Hepatocellular Carcinoma (Surgical) — Milan Arithmetic, Resection Selection, Transplant Downstaging and Locoregional Trials: BCLC Allocation, LI-RADS Diagnosis and PVTT Doctrine

Definition and framing — a curative-intent cancer in a cirrhotic liver

Hepatocellular carcinoma ranks as the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality, yet only about 30% of patients are diagnosed with early-stage disease — the group in whom curative therapies (resection, transplantation, ablation) push median survival beyond 60 months.^[7][83] The examined doctrine is hierarchical, not menu-based: the 40-trial locoregional meta-analysis ranks surgery-based management above embolization-based options, with surgery-plus-adjuvant beating surgery alone (PFS HR 0.62, OS HR 0.61) and surgery beating RFA (PFS HR 0.74, OS HR 0.71).^[30] Stage everything through BCLC — five categories (very early, early, intermediate, advanced, terminal) built from tumor status, liver function (Child-Pugh, portal hypertension) and performance status — remembering that portal vein tumor thrombus places the patient in advanced stage.^[14][56]

Epidemiology and risk — cirrhosis etiology sets the 5-year price

Quote the cirrhosis arithmetic by cause: 5-year cumulative HCC incidence runs 30% (Japan) versus 17% (West) for HCV cirrhosis, 21% for hemochromatosis, 15% versus 10% for HBV cirrhosis (high-endemic versus West), 8% for alcoholic cirrhosis and 4% for advanced biliary cirrhosis — and HCC is currently the major cause of liver-related death in compensated cirrhosis.^[2] Alcohol-cirrhosis pooled incidence is 1%, 3% and 9% at 1, 5 and 10 years, with annual incidence 0.9-5.6% and alcohol behind roughly one-fifth of global HCC deaths.^[6][1] The viral-load gradient is the viva's favourite dose-response: HCC incidence climbs from 108 per 100,000 person-years below 300 HBV DNA copies/mL to 1,152 at or above 1 million copies/mL (cumulative 1.3% versus 14.9%), with ≥10,000 copies/mL a strong predictor independent of HBeAg, ALT and cirrhosis.^[3] The US prospective HEDS cohort grounds modern Western practice: 2.4 per 100 person-years with 81% caught at BCLC 0/A, driven by male sex (OR 2.47), family history of liver cancer (OR 2.69) and obesity (OR 1.7).^[4] Note the statin association (10-year HCC 3.8% versus 8.0%, aSHR 0.67) as hypothesis only — never a surgical indication.^[5]

Surveillance — ultrasound plus AFP every 6 months, with honest sensitivity limits

The surveillance meta-analysis sets expectations low and precise: ultrasound detects any-stage HCC at 84% sensitivity but early-stage disease at only 47%; adding AFP lifts early detection to 63% versus 45% (P = .002) — ultrasound alone has low early-stage sensitivity.^[8] The confirmatory pair: pooled surveillance sensitivity 94% any-stage but 63% for early HCC with 6-monthly schedules beating annual ones, and single-centre arithmetic of AFP 52.9%/93.3% versus ultrasound 92.0%/74.2% versus combined 99.2%/68.3% at the 20 ng/mL cutoff.^[12][9] The exam prescription is therefore ultrasound plus AFP every 6 months in cirrhosis and chronic-HBV subgroups — the combination with ~65% sensitivity, ~90% specificity shown to improve mortality — while risk-stratified surveillance awaits prospective validation before routine use.^[10][11]

BCLC allocation — the algorithm, its real-world deviation, and resecting beyond stage A

Know the adherence gap cold: in the Bern cohort 116 of 223 patients were treated off-algorithm, with only 29% of stage B and 33% of stage C treated per-algorithm, and performance status disregarded in 44% — curative options track the algorithm while palliative ones do not.^[13] The 2024-2026 examiner position follows: strict stage-linked allocation risks undertreatment beyond early disease, so expert centres individualise through the multidisciplinary tumor board, and the 2026 BCLC update keeps stage-linked first-line options while adding the CUSE complexity framework.^[15][66] The resectability extension that examiners reward: in 429 resected patients, BCLC-B disease matched BCLC-0/A on postoperative mortality (4.6% versus 2.7%, ns) and relapse-free survival, with 5-year survival 44% versus 52% — acceptable in selected multinodular disease, best with fewer lesions.^[67] Background guideline context sits in the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines (2025 update and 2018 edition) alongside the ASCO systemic guideline quoted below.^[85][86]

