K. The surgical approach to HCC: our progress and
results in Japan. Liver Transpl 2004;10:S46–S52.
[184] Arii S, Tanaka S, Mitsunori Y, Nakamura N, Kudo A, Noguchi N, et al.
Surgical strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma with special reference to
anatomical hepatic resection and intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Oncology 2010;78:125–130.
[185] Shi M, Guo RP, Lin XJ, Zhang YQ, Chen MS, Zhang CQ, et al. Partial
hepatectomy with wide versus narrow resection margin for solitary
hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg
2007;245:36–43.
[186] Makuuchi M, Kosuge T, Takayama T, Yamazaki S, Kakazu T, Miyagawa
S, et al. Surgery for small liver cancers. Semin Surg Oncol 1993;9:
298–304.
[187] Bruix J, Castells A, Bosch J, Feu F, Fuster J, Garcia-Pagan JC. Surgical
resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: prognostic
value
of
preoperative
portal
pressure.
Gastroenterology
1996;111:1018–1022.
[188] Simpson KJ, Finlayson ND. Clinical evaluation of liver disease Baillieres. Clin
Gastroenterol 1995;9:639–659.
[189] Cucchetti A, Piscaglia F, Caturelli E, Benvegnù L, Vivarelli M, Ercolani G,
et al. Comparison of recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after resection
in patients with cirrhosis to its occurrence in a surveilled cirrhotic
population. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:413–422.
[190] Farges O, Belghiti J, Kianmanesh R, Regimbeau JM, Santoro R, Vilgrain V,
et al. Portal vein embolization before right hepatectomy: prospective
clinical trial. Ann Surg 2003;237:208–217.
[191] Abulkhir A, Limongelli P, Healey AJ, Damrah O, Tait P, Jackson J, et al.
Preoperative portal vein embolization for major liver resection: a metaanalysis. Ann Surg 2008;247:49–57.
[192] Croome KP, Yamashita MH. Laparoscopic vs open hepatic resection for
benign and malignant tumors: an updated meta-analysis. Arch Surg
2010;145:1109–1118.
[193] Torzilli G, Olivari N, Moroni E, Del Fabbro D, Gambetti A, Leoni P, et al.
Contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasonography in surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Liver Transpl 2004;10:S34–S38.
[194] Ikai I, Arii S, Kojiro M, Ichida T, Makuuchi M, Matsuyama Y, et al.
Reevaluation of prognostic factors for survival after liver resection in
patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in a Japanese nationwide survey.
Cancer 2004;101:796–802.
[195] Vauthey JN, Lauwers GY, Esnaola NF, Do KA, Belghiti J, Mirza N, et al.
Simplified staging for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol
2002;20:1527–1536.
[196] Belghiti J, Panis Y, Farges O, Benhamou JP, Fekete F. Intrahepatic recurrence
after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma complicating cirrhosis. Ann
Surg 1991;214:114–117.
[197] Finkelstein SD, Marsh W, Demetris AJ, Swalsky PA, Sasatomi E, Bonham A,
et al. Microdissection-based allelotyping discriminates de novo tumor from
intrahepatic
spread
in
hepatocellular
carcinoma.
Hepatology
2003;37:871–879.
[198] Imamura H, Matsuyama Y, Tanaka E, Ohkubo T, Hasegawa K, Miyagawa S,
et al. Risk factors contributing to early and late phase intrahepatic
recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy. J Hepatol
2003;38:200–207.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

