May 2008 DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF HCC 1753Table 1. Groups in Whom HCC Screening and Surveillance is very important for the diagnosis and staging of this Is Recommended tumor. The most reliable diagnostic tests are triple-phaseHepatitis B carriers (HBsAg positive) helical CT and triple-phase dynamic contrast enhanced Asian males 40 y magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),24,25 whereas hepatic Asian females 50 y angiography has fallen out of favor in most practice All cirrhotic hepatitis B carriers settings. HCC derives its blood supply predominantly Family history of HCC Africans over age 20 y from the hepatic artery, whereas the remainder of theNonhepatitis B cirrhosis nontumorous liver receives both arterial and portal Hepatitis C blood. The hallmark of HCC during CT scan or MRI is Alcoholic cirrhosis the presence of arterial enhancement followed by delayed Genetic hemochromatosis hypointensity of the tumor in the portal venous and Primary biliary cirrhosis Possibly: 1-antitrypsin deﬁciency, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, delayed phases, ie, washout26 (Figure 1). The presence of autoimmune hepatitis arterial enhancement followed by washout has a sensitiv- ity and speciﬁcity of 90% and 95%, respectively. However, 71% of patients with HCC will have arterial enhancementalthough a 1-year interval may be equally effective.8,12,13 and washout on more than one test, whereas the rest doThe performance of US depends on the experience of the not have these features and, therefore, will require liverexaminer, the technology used, the body habitus, the biopsy for the diagnosis of HCC. There have been at leastpresence of cirrhosis, and the size of the tumor. Recent 4 studies that have compared the accuracy of CT andstudies generally indicate a 60% sensitivity, and 90% MRI for HCC diagnosis, using the explanted liver as thespeciﬁcity.14 The sensitivity of US to detect tumor nod- gold standard.27–30 These show that MRI is slightly betterules in cirrhotic livers is particularly low.15–17 The serum in the characterization and diagnosis of HCC when com-AFP level of 20 ng/mL commonly used as the upper limit pared with CT scan (Table 2). The performance of CTof normal18,19 has low sensitivity (25% to 65%) for detect- and MRI is affected by the size of the lesions. For exam-ing HCC and is therefore considered inadequate as the ple, in tumors larger than 2 cm, MRI is reported to havesole screening test. Patients with chronic liver disease, an accuracy 90%; however, in tumors smaller than 2 cm,especially those with a high degree of hepatocyte regen- this level is reduced to 33%.31eration (eg, HCV), can express elevated serum AFP in the Currently, AFP serum levels above 200 ng/mL areabsence of malignancy.20,21 Other tests such as des- highly speciﬁc for HCC diagnosis in patients with cirrho-carboxy prothrombin and lectin-bound AFP (AFP-L3) are sis and coinciding radiologic evidence of focal hepaticavailable, but there are no reliable prospective data on lesions.8 However, the sensitivity of AFP is much lowertheir effectiveness in HCC screening. because it has been reported that only one third of The cost-effectiveness of HCC surveillance strategies patients with HCC have AFP levels higher than 100using both AFP and US have been evaluated in retrospec- ng/mL.32,33tive studies as well as mathematical models,1,8 –10,14 andgenerally reported surveillance for HCC in patients with Diagnostic Approach to HCCcompensated cirrhosis might be associated with a modest A diagnostic approach to HCC has been devel-gain in quality adjusted life years at acceptable costs. One oped based on the literature and expert consensus andstudy also reported that the effectiveness of surveillance incorporates serology, cytohistology, and radiologic char-depends mostly on the outcomes and costs of HCC acteristics.8,34 Diagnosis of HCC can be conﬁdently es-treatments.22 In patients undergoing HCC screening tablished if (1) a focal hepatic mass 2 cm is identiﬁedwhile awaiting liver transplantation, screening with com- on one imaging technique wherein characteristic contrastputerized tomography (CT) is associated with the great- enhancement features on the arterial phase with venousest gain in life expectancy and is possibly cost-effective in washout on an MRI or CT can be demonstrated; (2) athis setting.23 focal hepatic mass with atypical imaging ﬁndings (no Therefore, current guidelines advocate the use of US at arterial enhancement with washout), or a focal hepatic6 –12 months frequency to screen for HCC in high-risk mass detected in a noncirrhotic liver, should undergo apatients. The use of AFP alone is strongly discouraged, biopsy.and its use in addition to US is controversial. High-risk Noninvasive diagnosis of HCC is best limited to patientspatients include virtually all patients with cirrhosis and with cirrhosis and to patients with a focal hepatic mass 2some HBV-infected patients irrespective of cirrhosis ( 40 cm. On the other hand, the recommended diagnostic ap-years in men and 50 years in women).8 proach for tumors 2 cm or tumors that do not meet above criteria8 is such that (1), when nodules within 1–2 cm Diagnostic Imaging on screening of a cirrhotic liver are typical of HCC (hyper- Once a screening test is abnormal or there is a vascular with washout) on 2 imaging modalities, the lesionclinical suspicion that a patient may have HCC, imaging should be treated as HCC. In an atypical lesion where the
1754 EL–SERAG ET AL GASTROENTEROLOGY Vol. 134, No. 6 Figure 1. MRI features of HCC. The left top panel shows an arte- rial phase MRI examination of the liver and an enhancing mass in the right lobe, which further in- tensiﬁes in the left bottom panels indicated by the arrowheads. The right top panel shows a 2-minute delayed MRI examina- tion that shows the mass in the right lobe, but this is hypointense compared with the rest of the liver as well as when compared with the arterial phase. This is the phenomenon of washout of con- trast. The right lower panel shows a 5-minute examination that highlights washout of con- trast in the delayed phase com- pared with the arterial phase examination.vascular proﬁle is not consistent among techniques, a bi- ventional radiology, oncology, and pathology. One has toopsy of the lesion should be considered. (2) Nodules smaller consider several patient and tumor factors including thethan 1 cm should be followed with US at 3- to 6-month severity of underlying liver disease, tumor bulk, and associ-intervals. If, over a period of 2 years, growth has not been ated comorbidities as well as several practice-setting factorsobserved, a return to routine surveillance at 6-month inter- including availability and expertise in surgical resection,vals is suggested.35 transplantation, and ablative therapies. Percutaneous liver biopsy under radiologic guidancehave sensitivities and speciﬁcities of 90% and 91% for US Staging of HCCand 92% and 98% for CT scan guidance, respectively.36 A A precise staging of the disease may help decidenegative biopsy result, although highlight suggestive, on prognosis as well as choice of therapy with the great-does not completely rule out malignant disease, and the est survival potential. There are several prognostic scor-nodule should be further studied at 3- to 6-month inter- ing systems including Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancervals until the nodule disappears, enlarges, or displays (BCLC), Cancer of the Liver Italian Program, the Chinesediagnostic characteristics of HCC. If the lesion enlarges University Prognostic Index and Japanese Integratedbut remains atypical for HCC, a repeat biopsy is recom- Staging. They use different permutations of variablesmended.36 related to the severity of liver disease, number and size of tumor nodules, and cancer spread (Table 3). Although Treatment of HCC there is no one universally accepted HCC staging system, The management of HCC involves multiple disci- many have adopted the BCLC group’s proposal of 5plines including hepatology, surgery, diagnostic and inter- stages, further validated in a large North American expe-Table 2. Summary of Several Studies That Compared the Accuracy of CT Scan and MRI Scan in HCC CT scan MRI Author Gold standard No. patients No. nodules HCC (n) Sens Sp Sens SpDe Ledinghen et al28 Explanted liver 34 88 54 51 61 84 93Rode et al30 Explanted liver 43 69 13 53 77 92 58Burrel et al27 Explanted liver 50 127 76 61 76 66 75Libbrecht et al29 Explanted liver 49 136 77 50 70 79 82Sens, sensitivity (%); Sp, speciﬁcity (%).