Imaging diagnosis — LI-RADS major features ranked

Rank the major features by their independent associations: nonperipheral washout (OR 13.2) and nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement (OR 10.3) beat enhancing capsule (OR 2.4), while threshold growth carries no association.^[16] On MRI the trade-off is sensitivity-first APHE (85% sensitive, 57% specific) against specificity-first capsule (52% sensitive, 90% specific), with washout between at 77%/74% — and on CT the LR-5 category rules in disease at 53.7% sensitivity with 97.3% specificity.^[17][18] The noninvasive-diagnosis fence is absolute: only in high-risk patients, combining major features (non-rim APHE, non-peripheral washout, capsule, growth, size) on contrast CT/MRI or CEUS.^[19]

Resection — who gets cut, portal hypertension, and Child-Pugh B

State the selection doctrine verbatim-ready: small HCC with Child's A cirrhosis takes resection first-line with salvage transplantation reserved for intrahepatic recurrence; operative mortality runs ~5% or less in major centres with ~50% 5-year survival.^[22] Resection is one of the main curative options for early HCC in cirrhosis and the treatment of choice in non-cirrhotics — while within-Milan disease with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis or portal hypertension belongs to transplantation, and small unresectable lesions to ablation.^[23][70] Two expansions carry numbers: with prophylactic portal-hypertension management, 5-year survival reached 53.1% (versus 54.9% without PPM, 64.2% without portal hypertension) at 26.0% morbidity and 0.8% mortality — acceptable, supporting indication expansion.^[21] In Child-Pugh B disease, the 14-centre nomogram cohort sets the fence: 90-day mortality 4.3% overall but 10.3% versus 3.3% for major versus minor hepatectomy, 5-year survival 47% with 56.9% recurring — resect only selected CP-B disease with minimal surgical stress.^[72] The confirmatory cohort agrees (31.6% complications, 3/5-year DFS 30.8%/25.3% and OS 68.4%/48.9%), marking ALBI grade III and AFP ≥200 ng/mL as unfavorable.^[71]

Future liver remnant — volumetry plus PVE thresholds

Gate every major hepatectomy on the remnant: FLR above 40% is the minimum for chronic hepatitis or cirrhosis, above 50% for marginal reserve (ICG-R15 10-20%), with PVE indicated in Child-Pugh A disease with ICG-R15 below 20%.^[76] Two modifiers decide whether PVE works: intrahepatic tumor burden inversely correlates with hypertrophy (Spearman ρ = −0.53), and cirrhotics hypertrophy less than non-cirrhotics.^[78] The oncological reassurance: 5-year disease-free survival 21-78% and overall survival 44-72% after PVE versus 17-49% and 12-53% without — PVE does not surrender long-term outcome despite the smaller starting remnant.^[77]

Transplantation — Milan arithmetic, expanded criteria, and downstaging proof

Recite Milan with its result: a single tumor 5 cm or less, or up to three nodules each 3 cm or less — 4-year actuarial survival 75% with 83% recurrence-free survival and 8% recurrence in the 1996 landmark.^[26] The expansion ladder preserves outcome while widening access: Valencia +12.4%, UCSF +16.3%, Navarra +19.6% and Hangzhou +51.5% beyond Milan, with AFP-inclusive models outperforming Milan at identifying low-recurrence candidates.^[28][27] The downstaging proof is randomised: XXL gave 5-year tumor event-free survival 76.8% versus 18.3% (HR 0.20) and overall survival 77.5% versus 31.2% (HR 0.32) for transplant after sustained downstaging versus non-transplant therapy.^[73] The decade-scale confirmation: 10-year post-transplant survival/recurrence 52.1%/20.6% downstaged versus 61.5%/13.3% always-within versus 43.3%/41.1% never-downstaged — with the Japanese 5-5-500 living-donor rule validating at 81%/77% versus 58%/48%.^[75][29]