939

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
[199] Miyake Y, Takaki A, Iwasaki Y, Yamamoto K. Meta-analysis: interferonalpha prevents the recurrence after curative treatment of hepatitis C virusrelated hepatocellular carcinoma. J Viral Hepat 2010;17:287–292.
[200] Shen YC, Hsu C, Chen LT, Cheng CC, Hu FC, Cheng AL. Adjuvant interferon
therapy after curative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): a metaregression approach. J Hepatol 2010;52:889–894.
[201] Singal AG, Waljee AK, Shiffman M, Bacon BR, Schoenfeld PS. Meta-analysis:
re-treatment of genotype I hepatitis C nonresponders and relapsers after
failing interferon and ribavirin combination therapy. Aliment Pharmacol
Ther 2010;32:969–983.
[202] Yamasaki S, Hasegawa H, Kinoshita H, Furukawa M, Imaoka S, Takasaki K,
et al. A prospective randomized trial of the preventive effect of preoperative transcatheter arterial embolization against recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Jpn J Cancer Res 1996;87:206–211.
[203] Lau WY, Leung TW, Ho SK, Chan M, Machin D, Lau J, et al. Adjuvant intraarterial iodine-131-labelled lipiodol for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective randomised trial. Lancet 1999;353:797–801.
[204] Boucher E, Corbinais S, Rolland Y, Bourguet P, Guyader D, Boudjema K, et al.
Adjuvant intra-arterial injection of iodine-131-labeled lipiodol after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2003;38:1237–1241.
[205] Takayama T, Sekine T, Makuuchi M, Yamasaki S, Kosuge T, Yamamoto J,
et al. Adoptive immunotherapy to lower postsurgical recurrence rates
of hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised trial. Lancet 2000;356:802–
807.
[206] Muto Y, Moriwaki H, Ninomiya M, Adachi S, Saito A, Takasaki KT, et al.
Prevention of second primary tumors by an acyclic retinoid, polyprenoic
acid, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatoma Prevention
Study Group. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1561–1567.
[207] Okita K, Matsui O, Kumada H, Tanaka K, Kaneko S, Moriwaki H, et al.
Peretinoin Study Group. Peretinoin reduces recurrence of hepatocellular
carcinoma: results of a phase II/III randomized placebo-controlled trial.
Book of Abstracts, ILCA 2010:11A.
[208] Yoshida H, Shiratori Y, Kudo M, Shiina S, Mizuta T, Kojiro M, et al. Effect of
vitamin K2 on the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology
2011;54:532–540.
[209] Samuel M, Chow PK, Chan Shih-Yen E, Machin D, Soo KC. Neoadjuvant and
adjuvant therapy for surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;21:CD001199.
[210] Iwatsuki S, Starzl TE, Sheahan DG, Yokoyama I, Demetris AJ, Todo S, et al.
Hepatic resection versus transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann
Surg 1991;214:221–228.
[211] Iwatsuki S, Esquivel CO, Gordon RD, Shaw Jr BW, Starzl TE, Shade RR, et al.
Liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure. Semin Liver Dis
1985;5:325–328.
[212] Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, Andreola S, Pulvirenti A, Bozzetti F, et al.
Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas
in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 1996;334:693–699.
[213] Bismuth H, Majno PE, Adam R. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular
carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 1999;19:311–322.
[214] Bismuth H, Chiche L, Adam R, Castaing D, Diamond T, Dennison A. Liver
resection versus transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis.
Ann Surg 1993;218:145–151.
[215] Jonas S, Bechstein WO, Steinmüller T, Herrmann M, Radke C, Berg T, et al.
Vascular invasion and histopathologic grading determine outcome after
liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Hepatology
2001;33:1080–1086.
[216] ELTR – European Liver Transplant Registry. <www.eltr.org/>; 2011
[accessed 03.11].
[217] OPTN – Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. <http://
www.ustransplant.org/annual_reports/current/>; 2011 [accessed 02.11].
[218] Freeman Jr RB, Wiesner RH, Harper A, McDiarmid SV, Lake J, Edwards E,
et al. UNOS/OPTN Liver Disease Severity Score, UNOS/OPTN Liver and
Intestine, and UNOS/OPTN Pediatric Transplantation Committees. The new
liver allocation system: moving toward evidence-based transplantation
policy. Liver Transpl 2002;8:851–858.
[219] Clavien PA, Lesurtel M, Bossuyt PM, Gores GJ, Langer B, Perrier A, et al.
Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma:
an international consensus conference report. Lancet Oncol
2012;13:e11–e22.
[220] Yao FY, Ferrell L, Bass NM, Watson JJ, Bacchetti P, Venook A, et al. Liver
transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: expansion of the tumor size
limits does not adversely impact survival. Hepatology 2001;33:1394–1403.
[221] Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, Kremers W, Therneau TM, Kosberg
CL, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver
disease. Hepatology 2001;33:464–470.