May 2008 DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF HCC 1755Table 3. Several Commonly Used Staging Systems for HCC Okuda Staginga Negative: Positive: Stage:Tumor size 50% of liver 50% of liver I: No positive factorsAscites Absent Present II: 1–2 positive factorsBilirubin 3 mg/dL 3 mg/dL III: 3–4 positive factorsSerum albumin 3 g/dL 3 g/dL Child–Turcotte–Pugh (CTP) 1 Point: 2 Points: 3 Points: Class:Encephalopathy None Grade I–II Grade III–IV A 5–6 ptsBilirubin (mg/dL) 2 2–3 3 B 7–9 ptsPT/INR 1.7 1.71–2.20 2.20 C 10–15 ptsAscites None Controlled RefractoryAlbumin (g/L) 35 28–35 28 BCLC Staging and correlation with Okuda StagingStage: PS: Tumor stage: Okuda: pH: Bilirubin: Classiﬁcation: A1 0 Single I No Normal Very early A2 0 Single I Yes Normal Early A3 0 Single I Yes Altered A4 0 3 3 cm I–II Yes Altered B 0 5 cm or multinodular I–II Intermediate C 1–2 Vascular invasion I–II Advanced D 3–4 Any stage III Terminal CLIP Stagingb Portal veinPoints: CTP: Tumor morphology: AFP: thrombosis: 0 A Uninodular 50% of liver 400 ng/dL No 1 B Multinodular 50% of liver 400 ng/dL Yes 2 C Massive 50% of liverCLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program; PH, portal hypertension; PS, performance status; PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalizedratio.aMedian survival without therapy: Stage I: 8.3 years, Stage II: 2 years, Stage III: 0.7 years.bThe median survival is 36, 22, 9, 7, and 3 months for total CLIP points of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 to 6, respectively.rience.37,38 The BCLC staging and prognostic system ac- Despite some degree of overlap, several stages of HCCcounts for variables related to tumor stage, physical and can be identiﬁed, and each has different clinical featuresliver functional status, and cancer-related symptoms and as well as treatment and prognosis (Figure 2). Very earlyalso provides a link to a treatment algorithm. Patients in HCC is currently very difﬁcult to diagnose, presentingstage A can undergo resection, transplantation, or abla- with a single HCC lesion 2 cm. Affected patients havetion. Child–Turcotte–Pugh (CTP) class, which provides CTP class A, display no signs or symptoms, and thean assessment of the synthetic function, may serve com- tumor displays no vascular invasion. Resection and ra-plementary to the BCLC staging in providing a more diofrequency ablation (RFA) likely offer similar 5-yearreﬁned treatment algorithm.39 The Okuda classiﬁcation survival rates. The choice of therapy depends on thetakes into account radiologic tumor size and liver func- tumor location, degree of portal hypertension, and pres-tion (ascites, total serum bilirubin, and serum albumin) ence of medical comorbidities.is helpful in identifying patients with advanced HCC but Patients presenting as early stage HCC exhibit preservedmay be less adequate for staging patients with early or liver function (CTP A and B) with a solitary HCC or upintermediate stage disease. Another commonly used stag- to 3 nodules, each 3 cm in size. These patients can being system is the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program,21,40 effectively treated by resection, liver transplantation (or-which uses a mathematical score based on the CTP, thotopic liver transplantation [OLT]), or ablation withtumor morphology, AFP, and presence of vascular inva- the possibility of long-term cure, with 5-year survivalsion; however, it does not adequately assess populations ﬁgures up to 75%. The choice of therapy is dictated by theundergoing radical therapies, such as resection or trans- severity of the liver function, portal hypertension, andplantation. medical comorbidities.