Bridging, biomarkers, and post-transplant recurrence

Bridging locoregional therapy is safe — no survival penalty against transplant alone, with 24% successfully downstaged — but count the TACEs: three or more procedures halves the transplant rate (21.6% versus 48.6%), and beyond-Milan disease after the third TACE carries a 3.7% transplant rate, so switch strategy.^[80][79] The biomarker gate refines selection beyond size: AFP-L3 and DCP outperform AFP (C-statistics 0.81/0.86 versus 0.74), and dual positivity (AFP-L3 ≥15% plus DCP ≥7.5) captured 61.1% of recurrences with 3-year recurrence-free survival 43.7% versus 97.0% — defer transplant for more locoregional therapy when dual-positive.^[74] After recurrence, honesty matters: median post-recurrence survival crept 9→13→15→17 months across eras but era lost significance on adjustment — only recurrence within 24 months (HR 1.4) and poor differentiation (HR 1.5) drive it.^[25] And when immunotherapy precedes transplant, living donation is advantageous because checkpoint inhibitors can be withheld for a predefined washout.^[84]

Ablation — RFA versus MWA, resection versus ablation

For very-early/early disease the thermal modalities tie: complete ablation 96.7% versus 96.9% (ns) with microwave faster (26.9 versus 14.1 minutes; 12 versus 24 minutes in the double-blind McRFA trial) — equally safe and effective.^[31][32] Against resection the evidence splits instructively: the randomised trial of laparoscopic resection versus RFA for small HCC found no survival difference (HR 1.26 for OS, 1.34 for RFS, both ns; 5-year survival 74.7% versus 67.9%) — ablation is defensible where resection is hazardous.^[59] The propensity-matched counterweight favours laparoscopy for 3-year survival (RR 1.14) and disease-free survival (RR 1.31/1.66) with local recurrence RR 0.29 — at the price of more complications and longer stay.^[64]

Intermediate-stage locoregional therapy — TACE combinations, TARE, HAIC

TACE remains the backbone but no longer travels alone: TACTICS (TACE-plus-sorafenib PFS 25.2 versus 13.5 months), LAUNCH (lenvatinib-TACE overall survival 17.8 versus 11.5 months, HR 0.45, response 54.1% versus 25.0%), EMERALD-1 (durvalumab-bevacizumab-TACE PFS 15.0 versus 8.2 months, HR 0.77), LEAP-012 (lenvatinib-pembrolizumab-TACE PFS 14.6 versus 10.0 months, HR 0.66), and sorafenib-TACE for recurrent microvascular-invasion-positive disease (survival 22.2 versus 15.1 months, HR 0.55).^{[39][33][34][35][37]} The non-TACE alternatives carry randomised numbers: TRACE (TARE versus DEB-TACE: time-to-progression 17.1 versus 9.5 months, HR 0.36; survival 30.2 versus 15.6 months, HR 0.48), FOLFOX-HAIC versus TACE in large HCC (23.1 versus 16.1 months, HR 0.58), and LEGACY for solitary disease ≤8 cm (response 88.3%, 3-year survival 86.6%).^[41][38][68] Fence the enthusiasm with the two negative controls: the TACE-versus-TARE meta-analysis finds equal survival with longer progression-free interval for TARE (+4.8 months), and SARAH found resin-microsphere SIRT equal to sorafenib (8.0 versus 9.9 months, ns).^[42][69]

Portal vein tumor thrombus — natural history and surgical selection

Untreated PVTT sets the grimmest baseline in the topic: median survival 2-4 months, staged BCLC advanced — the comparator every intervention must beat.^[56] Selection, not dogma, decides resectability: 30-50% of new HCC presents with PVTT, and en-bloc resection of second-order/distal thrombus benefits carefully selected patients — but once thrombus reaches first-order branches or the mesenteric vein, surgical risk outweighs benefit.^[58] The resected Vp3/4 series quantifies the middle path (median 14.5 months; 1/3-year survival 59.6%/16.8%), while neoadjuvant radiotherapy plus hepatectomy offers the conversion lever (1-year survival 75.2% versus 43.1% for surgery alone in the RCT).^[20][57]