940

[222] Pomfret EA, Washburn K, Wald C, Nalesnik MA, Douglas D, Russo M, et al.
Report of a national conference on liver allocation in patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States. Liver Transpl
2010;16:262–278.
[223] Sala M, Fuster J, Llovet JM, Navasa M, Solé M, Varela M, et al. High
pathological risk of recurrence after surgical resection for hepatocellular
carcinoma: an indication for salvage liver transplantation. Liver Transpl
2004;10:1294–1300.
[224] Mazzaferro V, Battiston C, Perrone S, Pulvirenti A, Regalia E, Romito R, et al.
Radiofrequency ablation of small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic
patients awaiting liver transplantation: a prospective study. Ann Surg
2004;240:900–909.
[225] Lu DS, Yu NC, Raman SS, Lassman C, Tong MJ, Britten C, et al. Percutaneous
radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma as a bridge to liver
transplantation. Hepatology 2005;41:1130–1137.
[226] Majno PE, Adam R, Bismuth H, Castaing D, Ariche A, Krissat J, et al.
Influence of preoperative transarterial lipiodol chemoembolization on
resection and transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with
cirrhosis. Ann Surg 1997;226:688–701.
[227] Decaens T, Roudot-Thoraval F, Bresson-Hadni S, Meyer C, Gugenheim J,
Durand F, et al. Impact of pretransplantation transarterial chemoembolization on survival and recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl 2005;11:767–775.
[228] Porrett PM, Peterman H, Rosen M, Sonnad S, Soulen M, Markmann JF,
et al. Lack of benefit of pre-transplant locoregional hepatic therapy for
hepatocellular cancer in the current MELD era. Liver Transpl 2006;12:
665–673.
[229] Llovet JM, Mas X, Aponte JJ, Fuster J, Navasa M, Christensen E, et al. Cost
effectiveness of adjuvant therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma during the
waiting list for liver transplantation. Gut 2002;50:123–128.
[230] Vitale A, Volk ML, Pastorelli D, Lonardi S, Farinati F, Burra P, et al. Use of
sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation: a cost–benefit analysis while awaiting data on sorafenib safety.
Hepatology 2010;51:165–173.
[231] Truesdale AE, Caldwell SH, Shah NL, Argo CK, Al-Osaimi AM, Schmitt TM,
et al. Sorafenib therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver
transplant is associated with increased complications after transplant.
Transpl Int 2011;24:991–998.
[232] Yao FY, Xiao L, Bass NM, Kerlan R, Ascher NL, Roberts JP. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: validation of the UCSF-expanded
criteria
based
on
preoperative
imaging.
Am
J
Transplant
2007;7:2587–2596.
[233] Mazzaferro V, Llovet JM, Miceli R, Bhoori S, Schiavo M, Mariani L, et al.
Metroticket Investigator Study Group. Predicting survival after liver
transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the
Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol
2009;10:35–43.
[234] Raj A, McCall J, Gane E. Validation of the ‘‘Metroticket’’ predictor in a cohort
of patients transplanted for predominantly HBV-related hepatocellular
carcinoma. J Hepatol 2011;55:1063–1068.
[235] Germani G, Gurusamy K, Garcovich M, Toso C, Fede G, Hemming A, et al.
Which matters most: number of tumors, size of the largest tumor, or total
tumor volume? Liver Transpl 2011;17:S58–S66.
[236] Schwartz M, Dvorchik I, Roayaie S, Fiel MI, Finkelstein S, Marsh JW, et al.
Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: extension of indications based on molecular markers. J Hepatol 2008;49:581–588.
[237] Yao FY, Kerlan Jr RK, Hirose R, Davern 3rd TJ, Bass NM, Feng S, et al.
Excellent outcome following down-staging of hepatocellular carcinoma
prior to liver transplantation: an intention-to-treat analysis. Hepatology
2008;48:819–827.
[238] Ravaioli M, Grazi GL, Piscaglia F, Trevisani F, Cescon M, Ercolani G, et al.
Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: results of down-staging
in patients initially outside the Milan selection criteria. Am J Transplant
2008;8:2547–2557.
[239] Neuberger J. Liver allocation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Liver Transpl 2010;16:249–251.
[240] Bhoori S, Sposito C, Germini A, Coppa J, Mazzaferro V. The challenges of
liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis. Transpl Int
2010;23:712–722.
[241] Trotter JF, Wachs M, Everson GT, Kam I. Adult-to-adult transplantation of
the right hepatic lobe from a living donor. N Engl J Med
2002;346:1074–1082.
[242] Clavien PA, Petrowsky H, DeOliveira ML, Graf R. Strategies for safer liver
surgery and partial liver transplantation. N Engl J Med
2007;356:1545–1559.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
[243] Bruix J, Llovet JM. Prognostic prediction and treatment strategy in
hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2002;35:519–524.
[244] Siegler M, Simmerling MC, Siegler JH, Cronin 2nd DC. Recipient deaths
during donor surgery: a new ethical problem in living donor liver
transplantation (LDLT). Liver Transpl 2006;12:358–360.
[245] Ghobrial RM, Freise CE, Trotter JF, Tong L, Ojo AO, Fair JH, et al. A2ALL Study
Group. Donor morbidity after living donation for liver transplantation.
Gastroenterology 2008;135:468–476.
[246] Browns Jr RS. Live donors in liver transplantation. Gastroenterology
2008;134:1802–1813.
[247] Cronin 2nd DC, Millis JM. Living donor liver transplantation: the ethics and
the practice. Hepatology 2008;47:11–13.
[248] Sarasin FP, Majno PE, Llovet JM, Bruix J, Mentha G, Hadengue A. Living
donor liver transplantation for early hepatocellular carcinoma: a lifeexpectancy
and
cost–effectiveness
perspective.
Hepatology
2001;33:1073–1079.
[249] Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, Chan SC, Ng IO, Wong J. Living donor versus deceased
donor liver transplantation for early irresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Br J Surg 2007;94:78–86.
[250] Fisher RA, Kulik LM, Freise CE, Lok AS, Shearon TH, Brown Jr RS, et al. A2ALL
Study Group. Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence and death following
living and deceased donor liver transplantation. Am J Transplant
2007;7:1601–1608.
[251] Kulik L, Abecassis M. Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular
carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004;127:S277–S282.
[252] Majno P, Mazzaferro V. Living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma exceeding conventional criteria: questions, answers and
demands for a common language. Liver Transpl 2006;12:896–898.
[253] Lencioni R. Loco-regional treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2010;52:762–773.
[254] Livraghi T, Bolondi L, Lazzaroni S, Marin G, Morabito A, Rapaccini GL, et al.
Percutaneous ethanol injection in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. A study on 207 patients. Cancer 1992;15:925–929.
[255] Kuang M, Lu MD, Xie XY, Xu HX, Xu ZF, Liu GJ, et al. Percutaneous ethanol
ablation of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma by using a multi-pronged
needle with single treatment session and high-dose ethanol injection.
Radiology 2009;253:552–561.
[256] Lencioni R, Bartolozzi C, Caramella D, Paolicchi A, Carrai M, Maltinti G, et al.
Treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma with percutaneous ethanol
injection. Analysis of prognostic factors in 105 Western patients. Cancer
1995;76:1737–1746.
[257] Livraghi T, Giorgio A, Marin G, Salmi A, De Sio I, Bolondi L, et al.
Hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis in 746 patients: long-term results
of percutaneous ethanol injection. Radiology 1995;197:101–108.
[258] Khan KN, Yatsuhashi H, Yamasaki K, Yamasaki M, Inoue O, Koga M, et al.
Prospective analysis of risk factors for early intrahepatic recurrence of
hepatocellular carcinoma following ethanol injection. J Hepatol
2000;32:269–278.
[259] Huo TI, Huang YH, Wu JC, Lee PC, Chang FY, Lee SD, et al. Comparison of
percutaneous acetic acid injection and percutaneous ethanol injection for
hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: a prospective study. Scand J
Gastroenterol 2003;38:770–778.
[260] Lin SM, Lin CJ, Lin CC, Hsu CW, Chen YC. Randomised controlled trial
comparing percutaneous radiofrequency thermal ablation, percutaneous
ethanol injection, and percutaneous acetic acid injection to treat hepatocellular carcinoma of 3 cm or less. Gut 2005;54:1151–1156.
[261] Shiina S, Teratani T, Obi S, Sato S, Tateishi R, Fujishima T, et al. A
randomized controlled trial of radiofrequency ablation versus ethanol
injection for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology
2005;129:122–130.
[262] Lin SM, Lin CJ, Lin CC, Hsu CW, Chen YC. Radiofrequency ablation improves
prognosis compared with ethanol injection for hepatocellular carcinoma <
or =4 cm. Gastroenterology 2004;127:1714–1723.
[263] Lencioni R, Allgaier HP, Cioni D, Olschewski M, Deibert P, Crocetti L, et al.
Small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: randomized comparison of
radio-frequency thermal ablation versus percutaneous ethanol injection.
Radiology 2003;228:235–240.
[264] Brunello F, Veltri A, Carucci P, Pagano E, Ciccone G, Moretto P, et al.
Radiofrequency ablation versus ethanol injection for early hepatocellular
carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol
2008;43:727–735.
[265] Cho YK, Kim JK, Kim MY, Rhim H, Han JK. Systematic review of randomized
trials for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with percutaneous ablation
therapies. Hepatology 2009;49:453–459.

