Staging for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Complex and Confusing

Usefulness of the HKLC vs. the BCLC staging system in a European HCC cohort

Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in South Asia

Chemoembolization and Radioembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Transarterial Radioembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Who, When… and Y(90)?

The updated BCLC staging system needs further refinement: A surgeon’s perspective

BackgroundAccurate staging information is necessary to determine the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to guide subsequent patient management.AimTo compare the prognostic performance of Hong Kong Liver Cancer...

Backgrounds:Recently Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging system has been proposed for staging of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and has been shown to provide better prognostic ability than the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system. However, the HKLC system lacks external validation, and its applicability remains uncertain. The present study was aimed to evaluate the prognostic performance of HKLC in HCC patients treated with curative intent.Methods:Medical records of HCC patients treated with either resection or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) from 2011 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The overall survival and the prognostic ability of the HKLC and BCLC system were evaluated.Results:79 HCC patients were included, of which 64.56% had Child A cirrhosis. Chronic viral hepatitis B infection was the leading cause of HCC, followed by chronic viral hepatitis C infection, alcohol and alcohol with HBV or HCV infection. According to the BCLC system, 82.28% were in stage 0-A, and according to the HKLC system, 93.67% were in stage I-IIb. RFA and liver resection were the primary treatment in 56.96% and 43.04%, respectively. The 5-year survival rate of patients in HKLC stage I, IIa and IIb were 81.64%, 61.66%, and 54.42%, respectively (P<0.001). Whereas, the 5-year survival rate of patients in BCLC stage 0, A and B were 60.00%, 75.90%, and 26.65%, respectively (P=0.053). The AUROC curve of the HKLC and BCLC for the entire cohort was 0.77 and 0.64, respectively (P=0.15). Subgroup analysis showed the AUROC curve of the HKLC and BCLC for the patients with viral-associated HCC was 0.79 and 0.68, respectively (P=0.02).Conclusions:Applying the HKLC staging system provides a good discriminative ability for survival prediction in HCC patients treated with curative intent. Comparing with the BCLC system, the HKLC system tends to yield better prognostic accuracy, particularly in viral-associated HCC.

BackgroundAccurate staging is necessary for predicting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis and guiding patient management. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system has limitations due to heterogeneity observed among patients in BCLC stages B and C. In contrast, the Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging system offers more aggressive treatment strategies.AimTo compare the prognostic performance of HKLC and BCLC staging systems in Egyptian patients with HCC.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study at the National Liver Institute, Menoufia University, Egypt, on 1015 HCC patients. Data was collected from patients’ medical records over 10 years (from 2008 to 2018). The BCLC and HKLC stages were identified, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare patients’ overall survival rates within each staging system. Additionally, we evaluated the comparative prognostic performance of the two staging systems.ResultsHepatitis C was identified as the underlying etiology in 799 patients (78.7%), hepatitis B in 12 patients (1.2%), and non-viral causes in 204 patients (20.1%). The survival analysis demonstrated significant differences across the various stages within both the BCLC and HKLC systems. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves indicated a marginally superior performance of the HKLC system in predicting survival at 1, 2, and 3 years compared to the BCLC system. Furthermore, the HKLC staging provided a slightly enhanced prognostic capability, particularly for patients classified under BCLC stages B and C, suggesting a potential survival benefit.ConclusionHKLC classification had a slightly better prognostic performance than BCLC staging system and may offer a survival advantage for certain patients with HCC in BCLC stage B and C HCC cases.