Systemic, adjuvant, and perioperative therapy

Recite the ASCO sequence: atezolizumab-bevacizumab first-line for Child-Pugh A, ECOG 0-1 disease after variceal management; TKIs (sorafenib/lenvatinib) where ICI or bevacizumab is contraindicated; second-line cabozantinib, regorafenib (post-sorafenib tolerance) or ramucirumab (AFP ≥400 ng/mL) — with atezo-bev cutting mortality versus sorafenib (HR 0.58) and lenvatinib (HR 0.63), working best in viral disease.^[45][44][43] The adjuvant verdicts split: updated IMbrave050 lost its early signal (RFS HR 0.90, ns) and is not supported — while HBV adjuvant-TACE helped intermediate/high-risk resected disease (RFS 56.0% versus 42.1%, HR 0.68; 3-year survival 85.2% versus 77.4%), unselected stage I/II adjuvant TACE did not (HR 0.88, ns), and the older options read as small capecitabine RCT (recurrence 53.3% versus 76.7%; time-to-recurrence 40 versus 20 months) plus interferon meta-regression (+7.8/+35.4/+14.0% recurrence-free survival at 1/2/3 years).^{[47][40][36][50][48]} The perioperative opening is CARES-009: camrelizumab-rivoceranib around surgery gave event-free survival 42.1 versus 19.4 months (HR 0.59) in intermediate/high-risk resectable disease — neoadjuvant checkpoint blockade (especially with anti-angiogenic or locoregional partners) is the promising but candidate-undefined frontier.^[46][49]

Recurrence, approach, SBRT, and exam fences

Recurrence is the rule, so stratify it: up to 70% recur by 5 years, with early disease under 2 years (occult spread, tumor-driven) versus late (de-novo) biology; microvascular invasion/satellitosis alone predicts recurrence (HR 1.83), aggressive recurrence (HR 3.31) and death (HR 2.23), beside the established quartet of venous invasion, satellites, size and stage.^[51][24][52] Half of resected patients recur (51%) with 88% liver-confined — and re-treatment (re-resection, ablation, TACE, transplant) prolongs survival, so resect localized recurrence; size drives early recurrence while stiffness (cut-off 7.4 kPa) drives late recurrence, and >3 cm tumors, major resection, high grade, microvascular invasion and recurrence within 1 year predict nontransplantable recurrence.^[54][53][55] Approach fences: laparoscopy matches open survival with less blood, morbidity and stay (major resections: −107 mL blood, OR 0.47 morbidity, −3.27 days; elderly: complications RR 0.69/0.49; repeat resections feasible with less blood loss) — while robotics adds operative time (+35 min) and 30-day morbidity (RR 1.59) on low-quality evidence.^{[65][63][61][60][62]} Radiation closes the topic: SBRT-plus-sorafenib beat sorafenib on progression-free survival (9.2 versus 5.5 months, HR 0.55) with borderline overall survival, and mature SBRT holds 5-year local control 82% with 40% survival.^[81][82]

Revision summary

Curative trio for early disease with surgery atop the locoregional hierarchy^[7][30]; cirrhosis-etiology 5-year risks with the HBV DNA gradient^[2][3]; US-plus-AFP every 6 months with 63% early sensitivity^[8]; BCLC allocation with 29-33% real-world adherence beyond early stage^[13]; washout-plus-APHE LI-RADS hierarchy with LR-5 rule-in^[16][18]; Child-A resection first-line with salvage transplant, fenced Child-B and portal-hypertension numbers^[22][72][21]; FLR 40%/50% PVE thresholds^[76]; Milan criteria with XXL downstaging proof^[26][73]; bridging TACE-count rule with AFP-L3/DCP gating^[79][74]; RFA-MWA equivalence with the resection-ablation split evidence^[31][59][64]; TACE combinations with TARE/HAIC alternatives^[33][41][38]; PVTT 2-4-month baseline with second-order selection^[56][58]; ASCO sequencing with the IMbrave050-negative/CARES-009-positive split^[45][47][46]; and 70% recurrence with microvascular-invasion arithmetic, laparoscopic equivalence, and SBRT control rates^{[51][24][65][82]}.