1756 EL–SERAG ET AL GASTROENTEROLOGY Vol. 134, No. 6 Figure 2. A proposed algo- rithm for treatment of HCC (adapted from BCLC algo- rithm)103 PS, performance sta- tus; OLT, orthotopic liver trans- plantation; PEI, percutaneous ethanol injection; RFA, radiofre- quency ablation. Patients with compensated cirrhosis and without 5% of patients in Western countries but nearly 40% inHCC-related symptoms or vascular invasion that are out- HBV-endemic Asian countries.14 HBV has several cancer-side of the criteria of very early or early stage correspond to promoting actions including insertional mutagenesisthe intermediate stage HCC. In this group, transarterial and p53 inhibition that explain its potential to inducechemoembolization (TACE) leads to a 23% improvement HCC in noncirrhotic liver.48 Patients with HCC and con-in the 2-year survival compared with conservative ther- comitant cirrhosis are not suitable for resection becauseapy. of the potential for hepatic decompensation after surgi- Patients with mild cancer-related symptoms and/or cal resection. Hepatic resection for HCC in patients withvascular invasion or extrahepatic spread are considered as cirrhosis, therefore, requires careful selection. A funda-advanced stage (BCLC stage C). TACE may increase sur- mental problem is not only the stage of cirrhosis but alsovival in well-selected candidates. However, a recently com- the diminished regenerative reserve at the cirrhosis stage.pleted randomized trial showed that soraneﬁb improved Hepatocyte regeneration decreases at the cirrhosis stage,the overall survival for patients at the BCLC stage C which has been linked to telomere shortening, senes-compared with placebo. This therapy is likely to become cence, and DNA damage checkpoint activation.49 Thethe main option for patients at this stage. development of molecular markers indicating the regen- Patients with advanced stage present with cancer erative reserve of hepatocytes may help to better selectsymptoms, related to progressed liver failure, tumor HCC patients with underlying cirrhosis for surgical re-growth with vascular involvement, extrahepatic spread, section in the future.or physical impairment (performance status 2).41 Trials Historically, the selection of candidates was based onof tamoxifen,42– 44 octreotide,45 interferon,46 or antian- the CTP classiﬁcation; however, this often does not ac-drogenic therapy47 have shown no clear beneﬁt for these count for some of the symptoms of advanced liver dis-agents. ease. A normal bilirubin concentration and the absence Unfortunately, patients who present with or have pro-gressed into terminal stage have a 1-year survival less than of signiﬁcant portal hypertension are probably the best10%. This group does not beneﬁt from treatments men- predictors of excellent short- and long-term outcomes.50tioned above. Therefore, to prevent unnecessary suffering, Signiﬁcant portal hypertension can be inferred fromthe patient should receive symptomatic treatment. signs of esophageal varices and platelet counts below 100,000/mm3 related to splenomegaly or can be deter- Treatment Modalities mined by indirect portal pressure measurements (hepatic A summary of the main treatment modalities, venous pressure gradient 10 mm Hg). The 5-year sur-their indications, and reported outcomes is shown in vival is less than 30% in patients with elevated bilirubinTable 4. ( 1 mg/dL) and portal hypertension. Surgical resection. Hepatic resection is the treat- In patients with cirrhosis, 5-year recurrence rates fol-ment of choice for HCC in noncirrhotic patients because lowing resection exceed 50%.14,34 Utilization of tools suchof the fact that the residual liver has well-preserved he- as comparative genomic hybridization, integration pat-patic reserve. This group, however, accounts for less than tern of HBV, DNA ﬁngerprinting using loss of heterozy-
May 2008 DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF HCC 1757Table 4. Summary of Therapeutic Modalities for HCC and Their Outcomes Treatment Survival Special issuesSurgical resection 1 y: 97% Choice of therapy for patients without cirrhosis (low morbidity) 3 y: 84% 5%–15% of HCC patients eligible 5 y: 26%–57% Right hepatectomy has higher risk than left hepatectomy Pre/postresection adjunct therapy not recommendedTransplantation (LT) 1 y: 91% Curative treatment for chronic disease and HCC 2 y: 75% MELD exception points for HCC 5 y (MILAN): 70% Effective corresponding to UNOS criteria (1 tumor 5 cm; up 5 y (extended): 50% to 3 tumors 3 cm Liver donor LT considered for HCC progression outside MILAN criteria UCSF criteria not implemented in current MELD exception allocation policyRadiofrequency ablation (RFA) 1 y: 90% Effect is more predictable in all tumor sizes than following PEI 3 y: 74% Superior to PEI in larger tumors; equivalent in small tumors 5 y: 40%–50% Requires fewer treatment sessionsPercutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) 1 y: 85% Early HCC patients not suitable to resection or OLT or RFA not 3 y: 50% available or contraindicated 5 y: 40%–50% Highly effective for small HCC ( 2 cm) Low rate of AEsTransarterial chemoembolization (TACE) 1 y: 82% Nonsurgical patients with large/multifocal HCC w/o vascular 2 y: 63% invasion or extrahepatic spreadNOTE. The 1-year survival rates are reported from different studies and thus may not be used to compare directly the different therapeuticmodalities.AE, adverse events; OLT, orthotopic liver transplantation.gosity assays, or DNA microarray has allowed researchers currently recommended United Network for Organ Shar-to determine that 60% to 70% of recurrences correspond ing (UNOS) criteria (1 lesion 5 cm or maximum 3to intrahepatic metastases and that 30% to 40% are de lesions 3 cm in diameter) have shown tremendousnovo tumors.51–53 promise, with reported 5-year survival rates of 70% and Several variables affect the risk of recurrence following recurrence rates of 15%.59 – 61 The tumor burden criteriaresection: these include tumor size, number of tumors, for transplantation for HCC as established by the UNOSvascular invasion, and the width of the resection margin. are largely accepted. Expanded selection criteria (a singleThe recommended upper limit of tumor size for consid- lesion of 6.5 cm or up to 3 lesions, none of which areeration of resection has been argued, noting that there is larger than 4.0 cm, with a maximum combined tumora signiﬁcant difference in the 5-year recurrence rates in bulk of 8.0 cm), have been proposed by University ofpatients with tumors 5 cm that is considerably greater California in San Francisco.62 Liver transplantation inthan those with 5 cm (43% vs 32%, respectively).54 such candidates has been associated with outcomes sim-Similarly, multinodular tumors have been determined to ilar to those who are within the UNOS criteria. However,have an increased tendency to recur.55 A large study of given the large number of HCC cases considered for liver1000 HCC patients reported a 5-year survival after resec- transplantation, the struggle is to keep a balance betweention of single tumors to be 57% and 3 or more nodules to HCC and non-HCC recipients.be 26%.56 Resectable tumor-free margins vary on a case- The UNOS oversees liver allocation in the Unitedby-case basis to balance tumor removal to reduce recur- States. Based on the radiologic diagnosis of the numberrence with preservation functioning liver parenchyma to and size of lesions, Model for End-Stage Liver Diseaseallow survival. A recent prospective randomized trial (MELD) exception points are awarded for HCC, with thecompared wide ( 2 cm) and narrow ( 1 cm) resection expectation that liver transplantation is accomplished inmargins for solitary HCC.57 Although recurrence rates a reasonable period of time. The exception points forremained high in both groups, the overall survival rates HCC are based on the 3-month pretransplantation mor-were higher for the wide margin group. tality rates. For solitary lesions 2 cm and 5 cm, as well Liver transplantation. Liver transplantation, in as up to 3 lesions, each 3 cm, patients currently receivetheory, is the optimal therapeutic option for HCC; it a MELD score of 22, unless their calculated MELD scoresimultaneously removes the tumor and underlying cir- is otherwise greater. For each 3-month interval that theyrhosis thus minimizing the risk of HCC recurrence. Ear- remain on the wait list, a greater number of exceptionlier selection criteria for liver transplantation were broad, points are awarded based on an expected increase of 10%leading to poor results with recurrence rates of approxi- for the 3-month pretransplantation mortality rate (eg,mately 50% and 5-year survival rates of 40%.58,59 The extension No. 1: 25 points for 25% mortality; extension