[266] Germani G, Pleguezuelo M, Gurusamy K, Meyer T, Isgro G, Burroughs AK.
Clinical outcomes of radiofrequency ablation, percutaneous alcohol and
acetic acid injection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. J
Hepatol 2010;52:380–388.
[267] Bouza C, López-Cuadrado T, Alcázar R, Saz-Parkinson Z, Amate JM. Metaanalysis of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation versus ethanol injection
in hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Gastroenterol 2009;9:31.
[268] Imamura J, Tateishi R, Shiina S, Goto E, Sato T, Ohki T, et al. Neoplastic
seeding after radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J
Gastroenterol 2008;103:3057–3062.
[269] Lencioni R, Cioni D, Crocetti L, Franchini C, Pina CD, Lera J, et al. Early-stage
hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: long-term results of percutaneous
image-guided radiofrequency ablation. Radiology 2005;234:961–996.
[270] Omata M, Tateishi R, Yoshida H, Shiina S. Treatment of hepatocellular
carcinoma by percutaneous tumor ablation methods: ethanol injection
therapy
and
radiofrequency
ablation.
Gastroenterology
2004;127:S159–S166.
[271] Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Percutaneous ethanol injection in hepatocellular
carcinoma: alive or dead. J Hepatol 2005;43:377–380.
[272] Chen MS, Li JQ, Zheng Y, Guo RP, Liang HH, Zhang YQ, et al. A prospective
randomized trial comparing percutaneous local ablative therapy and
partial hepatectomy for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg
2006;243:321–328.
[273] Huang J, Yan L, Cheng Z, Wu H, Du L, Wang J, et al. A randomized trial
comparing radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection for HCC conforming to the Milan criteria. Ann Surg 2010;252:903–912.
[274] Lu DS, Yu NC, Raman SS, Limanond P, Lassman C, Murray K, et al.
Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: treatment success as
defined by histologic examination of the explanted liver. Radiology
2005;234:954–960.
[275] Komorizono Y, Oketani M, Sako K, Yamasaki N, Shibatou T, Maeda M, et al.
Risk factors for local recurrence of small hepatocellular carcinoma tumors
after a single session, single application of percutaneous radiofrequency
ablation. Cancer 2003;97:1253–1262.
[276] Llovet JM, Vilana R, Brú C, Bianchi L, Salmeron JM, Boix L, et al. Increased
risk of tumor seeding after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for single
hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2001;33:1124–1129.
[277] Teratani T, Yoshida H, Shiina S, Teratani T, Obi S, Yamashiki N, et al.
Radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma in so-called highrisk locations. Hepatology 2006;43:1101–1108.
[278] Yu NC, Lu DS, Raman SS, Dupuy DE, Simon CJ, Lassman C, et al.
Hepatocellular carcinoma: microwave ablation with multiple straight and
loop antenna clusters – pilot comparison with pathologic findings.
Radiology 2006;239:269–275.
[279] Shibata T, Iimuro Y, Yamamoto Y, Maetani Y, Ametani F, Itoh K, et al. Small
hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of radio-frequency ablation and
percutaneous
microwave
coagulation
therapy.
Radiology
2002;223:331–337.
[280] Pacella CM, Francica G, Di Lascio FM, Arienti V, Antico E, Caspani B, et al.
Long-term outcome of cirrhotic patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma treated with ultrasound-guided percutaneous laser ablation: a
retrospective analysis. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2615–2621.
[281] Orlacchio A, Bazzocchi G, Pastorelli D, Bolacchi F, Angelico M, Almerighi C,
et al. Percutaneous cryoablation of small hepatocellular carcinoma with US
guidance and CT monitoring: initial experience. Cardiovasc Intervent
Radiol 2008;31:587–594.
[282] Guo Y, Zhang Y, Klein R, Nijm GM, Sahakian AV, Omary RA, et al.
Irreversible electroporation therapy in the liver: longitudinal efficacy
studies in a rat model of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res
2010;70:1555–1563.
[283] Ng KK, Poon RT, Chan SC, Chok KS, Cheung TT, Tung H, et al. High-intensity
focused ultrasound for hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center experience. Ann Surg 2011;253:981–987.
[284] Wang S, Keltner L, Winship J, Lee W. A phase 1/2 safety and efficacy
study of intratumoral light-activated drug therapy using talaporfin
sodium in patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin
Oncol 2009;27A.
[285] Bruix J, Sala M, Llovet JM. Chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004;127:S179–S188.
[286] Brown DB, Gould JE, Gervais DA, Goldberg SN, Murthy R, Millward SF, et al.
Society of Interventional Radiology Technology Assessment Committee and
the International Working Group on Image-Guided Tumor Ablation. Imageguided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting
criteria. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:S377–S390.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