References86ShowHide

1. [1]Huang DQ, Mathurin P, et al. Global epidemiology of alcohol-associated cirrhosis and HCC: trends, projections and risk factors. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2023.PMID 36258033
2. [2]Fattovich G, Stroffolini T, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: incidence and risk factors. Gastroenterology, 2004.PMID 15508101
3. [3]Chen CJ, Yang HI, et al. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma across a biological gradient of serum hepatitis B virus DNA level. JAMA, 2006.PMID 16391218
4. [4]Reddy KR, McLerran D, et al. Incidence and Risk Factors for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Cirrhosis: The Multicenter Hepatocellular Carcinoma Early Detection Strategy (HEDS) Study. Gastroenterology, 2023.PMID 37429366
5. [5]Choi J, Nguyen VH, et al. Statin Use and Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Liver Fibrosis in Chronic Liver Disease. JAMA Intern Med, 2025.PMID 40094696
6. [6]Huang DQ, Tan DJH, et al. Hepatocellular Carcinoma Incidence in Alcohol-Associated Cirrhosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2023.PMID 35940513
7. [7]Hwang SY, Danpanichkul P, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: updates on epidemiology, surveillance, diagnosis and treatment. Clin Mol Hepatol, 2025.PMID 39722614
8. [8]Tzartzeva K, Obi J, et al. Surveillance Imaging and Alpha Fetoprotein for Early Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology, 2018.PMID 29425931
9. [9]Chang TS, Wu YC, et al. Alpha-Fetoprotein Measurement Benefits Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in Patients with Cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol, 2015.PMID 25869392
10. [10]Marrero JA Surveillance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Clin Liver Dis, 2020.PMID 33012448
11. [11]Hunold T, Parikh ND Risk-stratified surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Commun, 2026.PMID 41921193
12. [12]Singal A, Volk ML, et al. Meta-analysis: surveillance with ultrasound for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2009.PMID 19392863
13. [13]Richani M, Kolly P, et al. Treatment allocation in hepatocellular carcinoma: Assessment of the BCLC algorithm. Ann Hepatol, 2016.PMID 26626644
14. [14]Saraswat VA, Pandey G, et al. Treatment algorithms for managing hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Exp Hepatol, 2014.PMID 25755616
15. [15]Trevisani F, Vitale A, et al. Merits and boundaries of the BCLC staging and treatment algorithm: Learning from the past to improve the future with a novel proposal. J Hepatol, 2024.PMID 38266658
16. [16]van der Pol CB, McInnes MDF, et al. CT/MRI and CEUS LI-RADS Major Features Association with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. Radiology, 2022.PMID 34783596
17. [17]Shin J, Lee S, et al. LI-RADS Major Features on MRI for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021.PMID 33638582
18. [18]Alhasan A, Cerny M, et al. LI-RADS for CT diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: performance of major and ancillary features. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2019.PMID 30167771
19. [19]Cannella R, Zins M, et al. ESR Essentials: diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma-practice recommendations by ESGAR. Eur Radiol, 2024.PMID 38379018
20. [20]Komatsu S, Kido M, et al. Impact of Hepatectomy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus. J Gastrointest Surg, 2022.PMID 34716534
21. [21]Takemura N, Aoki T, et al. Hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma after perioperative management of portal hypertension. Br J Surg, 2019.PMID 30990885
22. [22]Poon RT, Fan ST Hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: patient selection and postoperative outcome. Liver Transpl, 2004.PMID 14762838
23. [23]Allaire M, Goumard C, et al. New frontiers in liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. JHEP Rep, 2020.PMID 32695968
24. [24]Fuster-Anglada C, Mauro E, et al. Histological predictors of aggressive recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver resection. J Hepatol, 2024.PMID 38925272
25. [25]Maspero M, Sposito C, et al. Post-recurrence Survival After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Transplantation, 2025.PMID 40916082
26. [26]Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med, 1996.PMID 8594428
27. [27]Costentin CE, Bababekov YJ, et al. Is It Time to Reconsider the Milan Criteria for Selecting Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma for Deceased-Donor Liver Transplantation? Hepatology, 2019.PMID 30229978
28. [28]Xu X, Lu D, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria. Gut, 2016.PMID 25804634
29. [29]Ohira M, Aoki G, et al. Japanese living donor liver transplantation criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma: nationwide cohort study. BJS Open, 2024.PMID 39092977
30. [30]Patel KR, Menon H, et al. Locoregional Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open, 2024.PMID 39602117
31. [31]Yu Q, Liu C, et al. Percutaneous microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2021.PMID 33870454