1758 EL–SERAG ET AL GASTROENTEROLOGY Vol. 134, No. 6No. 2: 28 points for 35% mortality, . . .). The challenges HCC 3 cm24 and in almost 100% in tumors less than 2encountered in HCC pertain to the degree of MELD cm. Tumor necrosis is less likely to be achieved in largeexception points that should be assigned to HCC pa- tumors; 70% necrosis is reported for tumors between 2tients so that the number of transplantations done for and 3 cm and 50% necrosis for HCC between 3 and 5HCC patients are reasonable relative to other indications, cm.70 –72 It is a well-tolerated, inexpensive procedure withthat there is an acceptable and comparable mortality few adverse effects. In nonrandomized studies of patientsfrom all indications while awaiting transplantation, and with small HCC, PEI has been shown to carry the samethat the outcomes are similar after transplantation. overall survival and recurrence-free survival as surgical The role of downstaging of tumors that are outside of resection.73,74 In a large series of 3225 patients withconventional UNOS criteria for OLT has been explored. solitary tumors 3 cm reported by Ryu et al,75 there wereDownstaging is HCC-directed therapy that aims at re- no signiﬁcant differences in survival between resectionducing the size and/or number of HCC lesions. Studies and PEI. The best survival for PEI has been shown forhave shown that successful tumor downstaging can be tumors 3 cm and 3 lesions.75achieved in up to 70% of the patients treated in a proto- RFA, which has largely replaced PEI, provides morecol with one or more therapeutic modalities including complete ablation with fewer sessions than PEI (FigureTACE, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), or percutaneous 3).76,77 The efﬁcacy of RFA in ablating tumors 2 cm isethanol injection (PEI). Subsequently, successful liver similar to that of ethanol; however, in tumors 2 cm,transplantation was accomplished in nearly half of these efﬁcacy is better than with ethanol.78patients.63,64 Although encouraging, longer follow-up is Several recent randomized trials compared RFA andneeded to assess further the risk of HCC recurrence after PEI in treating patients with small HCC 4 cm (TableOLT before downstaging can be recommended and 5)71,77–79 and demonstrated the superior efﬁcacy of RFAadopted. The role of salvage liver transplantation after in terms of less operator variability, lower local recur-initial resection of HCC is less clear. Overall, suboptimal rence, and longer overall as well as disease-free survival.outcomes have been observed with this strategy com- Local tumor control was reported to range between 90%pared with primary liver transplantation for HCC.65 and 96%, with a mean of 1.1–2.1 sessions for RFA vs Given the shortage of donors and in attempts to 4.8 – 6.5 for ethanol injection (Table 5). Local recurrenceshorten the waiting time for cadaveric liver transplanta- rates have ranged between 8% and 14% at 2–3 years intion, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been patients treated with RFA compared with 22%–34% inshown to be an alternative to cadaveric liver transplanta- those treated with PEI. Overall survival rates for patientstion, with approximately 3000 cases done worldwide for treated with RFA were 100% and 98% for 1 and 2 years,all indications. LDLT is a complex procedure that is respectively, compared with 96% and 88%, respectively, inassociated with a morbidity of 20%– 40% and a donor the PEI trials. Recurrence-free survival rates at 1 and 2mortality of 0.3%– 0.5%.66,67 With that, consideration of years were 86% and 64% for the RFA group and 77% andethical, societal, and legal issues are vital to successful 43% for the PEI group, respectively.79 Adverse events wereimplementation of LDLT for HCC treatment. A recent generally similar for the 2 treatment groups. There hasretrospective analysis of a United States experience noted been a large experience reporting RFA safety even inthat the disease-free survival following LDLT was lower those with lesions close to vascular structures.80 Thesethan that of cadaveric liver transplantation. LDLT recip- data indicate that RFA leads to better local tumor andients had a higher rate of HCC recurrence within 3 years longer overall survival for patients with very early as wellthan deceased donor OLT recipients, 30% vs 0%, respec- as early stage HCC. Therefore, RFA is the preferredtively. However, there was no difference in mortality or method of local ablation for patients with tumors 4the combined outcome of mortality or recurrence.68 cm. RFA should be considered for patients with very earlyThus, the role of LDLT, particularly for those outside of stage HCC when resection cannot be applied and also forideal criteria, needs further evaluation. patients with early stage HCC who are not candidates for Percutaneous ablation. Minimally invasive per- OLT and possibly for those with long waiting times 3cutaneous treatments are the best treatment alternatives months.for early HCC patients who are not eligible for surgical There are at least 2 prospective, randomized controlledresection or transplantation. The most widely utilized trials comparing RFA with surgical resection. Both foundmethods to induce tumor necrosis are PEI and RFA. no signiﬁcant differences in overall survival or recur-Other, less utilized methods include the injection of rence-free survival and expectedly lower complicationacetic acid, boiling saline, cryotherapy, microwave ther- rates and lower hospitalization in patients treated withapy, and laser therapy.8,58,69 RFA.81,82 A recent Italian cohort study of 218 patients PEI consists of injecting absolute ethanol directly into with HCC tumors 2 cm in diameter showed a sustainedthe HCC lesions. PEI performed under US guidance response in 97% during a median follow-up of 31 monthsachieves complete tumor necrosis in 70%– 80% of solitary and a 5-year survival rate of 68%.83 It seems that these 2
May 2008 DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF HCC 1759Figure 3. Percutaneous abla-tion of HCC using radiofrequency.procedures offer similar efﬁcacy, and the choice of ther- 12% of the 903 patients evaluated for HCC were suit-apy for very early stage HCC should depend on candidacy able for TACE.84for surgery in terms of performance status, severity of The basis of embolization is to induce ischemic tumorportal hypertension, and feasibility of RFA in terms of necrosis via acute arterial occlusion. Embolization maytumor location. be done alone (transarterial embolization) or combined Transarterial embolization/chemoembolization. with selective intraarterial chemotherapy (TACE) such asTACE may offer palliative beneﬁts for patients with doxorubicin, mitomycin, or cisplatin and a contrastintermediate stage HCC with 5-year survival rates after agent, lipiodol.treatment exceeding 50%. TACE has been shown to TACE induces extensive tumor necrosis in 30% to upimprove survival in patients outside of the early stage to 50% of those treated patients, but with fewer than 2%criteria, especially in those who have not presented achieving a complete response.84 A meta-analysis of 7with cancer-related symptoms or vascular invasion.69 randomized controlled trials comparing in that meta-However, its safe and effective use is limited to patients analysis, arterial embolization and/or chemoemboliza-with preserved liver function, absence of extrahepatic tion as a primary treatment for HCC in comparison withspread or vascular invasion, and no signiﬁcant cancer- conservative management and/or suboptimal therapies.85related symptoms. A European study revealed that only Arterial embolization improved 2-year survival comparedTable 5. Summary of Several Studies That Compared PEI and RFA for HCC Treatment Complete Sessions necrosis rate (%) (average number) Author N Tumor size PEI RFA PEI RFA Survival differenceLivraghi et al71 86 3 cm 80 90 4.8 1.2 NoLencioni et al79 102 Milan criteria 82 91 5.4 1.1 Yes Recurrence freeLin et al78 157 4 cm 88 96 6.5 1.6 YesShiina et al77 232 Milan criteria NA 6.4 2.1 YesNOTE. The 1-year survival rates are reported from different studies and thus may not be used to compare directly the different therapeuticmodalities.PEI, percutaneous ethanol injection; RFA, radiofrequency ablation.