BackgroundBoth the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging and the Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging have their own definitions of ideal patients for liver resection (IPLR) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to compare the prognosis of IPLRs between the BCLC and HKLC staging systems, and to identify patients who may benefit from liver resection (LR) in the HKLC staging but beyond the BCLC staging.MethodsThis retrospective study evaluated 1,296 consecutive patients with HCC who underwent LR between August 2013 and April 2021 (457 patients and 1,046 patients were IPLR according to the BCLC and HKLC staging systems, respectively). Overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups. To assess potential benefit of LR for IPLR in the HKLC staging but beyond the BCLC staging, univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to determine prognostic factors of OS, and prognostic stratification was performed based on the selected prognostic factors. The IPLRs in the HKLC staging but beyond the BCLC staging were divided into subgroups according to the prognostic stratification and separately compared with the IPLRs in the BCLC staging.ResultsOS was different between the two staging systems (P = 0.011). All the 457 IPLRs in the BCLC staging were also the IPLRs in the HKLC staging. Diameter of the largest tumor5 cm (HR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.18–2.10; P = 0.002) and liver cirrhosis (HR = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.19–2.20; P = 0.002) were risk factors for poor OS in IPLRs in the HKLC staging but beyond the BCLC staging; hence, patients were divided into the low-risk (n = 104), intermediate-risk (n = 369), and high-risk groups (n = 116) accordingly. There was no difference in OS between patients in the BCLC staging and patients in low-risk group (P = 0.996). However, OS was significantly different between patients in the BCLC staging and those in intermediate-risk (P = 0.003) and high-risk groups (P < 0.001).ConclusionIPLRs in the BCLC staging system have better prognosis. However, IPLRs in the HKLC staging system but beyond the BCLC staging may have equivalent prognosis to IPLRs in the BCLC staging if the tumor size is ≤ 5 cm and liver cirrhosis is absent.

New frontiers in liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Research Reporting Standards for Radioembolization of Hepatic Malignancies

Validation of the Hong Kong Liver Cancer Staging System in Determining Prognosis of the North American Patients Following Intra-arterial Therapy.

α-Fetoprotein for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis: The Demise of a Brilliant Star

BACKGROUNDDespite being the world’s most widely used system for staging and therapeutic guidance in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment, the Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) system has limitations, especially regarding intermediate-grade (BCLC-B) tumors. The recently proposed Hong Kong liver cancer (HKLC) staging system appears useful but requires validation in Western populations.AIMTo evaluate the agreement between BCLC and HKLC staging on the management of HCC in a Western population, estimating the overall patient survival.METHODSThis was a retrospective study of HCC patients treated at a university hospital in southern Brazil between 2011 and 2016. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. HCC staging was carried out according to the HKLC and BCLC systems to assess treatment agreement. Overall survival was estimated based on the treatment proposed in each system.RESULTSA total of 519 HCC patients were assessed. Of these, 178 (34.3%) were HKLC-I; 95 (18.3%) HKLC-IIA; 47 (9.1%) HKLC-IIB; 29 (5.6%) HKLC-IIIA; 30 (5.8%) HKLC-IIIB; 75 (14.4%) HKLC-IV; and 65 (12.5%) HKLC-V. According to the BCLC, 25 (4.9%) were BCLC-0; 246 (47.4%) BCLC-A; 107 (20.6%) BCLC-B; 76 (14.6%) BCLC-C; and 65 (12.5%) BCLC-D. The general agreement between the two systems was 80.0% - BCLC-0 and HKLC-I (100%); BCLC-A and HKLC-I/HKLC-II (96.7%); BCLC-B and HKLC-III (46.7%); BCLC-C and HKLC-IV (98.7%); BCLC-D and HKLC-V (41.5%). When sub-classifying BCLC-A, HKLC-IIB, HKLC-IIIA and HKLC-IIIB stages according to the up-to-7 in/out criterion, 13.4, 66.0, 100 and 36.7%, respectively, of the cases were classified as up-to-7 out.CONCLUSIONIn a Western population, the general agreement between the two systems was 80.0%, although in BCLC-B cases the agreement was low, suggesting that some individuals could be candidates for the curative treatment recommended by the HKLC. The authors suggest that the BCLC system should be routinely employed, although for BCLC-B cases it should be associated with the HKLC system.

International Liver Cancer Association (ILCA) White Paper on Biomarker Development for Hepatocellular Carcinoma