32. [32]Chong CCN, Lee KF, et al. Prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial of Microwave versus RadioFrequency Ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (McRFA trial). HPB (Oxford), 2020.PMID 32044268
33. [33]Peng Z, Fan W, et al. Lenvatinib Combined With Transarterial Chemoembolization as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Phase III, Randomized Clinical Trial (LAUNCH). J Clin Oncol, 2023.PMID 35921605
34. [34]Sangro B, Kudo M, et al. Durvalumab with or without bevacizumab with transarterial chemoembolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma (EMERALD-1): a multiregional, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet, 2025.PMID 39798579
35. [35]Kudo M, Ren Z, et al. Transarterial chemoembolisation combined with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus dual placebo for unresectable, non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (LEAP-012): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study. Lancet, 2025.PMID 39798578
36. [36]Ma T, Bai X, et al. Adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma following curative resection: A randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial. Hepatology, 2025.PMID 39808820
37. [37]Fan W, Zhu B, et al. Survival in Patients With Recurrent Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Sorafenib Plus TACE vs TACE Alone Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol, 2024.PMID 38900435
38. [38]Li QJ, He MK, et al. Hepatic Arterial Infusion of Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin Versus Transarterial Chemoembolization for Large Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol, 2022.PMID 34648352
39. [39]Kudo M, Ueshima K, et al. Randomised, multicentre prospective trial of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus sorafenib as compared with TACE alone in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: TACTICS trial. Gut, 2020.PMID 31801872
40. [40]Wang Z, Ren Z, et al. Adjuvant Transarterial Chemoembolization for HBV-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Resection: A Randomized Controlled Study. Clin Cancer Res, 2018.PMID 29420221
41. [41]Dhondt E, Lambert B, et al. 90Y Radioembolization versus Drug-eluting Bead Chemoembolization for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results from the TRACE Phase II Randomized Controlled Trial. Radiology, 2022.PMID 35258371
42. [42]Brown AM, Kassab I, et al. TACE versus TARE for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Overall and individual patient level meta analysis. Cancer Med, 2023.PMID 35943116
43. [43]Haber PK, Puigvehí M, et al. Evidence-Based Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2002-2020). Gastroenterology, 2021.PMID 34126063
44. [44]Fulgenzi CAM, D'Alessio A, et al. Comparative efficacy of novel combination strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A network metanalysis of phase III trials. Eur J Cancer, 2022.PMID 35970037
45. [45]Gordan JD, Kennedy EB, et al. Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol, 2020.PMID 33197225
46. [46]Wang Z, Fan J, et al. Perioperative camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus surgery alone in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma at intermediate or high risk of recurrence (CARES-009): a randomised phase 2/3 trial. Lancet, 2025.PMID 41125112
47. [47]Yopp A, Chen M, et al. Updated data from IMbrave050: Adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol, 2026.PMID 41580093
48. [48]Shen YC, Hsu C, et al. Adjuvant interferon therapy after curative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): a meta-regression approach. J Hepatol, 2010.PMID 20395009
49. [49]Zhang Y, Yue S, et al. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: challenges and opportunities-a narrative review. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr, 2025.PMID 41104208
50. [50]Xia Y, Qiu Y, et al. Adjuvant therapy with capecitabine postpones recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg Oncol, 2010.PMID 20602260
51. [51]Nevola R, Ruocco R, et al. Predictors of early and late hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence. World J Gastroenterol, 2023.PMID 36925456
52. [52]Tung-Ping Poon R, Fan ST, et al. Risk factors, prevention, and management of postoperative recurrence after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg, 2000.PMID 10862190
53. [53]Hong SK, Jin XL, et al. Different Risk Factors for Early and Late Recurrence After Curative Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. World J Surg, 2022.PMID 34533588
54. [54]Shah SA, Cleary SP, et al. Recurrence after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: risk factors, treatment, and outcomes. Surgery, 2007.PMID 17349844
55. [55]Cheng HY, Ho CM, et al. Interval dynamics of transplantability for hepatocellular carcinoma after primary curative resection: risk factors for nontransplantable recurrence. HPB (Oxford), 2023.PMID 36376221
56. [56]Liu PH, Huo TI, et al. Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Portal Vein Tumor Involvement: Best Management Strategies. Semin Liver Dis, 2018.PMID 30041276