1760 EL–SERAG ET AL GASTROENTEROLOGY Vol. 134, No. 6with that in control subjects (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI: icas, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. The overall sur-0.32– 0.89). vival (46.3 weeks, 95% CI: 40.9 –57.9, vs 34.4 weeks, 95% CI: In a large, prospective cohort study of 8510 patients 29.4 –39.4, respectively, P .058) and time to symptomwho received TACE for unresectable HCC, the median progression (24 weeks, 95% CI: 18 –30, vs 12 weeks, 95% CI:survival was 34 months with 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 7-year 11.7–17.1, respectively, P .007) were signiﬁcantly longer insurvivals of 82%, 47%, 26%, and 16%, respectively.86 There patients administered Nexavar vs those patients adminis-is currently little data to guide the choice of the chemo- tered placebo.88 Approximately 83% of the patients in thetherapeutic agent or the retreatment schedule for TACE. sorafenib trial had portal vein invasion and were classiﬁedThe current evidence does not support the use of transar- as Barcelona stage C, with 20% having extrahepatic metas-terial embolization without chemotherapeutic agent. tases. The 17% without portal vein invasion were patients Transarterial embolization/TACE are associated with who did not respond to TACE and were classiﬁed as Bar-adverse events in approximately 10% of treated patients; celona stage B in the study. Most patients had mild tothese events include ischemic cholecystitis, nausea, vom- moderate performance status. Therefore, it is reasonable toiting, bone marrow depression, and abdominal pain.58 A recommend sorafenib for patients with advanced stage orpostembolization syndrome is reported in 50% of pa- intermediate stage HCC with portal vein thrombosis. Prom-tients treated with TACE and includes fever, abdominal ising results89 on progression-free survival have also beenpain, and moderate degree of intestinal obstruction. reported for Erlotinib, an inhibitor of endothelial growthTreatment-related mortality is less than 5%. factor receptor signalling.90 TACE is clearly the ﬁrst-line therapy for patients at the Telomerase inhibition. Telomerase is active inintermediate stage who exceed the criteria for liver trans- 90% of human HCC, and it appears to be necessary for theplantation (Figure 2). In addition, TACE can be per- immortal proliferation capacity of HCCs.49 Preclinical stud-formed in patients at the early stage in whom RFA ies show that telomerase inhibition can impair proliferationcannot be performed because of tumor location (proxim- of human HCC in nude mice.91 Phase I/II clinical studiesity to a gallbladder, biliary tree, or blood vessel) or med- are currently underway in patients with lymphoma. In ad-ical comorbidities. TACE is also the ﬁrst-line therapy for dition to the above approaches, antibody treatment againstdownstaging tumors that exceed the criteria for HCC surface markers have been reported to lower recur-transplantation.64 rence rates after liver transplantation.92 Other options. Radionuclide Yttrium-90, a pure Another important factor to improve future therapiesemitter, is a form of hepatic artery-directed therapy. Mi- in HCC is the development of new markers to improvecrospheres of approximately 25 m in diameter contain- screening of cirrhosis patients for early lesions,93 selec-ing Yttrium-90 are lodged via a catheter insertion into tion of HCC patients that could beneﬁt from surgery orthe lobar or segmental level of either hepatic artery and chemotherapy,94 –97 or diagnosis of HCC.98 However, theemit local radiation with limited exposure to adjacent utility of these tests remains unproven and will have to behealthy tissue.87 Currently, there are no data to suggest tested in translational and clinical studies.its superiority over ablative therapies. HCC Treatment: Effectiveness vs Efﬁcacy Molecular Therapies Population-based studies in the United States indi- There are a growing number of clinical studies cate that the overall 1- and 3-year survival rates for patientsevaluating the efﬁcacy of molecular therapies in HCC, with HCC are approximately 20% and 5%, respectively (me-alone or in combination with classical chemotherapy. dian survival of 8 months).99 These ﬁgures accommodate Angiogenesis inhibitors. Several studies (phase I, for a 20% improvement in survival that was observed be-II, and III) are underway. Positive results have been ob- tween 1987 and 2001. To make a positive impact on thetained for therapies using Bevacizumab (vascular endo- effectiveness of treating HCC, several steps have to be suc-thelial growth factor inhibitor) in combination with cessfully accomplished so that more patients can be diag-Gemcitabine and Oxalliplatin. nosed at an early stage and receive timely potentially cura- Growth-receptor signaling. Studies have been tive therapy. However, there seems to be a serious chasmconducted targeting platelet-derived growth factor receptor, between efﬁcacy and effectiveness of treatment of HCC.100 Aendothelial growth factor receptor, Raf, and other signaling United States population-based study reported that, inpathways controlling cell proliferation. Positive results were 2963 patients 65 years and older diagnosed between 1992reported for the use of Nexavar (Bayer Healthcare AG, and 1999 with HCC, only 13% received potentially curativeLeverkusen, Germany) (sorafenib), an oral multikinase in- therapy (transplant, 0.9%; resection, 8.2%; local ablation,hibitor, in patients with HCC. A phase III double-blind, 4.1%). Furthermore, only 34% of 513 patients with singlerandomized, placebo-controlled trial was designed to eval- lesions and 34% of 143 patients with lesions 3.0 cmuate Nexavar in patients with advanced HCC (BCLC stage received potentially curative therapy. There were geographicC) who had no prior systemic therapy. Six hundred two variations in the management of HCC that are at least aspatients were randomized and enrolled at sites in the Amer- signiﬁcant as clinical and tumor-related features in deter-