941

 Clinical Practice Guidelines
[287] Lin DY, Liaw YF, Lee TY, Lai CM. Hepatic arterial embolization in patients
with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma – a randomized controlled
trial. Gastroenterology 1988;94:453–456.
[288] Pelletier G, Roche A, Ink O, Anciaux ML, Derhy S, Rougier P, et al. A
randomized trial of hepatic arterial chemoembolization in patients with
unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 1990;11:181–184.
[289] Group d’Etude et de Traitment du Carcinome Hépatocellulaire. A
comparison of lipiodol chemoembolization and conservative treatment
for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1995;332:
1256–1261.
[290] Bruix J, Llovet JM, Castells A, Montana X, Bru C, Ayuso MC, et al.
Transarterial embolization versus symptomatic treatment in patients with
advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a randomized, controlled
trial in a single institution. Hepatology 1998;27:1578–1583.
[291] Pelletier G, Ducreux M, Gay F, Luboinski M, Hagege H, Dao T, et al.
Treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with lipiodol chemoembolization: a multicenter randomized trial. J Hepatol 1998;29:
129–134.
[292] Lo CM, Ngan H, Tso WK, Liu CL, Lam CM, Poon RT, et al. Randomized
controlled trial of transarterial lipiodol chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2002;35:1164–1171.
[293] Llovet JM, Real MI, Montana X, Planas R, Coll S, Aponte J, et al. Arterial
embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in
patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;359:1734–1739.
[294] Oliveri RS, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Transarterial (chemo)embolisation for
unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2011;3:CD004787. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004787.pub.
[295] Lammer J, Malagari K, Vogl T, Pilleul F, Denys A, Watkinson A, et al.
Prospective randomised study of doxorubicin-eluting-bead embolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: results of
the PRECISION V study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2010;33:
41–52.
[296] Raoul JL, Guyader D, Bretagne JF, Heautot JF, Duvauferrier R, Bourguet P,
et al. Prospective randomized trial of chemoembolization versus intraarterial injection of 131I-labeled-iodized oil in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 1997;26:1156–1161.
[297] Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, Riaz A, Ryu RK, Ibrahim S, et al.
Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using Yttrium-90 microspheres: a comprehensive report of long-term outcomes. Gastroenterology
2010;138:52–64.
[298] Kulik LM, Carr BI, Mulcahy MF, Lewandowski RJ, Atassi B, Ryu RK, et al.
Safety and efficacy of 90Y radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma
with and without portal vein thrombosis. Hepatology 2008;47:71–81.
[299] Hilgard P, Hamami M, Fouly AE, Scherag A, Müller S, Ertle J, et al.
Radioembolization with yttrium-90 glass microspheres in hepatocellular
carcinoma: European experience on safety and long-term survival. Hepatology 2010;52:1741–1749.
[300] Sangro B, Bilbao JI, Iñarrairaegui M, Rodriguez M, Garrastachu P, MartinezCuesta A. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma by radioembolization
using 90Y microspheres. Dig Dis 2009;27:164–169.
[301] Cheng JC, Wu JK, Huang CM, Huang DY, Cheng SH, Lin YM, et al. Radiationinduced liver disease after radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma:
clinical manifestation and dosimetric description. Radiother Oncol
2002;63:41–45.
[302] Ben-Josef E, Normolle D, Ensminger WD, Walker S, Tatro D, Ten Haken RK,
et al. Phase II trial of high-dose conformal radiation therapy with
concurrent hepatic artery floxuridine for unresectable intrahepatic malignancies. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8739–8747.
[303] Sridhara R, Johnson JR, Justice R, Keegan P, Chakravarty A, Pazdur R. Review
of oncology and hematology drug product approvals at the US Food and
Drug Administration between July 2005 and December 2007. J Natl Cancer
Inst 2010;102:230–243.
[304] Farazi PA, DePinho RA. Hepatocellular carcinoma pathogenesis: from genes
to environment. Nat Rev Cancer 2006;6:674–687.
[305] Villanueva A, Newell P, Chiang DY, Friedman SL, Llovet JM. Genomics and
signaling pathways in hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis
2007;27:55–76.
[306] Roberts LR, Gores GJ. Hepatocellular carcinoma: molecular pathways and
new therapeutic targets. Semin Liver Dis 2005;25:212–225.
[307] Semela D, Dufour JF. Angiogenesis and hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol
2004;41:864–880.
[308] Ito Y, Takeda T, Sakon M, Tsujimoto M, Higashiyama S, Noda K, et al.
Expression and clinical significance of erb-B receptor family in hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2001;84:1377–1383.