57. [57]Wei Z, Zhao J, et al. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: a systematic review. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr, 2022.PMID 36268237
58. [58]Nevarez NM, Yopp AC Challenging the Treatment Paradigm: Selecting Patients for Surgical Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus. J Hepatocell Carcinoma, 2021.PMID 34350140
59. [59]Song J, Cao L, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg, 2024.PMID 38650579
60. [60]Morise Z, Aldrighetti L, et al. Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre propensity score-based study. Br J Surg, 2020.PMID 31994182
61. [61]Wang Q, Li HJ, et al. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies. Int J Surg, 2022.PMID 35948187
62. [62]Khan S, Younas M, et al. Evaluating robotic vs. laparoscopic liver resection for BCLC stage 0-I hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies on perioperative outcomes. J Robot Surg, 2025.PMID 41286224
63. [63]Wang ZY, Chen QL, et al. Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative cohort studies. BMC Cancer, 2019.PMID 31694596
64. [64]Chen W, Lin X, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection is superior to radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies. Hepatol Int, 2024.PMID 38480604
65. [65]Sotiropoulos GC, Prodromidou A, et al. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Updates Surg, 2017.PMID 28220382
66. [66]Reig M, Sanduzzi-Zamparelli M, et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendations: The 2026 update. J Hepatol, 2026.PMID 41151697
67. [67]Di Sandro S, Centonze L, et al. Surgical and oncological outcomes of hepatic resection for BCLC-B hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter analysis among 474 consecutive cases. Updates Surg, 2019.PMID 30941704
68. [68]Salem R, Johnson GE, et al. Yttrium-90 Radioembolization for the Treatment of Solitary, Unresectable HCC: The LEGACY Study. Hepatology, 2021.PMID 33739462
69. [69]Vilgrain V, Pereira H, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol, 2017.PMID 29107679
70. [70]Zhang EL, Liang BY, et al. Severity of liver cirrhosis: a key role in the selection of surgical modality for Child-Pugh A hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol, 2015.PMID 25879526
71. [71]Tanaka S, Noda T, et al. Surgical Outcomes for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Child-Pugh Class B: a Retrospective Multicenter Study. J Gastrointest Surg, 2023.PMID 36471191
72. [72]Berardi G, Morise Z, et al. Development of a nomogram to predict outcome after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. J Hepatol, 2020.PMID 31499131
73. [73]Mazzaferro V, Citterio D, et al. Liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma after tumour downstaging (XXL): a randomised, controlled, phase 2b/3 trial. Lancet Oncol, 2020.PMID 32615109
74. [74]Norman JS, Li PJ, et al. AFP-L3 and DCP strongly predict early hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation. J Hepatol, 2023.PMID 37683735
75. [75]Tabrizian P, Holzner ML, et al. Ten-Year Outcomes of Liver Transplant and Downstaging for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. JAMA Surg, 2022.PMID 35857294
76. [76]Shindoh J, D Tzeng CW, et al. Portal vein embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Cancer, 2012.PMID 24159580
77. [77]Beppu T, Yamamura K, et al. Oncological benefits of portal vein embolization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Gastroenterol Surg, 2021.PMID 34095718
78. [78]Takahashi EA, Fleming CJ, et al. Future Liver Remnant Hypertrophy after Portal Vein Embolization Is Inversely Correlated with Intrahepatic Tumor Burden. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2019.PMID 30819489
79. [79]Yin C, Armstrong S, et al. Bridging and downstaging with TACE in early and intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma: Predictors of receiving a liver transplant. Ann Gastroenterol Surg, 2023.PMID 36998293
80. [80]Heckman JT, Devera MB, et al. Bridging locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplantation. Ann Surg Oncol, 2008.PMID 18696158
81. [81]Dawson LA, Winter KA, et al. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy vs Sorafenib Alone in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The NRG Oncology/RTOG 1112 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol, 2025.PMID 39699905
82. [82]Bae SH, Chun SJ, et al. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Meta-Analysis and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society Practice Guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2024.PMID 37597757
83. [83]Llovet JM, Pinyol R, et al. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant immunotherapies in hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2024.PMID 38424197
84. [84]Tabrizian P, Abdelrahim M, et al. Immunotherapy and transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol, 2024.PMID 38253289
85. [85]Vogel A, Chan SL, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol, 2025.PMID 39986353
86. [86]Vogel A, Cervantes A, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol, 2018.PMID 30285213