May 2008 DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF HCC 1761mining the extent and type of HCC therapy.101 Another 10. Chen JG, Parkin DM, Chen QG, et al. Screening for liver cancer:United States population-based study of 1156 patients di- results of a randomised controlled trial in Qidong, China. J Med Screen 2003;10:204 –209.agnosed between 1998 and 2002 with small nonmetastatic 11. Wong LL, Limm WM, Severino R, et al. Improved survival withHCC in the United States found that liver transplantation screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl 2000;6:yielded excellent overall survival, but only 21% of patients 320 –325.with localized HCC received a transplant. Marked geo- 12. Trevisani F, De NS, Rapaccini G, et al. Semiannual and annualgraphic and racial variations were seen in the use of trans- surveillance of cirrhotic patients for hepatocellular carcinoma: effects on cancer stage and patient survival (Italian experience).plantation for HCC after controlling for other tumor and Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:734 –744.patient-related variables. For example, 25% of white pa- 13. Zhang B, Yang B. Combined -fetoprotein testing and ultra-tients, 21% of Hispanic patients, 17% of Asians patients, and sonography as a screening test for primary liver cancer. J Medonly 13% of African-American patients received a transplant. Screen 1999;6:108 –110.Patients with HCC were 2.2 times less likely to get a trans- 14. Bolondi L, Soﬁa S, Siringo S, et al. Surveillance programme ofplant in the South and 3.3 times less likely in the Northeast cirrhotic patients for early diagnosis and treatment of hepato- cellular carcinoma: a cost effectiveness analysis. Gut 2001;48:compared with patients in the Western United States.102 251–259.Transplantation patients with nonmetastatic HCC have ex- 15. Collier J, Sherman M. Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma.cellent long-term survival, and this has been shown in single Hepatology 1998;27:273–278.center as well as population-based studies. 16. Kim CK, Lim JH, Lee WJ. Detection of hepatocellular carcinomas In summary, the evidence indicates marked underuti- and dysplastic nodules in cirrhotic liver: accuracy of ultrasonog-lization of these interventions. Underutilization seems to raphy in transplant patients. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20:99 – 104.follow some disturbing patterns in relation to ethnicity, 17. Trevisani F, D’Intino PE, Morselli-Labate AM, et al. Serum -fe-poverty, and gender. toprotein for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients Several steps have to be taken to improve effectiveness of with chronic liver disease: inﬂuence of HBsAg and anti-HCVHCC therapy. These include provider and patient education status. J Hepatol 2001;34:570 –575.on risk factors for HCC and methods of diagnosis, increas- 18. Sherman M, Peltekian KM, Lee C. Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic carriers of hepatitis B virus: incidence anding the number of patients diagnosed in early or very early prevalence of hepatocellular carcinoma in a North Americanstage by better implementation of screening programs and urban population. Hepatology 1995;22:432– 438.optimizing screened patients for curative therapy (eg, drug 19. Trevisani F, D’Intino PE, Caraceni P, et al. Etiologic factors andand alcohol rehabilitation), improving access to specialized clinical presentation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Differencesmultidisciplinary treatment, and utilization of a validated between cirrhotic and noncirrhotic Italian patients. Cancerstaging system. 1995;75:2220 –2232. 20. Bayati N, Silverman AL, Gordon SC. Serum -fetoprotein levels and liver histology in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Am J References Gastroenterol 1998;93:2452–2456. 21. Franca AV, Elias JJ, Lima BL, et al. Diagnosis, staging and 1. Chen TH, Chen CJ, Yen MF, et al. Ultrasound screening and risk factors for death from hepatocellular carcinoma in a high-risk treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Braz J Med Biol Res group in Taiwan. Int J Cancer 2002;98:257–261. 2004;37:1689 –1705. 2. Tsukuma H, Hiyama T, Tanaka S, et al. Risk factors for hepato- 22. Patel D, Terrault NA, Yao FY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hepa- cellular carcinoma among patients with chronic liver disease. tocellular carcinoma surveillance in patients with hepatitis C N Engl J Med 1993;328:1797–1801. virus-related cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;3:75– 3. Velazquez RF, Rodriguez M, Navascues CA, et al. Prospective 84. analysis of risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients 23. Saab S, Ly D, Nieto J, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma screening with liver cirrhosis. Hepatology 2003;37:520 –527. in patients waiting for liver transplantation: a decision analytic 4. Choi BG, Park SH, Byun JY, et al. The ﬁndings of ruptured model. Liver Transpl 2003;9:672– 681. hepatocellular carcinoma on helical CT. Br J Radiol 2001;74: 24. Choi D, Kim SH, Lim JH, et al. Detection of hepatocellular 142–146. carcinoma: combined T2-weighted and dynamic gadolinium-en- 5. Eastman RC, Carson RE, Orloff DG, et al. Glucose utilization in hanced MRI versus combined CT during arterial portography and a patient with hepatoma and hypoglycemia. Assessment by a CT hepatic arteriography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25: positron emission tomography. J Clin Invest 1992;89:1958 – 777–785. 1963. 25. Arguedas MR, Chen VK, Eloubeidi MA, et al. Screening for 6. Sakisaka S, Watanabe M, Tateishi H, et al. Erythropoietin pro- hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis: duction in hepatocellular carcinoma cells associated with poly- a cost-utility analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:679 – 690. cythemia: immunohistochemical evidence. Hepatology 1993; 26. Marrero JA, Hussain HK, Nghiem HV, et al. Improving the prediction 18:1357–1362. of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients with an arterially- 7. Kew M. Tumors of the liver. In: Zakim D, Boyer T, eds. Hepatol- enhancing liver mass. Liver Transpl 2005;11:281–289. ogy: A textbook of liver disease. Philadelphia: WB Saunders 27. Burrel M, Llovet JM, Ayuso C, et al. MRI angiography is superior Company, 1996:1513. to helical CT for detection of HCC prior to liver transplantation: 8. Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. an explant correlation. Hepatology 2003;38:1034 –1042. Hepatology 2005;42:1208 –1236. 28. de Ledinghen V, Laharie D, Lecesne R, et al. Detection of 9. Zhang BH, Yang BH, Tang ZY. Randomized controlled trial of nodules in liver cirrhosis: spiral computed tomography or mag- screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol netic resonance imaging? A prospective study of 88 nodules in 2004;130:417– 422. 34 patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002;14:159 –165.