942

[309] Calvisi DF, Ladu S, Gorden A, Farina M, Conner EA, Lee JS, et al. Ubiquitous
activation of Ras and Jak/Stat pathways in human HCC. Gastroenterology
2006;130:1117–1128.
[310] Robinson DR, Wu YM, Lin SF. The protein tyrosine kinase family of the
human genome. Oncogene 2000;19:5548–5557.
[311] Wilhelm SM, Adnane L, Newell P, Villanueva A, Llovet JM, Lynch M.
Preclinical overview of sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor that targets both
Raf and VEGF and PDGF receptor tyrosine kinase signaling. Mol Cancer Ther
2008;7:3129–3140.
[312] Villanueva A, Chiang DY, Newell P, Peix J, Thung S, Alsinet C, et al. Pivotal
role of mTOR signaling in hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology
2008;135:1972–1983.
[313] Sahin F, Kannangai R, Adegbola O, Wang J, Su G, Torbenson M. MTOR and
P70 S6 kinase expression in primary liver neoplasms. Clin Cancer Res
2004;10:8421–8425.
[314] Takami T, Kaposi-Novak P, Uchida K, Gomez-Quiroz LE, Conner EA, Factor
VM, et al. Loss of hepatocyte growth factor/c-Met signaling pathway
accelerates early stages of N-nitrosodiethylamine induced hepatocarcinogenesis. Cancer Res 2007;67:9844–9851.
[315] Breuhahn K, Longerich T, Schirmacher P. Dysregulation of growth factor
signaling in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncogene 2006;25:3787–
3800.
[316] Tovar V, Alsinet C, Villanueva A, Hoshida Y, Chiang DY, Sole M, et al. IGF
activation in a molecular subclass of hepatocellular carcinoma and preclinical efficacy of IGF-1R blockage. J Hepatol 2010;52:550–559.
[317] De La Coste A, Romagnolo B, Billuart P, Renard CA, Buendia MA, Soubrane
O, et al. Somatic mutations of the beta-catenin gene are frequent in mouse
and human hepatocellular carcinomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
1998;95:8847–8851.
[318] Zucman-Rossi J, Benhamouche S, Godard C, Boyault S, Grimber G, Balabaud
C, et al. Differential effects of inactivated Axin1 and activated beta-catenin
mutations
in
human
hepatocellular
carcinomas.
Oncogene
2007;26:774–780.
[319] Colnot S, Decaens T, Niwa-Kawakita M, Godard C, Hamard G, Kahn A, et al.
Liver-targeted disruption of Apc in mice activates beta-catenin signaling
and leads to hepatocellular carcinomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2004;101:17216–17221.
[320] Toffanin S, Hoshida Y, Lachenmayer A, Villanueva A, Cabellos L, Minguez B,
et al. MicroRNA-based classification of hepatocellular carcinoma and
oncogenic role of miR-517a. Gastroenterology 2011;140:1618–1628.
[321] Villanueva A, Llovet JM. Targeted therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Gastroenterology 2011;140:1410–1426.
[322] Abou-Alfa GK, Schwartz L, Ricci S, Amadori D, Santoro A, Figer A, et al.
Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular
carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4293–4300.
[323] Cheng AL, Kang YK, Chen Z, Tsao CJ, Qin S, Kim JS, et al. Efficacy and safety
of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:25–34.
[324] Kim JE, Ryoo BY, Ryu MH, Chang HM, Suh DJ, Lee HC, et al. Sorafenib for
hepatocellular carcinoma according to Child–Pugh class of liver function.
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2011;68:1285–1290.
[325] Hollebecque A, Cattan S, Romano O, Sergent G, Mourad A, Louvet A, et al.
Safety and efficacy of sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma: the impact of
the Child–Pugh score. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;34:1193–1201.
[326] Dufour JF, Hoppe H, Heim MH, Helbling B, Maurhofer O, Szucs-Farkas Z,
et al. Continuous administration of sorafenib in combination with
transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a phase I study. Oncologist 2010;15:1198–1220.
[327] Abou-Alfa GK, Johnson P, Knox JJ, Capanu M, Davidenko I, Lacava J, et al.
Doxorubicin plus sorafenib vs doxorubicin alone in patients with advanced
hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized trial. JAMA 2010;304:2154–2160.
[328] Decaens T, Luciani A, Itti E, Hulin A, Hurtova M, Laurent A, et al. Pilot study
of sirolimus in cirrhotic patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J
Hepatol 2008;48:S13.
[329] Philip PA, Mahoney MR, Allmer C, Thomas J, Pitot HC, Kim G, et al. Phase II
study of erlotinib (OSI-774) in patients with advanced hepatocellular
cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:6657–6663.
[330] Bekaii-Saab T, Markowitz J, Prescott N, Sadee W, Heerema N, Wei L, et al. A
multi-institutional phase II study of the efficacy and tolerability of
lapatinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinomas. Clin Cancer
Res 2009;15:5895–5901.
[331] Faivre S, Raymond E, Boucher E, Douillard J, Lim HY, Kim JS, et al. Safety and
efficacy of sunitinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma:
an open-label, multicentre, phase II study. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:794–800.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

 JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
[332] Zhu AX, Sahani DV, Duda DG, di Tomaso E, Ancukiewicz M, Catalano OA,
et al. Efficacy, safety, and potential biomarkers of sunitinib monotherapy in
advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol
2009;27:3027–3035.
[333] Koeberle D, Montemurro M, Samaras P, Majno P, Simcock M, Limacher A,
et al. Continuous sunitinib treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) and
Swiss Association for the Study of the Liver (SASL) multicenter phase II trial
(SAKK 77/06). Oncologist 2010;15:285–292.
[334] Cheng A, Kang Y, Lin D, Park J, Kudo M, Qin S, et al. Phase III trial of sunitinib
(Su) versus sorafenib (So) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). J
Clin Oncol 2011;29. Abstract 4000.
[335] Park JW, Finn RS, Kim JS, Karwal M, Li RK, Ismail F, et al. Phase II, open-label
study of brivanib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:1973–1983.
[336] Siegel AB, Cohen EI, Ocean A, Lehrer D, Goldenberg A, Knox JJ, et al. Phase II
trial evaluating the clinical and biologic effects of bevacizumab in
unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2992–2998.
[337] Thomas MB, Morris JS, Chadha R, Iwasaki M, Kaur H, Lin E, et al. Phase II
trial of the combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib in patients who have
advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:843–850.
[338] Zhu AX, Blaszkowsky LS, Ryan DP, Clark JW, Muzikansky A, Horgan K, et al.
Phase II study of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in combination with
bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin
Oncol 2006;24:1898–1903.
[339] Spratlin JL, Cohen RB, Eadens M, Gore L, Camidge DR, Diab S, et al. Phase I
pharmacologic and biologic study of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B), a fully
human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular
endothelial growth factor receptor-2. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:780–787.
[340] Taieb J, Barbare JC, Rougier P. Medical treatments for hepatocellular
carcinoma (HCC): what’s next? Ann Oncol 2006;10:308–314.
[341] Gish RG, Porta C, Lazar L, Ruff P, Feld R, Croitoru A, et al. Phase III
randomized controlled trial comparing the survival of patients with
unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with nolatrexed or doxorubicin. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3069–3075.
[342] Yeo W, Mok TS, Zee B, Leung TW, Lai PB, Lau WY, et al. A randomized phase
III study of doxorubicin versus cisplatin/interferon alpha-2b/doxorubicin/
fluorouracil (PIAF) combination chemotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1532–1538.
[343] Qin S, Bai Y, Ye S, Fan J, Lim H, Cho JY, et al. Phase III study of oxaliplatin
plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFOX4) versus doxorubicin as palliative
systemic chemotherapy in advanced HCC in Asian patients. J Clin Oncol
2010;28:4008A.
[344] Edeline J, Raoul JL, Vauleon E, Guillygomac’h A, Boudjema K, Boucher E.
Systemic chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma in non-cirrhotic
liver: a retrospective study. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:713–716.
[345] Barbare JC, Bouché O, Bonnetain F, Raoul JL, Rougier P, Abergel A, et al.
Randomized controlled trial of tamoxifen in advanced hepatocellular
carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4338–4346.
[346] Chow PK, Tai BC, Tan CK, Machin D, Win KM, Johnson PJ, et al. Asian-Pacific
Hepatocellular Carcinoma Trials Group. High-dose tamoxifen in the

[347]

[348]
[349]
[350]

[351]

[352]

[353]
[354]

[355]

[356]

[357]

[358]

[359]

[360]

treatment of inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Hepatology 2002;36:1221–1226.
Grimaldi C, Bleiberg H, Gay F, Messner M, Rougier P, Kok TC. Evaluation of
antiandrogen therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: results of
a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer multicentric double-blind trial. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:411–417.
Greten TF, Manns MP, Korangy F. Immunotherapy of hepatocellular
carcinoma. J Hepatol 2006;45:868–878.
Greten TF, Manns MP, Korangy F. Immunotherapy of HCC. Rev Recent Clin
Trials 2008;3:31–39.
Beaugrand M, Sala M, Degos F, Sherman M, Bolondi L, Evans T, et al.
Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma by seocalcitol: an international randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study in 747
patients. J Hepatol 2003;42:17A.
Posey J, Johnson P, Mok T, Hirmand M, Dahlberg S, Kwei L, et al. Results of a
phase 2/3 open-label, randomized trial of T138067 versus doxorubicin in
chemotherapy-naive, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol
2005;23:316.
Cheng BQ, Jia CQ, Liu CT, Fan W, Wang QL, Zhang ZL, et al. Chemoembolization combined with radiofrequency ablation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma larger than 3 cm. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA
2008;299:1669–1677.
Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer
treatment. Cancer 1981;47:207–214.
Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L,
et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors.
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. J Natl Cancer
Inst 2000;92:205–216.
Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, Schwartz LH, Rubinstein L, Lacombe D, et al.
RECIST Working Party. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:248–260.
Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M, Rimola J, Hessheimer AJ, de Lope CR, et al.
Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular
carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable?
Cancer 2009;115:616–623.
Gillmore R, Stuart S, Kirkwood A, Hameeduddin A, Woodward N, Burroughs
AK, et al. EASL and mRECIST responses are independent prognostic factors
for survival in hepatocellular cancer patients treated with transarterial
embolization. J Hepatol 2011;55:1309–1316.
Lambert B, Sturm E, Mertens J, Oltenfreiter R, Smeets P, Troisi R, et al. Intraarterial treatment with (90)Y microspheres for hepatocellular carcinoma: 4
years experience at the Ghent University Hospital. Eur J Nucl Med Mol
Imaging 2011;38:2117–2124.
Iavarone M, Cabibbo G, Piscaglia F, Zavaglia C, Grieco A, Villa E, et al. Fieldpractice study of sorafenib therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a
prospective multicenter study in Italy. Hepatology 2011;54:2055–2063.
Edeline J, Boucher E, Rolland Y, Vauléon E, Pracht M, Perrin C, et al.
Comparison of tumor response by response evaluation criteria in solid
tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST in patients treated with sorafenib for
hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 2011. doi:10.1002/cncr.26255.

Journal of Hepatology 2012 vol. 56 j 908–943

943