1762 EL–SERAG ET AL GASTROENTEROLOGY Vol. 134, No. 629. Libbrecht L, Bielen D, Verslype C, et al. Focal lesions in cirrhotic 50. Llovet JM, Fuster J, Bruix J. Intention-to-treat analysis of surgical explant livers: pathological evaluation and accuracy of pretrans- treatment for early hepatocellular carcinoma: resection versus plantation imaging examinations. Liver Transpl 2002;8:749 – transplantation. Hepatology 1999;30:1434 –1440. 761. 51. Chen YJ, Yeh SH, Chen JT, et al. Chromosomal changes and30. Rode A, Bancel B, Douek P, et al. Small nodule detection in clonality relationship between primary and recurrent hepatocel- cirrhotic livers: evaluation with US, spiral CT, and MRI and lular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2000;119:431– 440. correlation with pathologic examination of explanted liver. 52. Finkelstein SD, Marsh W, Demetris AJ, et al. Microdissection- J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25:327–336. based allelotyping discriminates de novo tumor from intrahe-31. Ebara M, Ohto M, Watanabe Y, et al. Diagnosis of small hepa- patic spread in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2003;37: tocellular carcinoma: correlation of MR imaging and tumor his- 871– 879. tologic studies. Radiology 1986;159:371–377. 53. Ng IO, Guan XY, Poon RT, et al. Determination of the molecular32. Ebara M, Ohto M, Kondo F. Strategy for early diagnosis of relationship between multiple tumour nodules in hepatocellular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Ann Acad Med Singapore carcinoma differentiates multicentric origin from intrahepatic 1989;18:83– 89. metastasis. J Pathol 2003;199:345–353.33. Torzilli G, Minagawa M, Takayama T, et al. Accurate preopera- 54. Vauthey JN, Lauwers GY, Esnaola NF, et al. Simpliﬁed staging tive evaluation of liver mass lesions without ﬁne-needle biopsy. for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1527– Hepatology 1999;30:889 – 893. 1536.34. Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, et al. Clinical management of 55. Zhou XD, Tang ZY, Yang BH, et al. Experience of 1000 patients hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 who underwent hepatectomy for small hepatocellular carci- EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the noma. Cancer 2001;91:1479 –1486. Liver. J Hepatol 2001;35:421– 430. 56. Ikai I, Arii S, Kojiro M, et al. Reevaluation of prognostic factors35. Byrnes V, Shi H, Kiryu S, et al. The clinical outcome of small for survival after liver resection in patients with hepatocellular ( 20 mm) arterially enhancing nodules on MRI in the cirrhotic carcinoma in a Japanese nationwide survey. Cancer 2004;101: liver. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1654 –1659. 796 – 802.36. Durand F, Regimbeau JM, Belghiti J, et al. Assessment of the 57. Shi M, Guo RP, Lin XJ, et al. Partial hepatectomy with wide beneﬁts and risks of percutaneous biopsy before surgical resec- versus narrow resection margin for solitary hepatocellular car- tion of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2001;35:254 –258. cinoma: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 2007;245:37. Llovet JM, Bru C, Bruix J. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 36 – 43. the BCLC staging classiﬁcation. Semin Liver Dis 1999;19:329 – 58. Bruix J, Hessheimer AJ, Forner A, et al. New aspects of diagno- 338. sis and therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncogene 2006;38. Marrero JA, Fontana RJ, Barrat A, et al. Prognosis of hepatocel- 25:3848 –3856. lular carcinoma: comparison of 7 staging systems in an Ameri- 59. Sala M, Varela M, Bruix J. Selection of candidates with HCC for can cohort. Hepatology 2005;41:707–716. transplantation in the MELD era. Liver Transpl 2004;10(Suppl39. Levy I, Sherman M. Staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: as- 2):S4 –S9. sessment of the CLIP, Okuda, and Child-Pugh staging systems 60. Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, et al. Liver transplantation for in a cohort of 257 patients in Toronto. Gut 2002;50:881– 885. the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients40. Prospective validation of the CLIP score: a new prognostic sys- with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 1996;334:693– 699. tem for patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. 61. Shetty K, Timmins K, Brensinger C, et al. Liver transplantation The Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) Investigators. for hepatocellular carcinoma validation of present selection Hepatology 2000;31:840 – 845. criteria in predicting outcome. Liver Transpl 2004;10:911–918.41. Conill C, Verger E, Salamero M. Performance status assess- 62. Yao FY, Ferrell L, Bass NM, et al. Liver transplantation for ment in cancer patients. Cancer 1990;65:1864 –1866. hepatocellular carcinoma: expansion of the tumor size limits42. Tamoxifen in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a random- does not adversely impact survival. Hepatology 2001;33: ised controlled trial. CLIP Group (Cancer of the Liver Italian 1394 –1403. Programme). Lancet 1998;352:17–20. 63. Margarit C, Escartin A, Castells L, et al. Resection for hepato-43. Castells A, Bruix J, Bru C, et al. Treatment of hepatocellular cellular carcinoma is a good option in Child-Turcotte-Pugh class carcinoma with tamoxifen: a double-blind placebo-controlled A patients with cirrhosis who are eligible for liver transplanta- trial in 120 patients. Gastroenterology 1995;109:917–922. tion. Liver Transpl 2005;11:1242–1251.44. Farinati F. Tamoxifen treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma. 64. Yao FY, Hirose R, LaBerge JM, et al. A prospective study on Gastroenterology 1996;111:272–274. downstaging of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplan-45. Yuen MF, Poon RT, Lai CL, et al. A randomized placebo-con- tation. Liver Transpl 2005;11:1505–1514. trolled study of long-acting octreotide for the treatment of ad- 65. Adam R, Azoulay D, Castaing D, et al. Liver resection as a bridge vanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2002;36:687– to transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis: a 691. reasonable strategy? Ann Surg 2003;238:508 –518.46. Llovet JM, Sala M, Castells L, et al. Randomized controlled trial 66. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL, et al. The role and limitation of living of interferon treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Hepatology 2000;31:54 –58. Transpl 2004;10:440 – 447.47. Grimaldi C, Bleiberg H, Gay F, et al. Evaluation of antiandrogen 67. Trotter JF, Wachs M, Everson GT, et al. Adult-to-adult transplan- therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a tation of the right hepatic lobe from a living donor. N Engl J Med European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 2002;346:1074 –1082. multicentric double-blind trial. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:411– 417. 68. Fisher RA, Kulik LM, Freise CE, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma48. Dewantoro O, Gani RA, Akbar N. Hepatocarcinogenesis in viral recurrence and death following living and deceased donor liver hepatitis B infection: the role of HBx and p53. Acta Med Indones transplantation. Am J Transplant 2007;7:1601–1608. 2006;38:154 –159. 69. Ringe B, Pichlmayr R, Wittekind C, et al. Surgical treatment of49. El-Serag HB, Rudolph KL. Hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiol- hepatocellular carcinoma: experience with liver resection and ogy and molecular carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology 2007;132: transplantation in 198 patients. World J Surg 1991;15:270 – 2557–2576. 285.
May 2008 DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF HCC 176370. Ishii H, Okada S, Nose H, et al. Local recurrence of hepatocel- lar carcinoma: downstaging to resection, RFA and bridge to lular carcinoma after percutaneous ethanol injection. Cancer transplantation. J Surg Oncol 2006;94:572–586. 1996;77:1792–1796. 88. Llovet J. Sorafenib improves survival in advanced hepatocellular71. Livraghi T, Bolondi L, Lazzaroni S, et al. Percutaneous ethanol carcinoma (HCC): results of a phase III randomized placebo- injection in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrho- controlled trial (SHARP trial). J Clin Oncol 2007;25(18S [June sis. A study on 207 patients. Cancer 1992;69:925–929. 20 Suppl]):LBA1.72. Vilana R, Bruix J, Bru C, et al. Tumor size determines the efﬁcacy 89. Hampton T. Cancer drug trials show modest beneﬁt: drugs of percutaneous ethanol injection for the treatment of small target liver, gastric, head and neck cancers. JAMA 2007;298: hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 1992;16:353–357. 273–275.73. Livraghi T, Bolondi L, Buscarini L, et al. No treatment, resection 90. Philip PA, Mahoney MR, Allmer C, et al. Phase II study of and ethanol injection in hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospec- Erlotinib (OSI-774) in patients with advanced hepatocellular tive analysis of survival in 391 patients with cirrhosis. Italian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:6657– 6663. Cooperative HCC Study Group. J Hepatol 1995;22:522–526. 91. Djojosubroto MW, Chin AC, Go N, et al. Telomerase antagonists74. Yamamoto J, Okada S, Shimada K, et al. Treatment strategy for GRN163 and GRN163L inhibit tumor growth and increase che- small hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of long-term re- mosensitivity of human hepatoma. Hepatology 2005;42:1127– sults after percutaneous ethanol injection therapy and surgical 1136. 92. Xu J, Shen ZY, Chen XG, et al. A randomized controlled trial of resection. Hepatology 2001;34:707–713. Licartin for preventing hepatoma recurrence after liver trans-75. Ryu M, Shimamura Y, Kinoshita T, et al. Therapeutic results of plantation. Hepatology 2007;45:269 –276. resection, transcatheter arterial embolization and percutaneous 93. Quaglia A, McStay M, Stoeber K, et al. Novel markers of cell transhepatic ethanol injection in 3225 patients with hepatocel- kinetics to evaluate progression from cirrhosis to hepatocellular lular carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter study. Jpn J Clin carcinoma. Liver Int 2006;26:424 – 432. Oncol 1997;27:251–257. 94. Fiorentino M, Altimari A, Ravaioli M, et al. Predictive value of76. Livraghi T, Goldberg SN, Lazzaroni S, et al. Small hepatocellular biological markers for hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated carcinoma: treatment with radio-frequency ablation versus eth- with orthotopic liver transplantation. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10: anol injection. Radiology 1999;210:655– 661. 1789 –1795.77. Shiina S, Teratani T, Obi S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of 95. Ho MC, Lin JJ, Chen CN, et al. A gene expression proﬁle for radiofrequency ablation with ethanol injection for small hepato- vascular invasion can predict the recurrence after resection of cellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2005;129:122–130. hepatocellular carcinoma: a microarray approach. Ann Surg On-78. Lin SM, Lin CJ, Lin CC, et al. Radiofrequency ablation improves col 2006;13:1474 –1484. prognosis compared with ethanol injection for hepatocellular 96. Hoshida Y, Moriyama M, Otsuka M, et al. Gene expressions carcinoma 4 cm. Gastroenterology 2004;127:1714 –1723. associated with chemosensitivity in human hepatoma cells.79. Lencioni RA, Allgaier HP, Cioni D, et al. Small hepatocellular Hepatogastroenterology 2007;54:489 – 492. carcinoma in cirrhosis: randomized comparison of radio-fre- 97. Tateishi R, Shiina S, Yoshida H, et al. Prediction of recurrence of quency thermal ablation versus percutaneous ethanol injection. hepatocellular carcinoma after curative ablation using three Radiology 2003;228:235–240. tumor markers. Hepatology 2006;44:1518 –1527.80. Teratani T, Yoshida H, Shiina S, et al. Radiofrequency ablation 98. Llovet JM, Chen Y, Wurmbach E, et al. A molecular signature to for hepatocellular carcinoma in so-called high-risk locations. discriminate dysplastic nodules from early hepatocellular carci- Hepatology 2006;43:1101–1108. noma in HCV cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2006;131:1758 –1767.81. Liu DQ, Lu MD, Tan JF, et al. Microwave coagulation at different 99. Davila JA, El-Serag HB. Racial differences in survival of hepato- temperatures for hepatocellular carcinoma management: efﬁ- cellular carcinoma in the United States: a population-based cacy evaluation by enzyme histochemical staining. Nan Fang Yi study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:104 –110. Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 2006;26:1149 –1151. 100. El-Serag HB. Translational research: the study of community82. Chen MS, Li JQ, Zheng Y, et al. A prospective randomized trial effectiveness in digestive and liver disorders. Gastroenterology comparing percutaneous local ablative therapy and partial hep- 2007;132:8 –10. atectomy for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg 2006; 101. El-Serag HB, Siegel AB, Davila JA, et al. Treatment and out- 243:321–328. comes of treating of hepatocellular carcinoma among Medicare83. Livraghi T, Meloni F, Di SM, et al. Sustained complete response recipients in the United States: a population-based study. and complications rates after radiofrequency ablation of very J Hepatol 2006;44:158 –166. early hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: is resection still the 102. Siegel AB, McBride RB, El-Serag HB, et al. Racial disparities in treatment of choice? Hepatology 2008;47:82– 89. utilization of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma84. Llovet JM, Real MI, Montana X, et al. Arterial embolisation or in the United States, 1998 –2002. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients 103:120 –127. with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised con- 103. Bruix J, Castells A, Bosch J, et al. Surgical resection of hepa- trolled trial. Lancet 2002;359:1734 –1739. tocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: prognostic value of85. Bruix J, Sala M, Llovet JM. Chemoembolization for hepatocellu- preoperative portal pressure. Gastroenterology 1996;111: lar carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004;127(Suppl 1):S179 – 1018 –1022. S188.86. Llovet JM, Bruix J. Systematic review of randomized trials for Received December 19, 2007. Accepted February 25, 2008. unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization im- Address requests for reprints to: Hashem B. El-Serag, MD, MPH, proves survival. Hepatology 2003;37:429 – 442. Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medi-87. Kulik LM, Atassi B, van Holsbeek L, et al. Yttrium-90 micro- cine, Houston, Texas 77030. e-mail: email@example.com; fax: spheres (TheraSphere) treatment of unresectable hepatocellu- (713) 748 7359.