The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other’s work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC.

The fifth version of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was revised by the Japan Society of Hepatology, according to the methodology of evidence‐based medicine and partly to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, which was published in October 2021 in Japanese. In addition to surveillance–diagnostic and treatment algorithms, a new algorithm for systemic therapy has been created, as multiple drugs for hepatocellular carcinoma can be currently selected. Here, new or revised algorithms and evidence on which the recommendations are based are described.

In the 2010 version of the Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) consensus-based treatment algorithm for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) failure/refractoriness was defined assuming the use of superselective lipiodol TACE, which has been widely used worldwide and particularly in Japan, and areas with lipiodol deposition were considered to be necrotic. However, this concept is not well accepted internationally. Furthermore, following the approval of microspheres, an embolic material that does not use lipiodol, in February 2014 in Japan, the phrase ‘lipiodol deposition' needed to be changed to ‘necrotic lesion or viable lesion'. Accordingly, the respective section in the JSH guidelines was revised to define TACE failure as an insufficient response after ≥2 consecutive TACE procedures that is evident on response evaluation computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging after 1-3 months, even after chemotherapeutic agents have been changed and/or the feeding artery has been reanalyzed. In addition, the appearance of a higher number of lesions in the liver than that recorded at the previous TACE procedure (other than the nodule being treated) was added to the definition of TACE failure/refractoriness. Following the discussion of other issues concerning the continuous elevation of tumor markers, vascular invasion, and extrahepatic spread, descriptions similar to those in the previous version were approved. The revision of these TACE failure definitions was approved by over 85% of HCC experts. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a very heterogeneous tumor in terms of tumor size (>3 cm ∼ over 10 cm), tumor number (4 ∼ over 20) and liver function (Child-Pugh score 5-9). However, transarterial chemoembolization is the only recommended treatment option according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging. Bolondi's subclassification of BCLC B stage is feasible; however, there are several weak points. Therefore, by modifying Bolondi's subclassification, we have proposed a more simplified subclassification, Kinki criteria. The Kinki criteria consist of 2 factors: liver function (Child-Pugh score 5-7 or 8, 9) and tumor status (Beyond Milan and within up-to-7 criteria; IN and OUT). The Kinki criteria classifies BCLC B stage from B1 (Child-Pugh score 5-7 and within up-to-7), B2 (Child-Pugh score 5-7 and beyond up-to-7) and B3 (Child-Pugh score 8, 9 and any tumor status). These criteria are simple and easy to apply to clinical practice. Therefore, these criteria will stratify the heterogeneous population of BCLC B group patient well and give the treatment indication according to each substage. These criteria should be further validated both retrospectively and prospectively.

Introduction: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy is extremely effective in the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with a response rate of 44%, as reported in the IMbrave150 trial. When tumor shrinkage is obtained, achieving complete response (CR) is possible in many cases using curative conversion with resection, ablation, or superselective transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with curative intent. This concept, i.e., curative conversion by combining systemic therapy and locoregional therapy, has not been reported before. This multicenter proof-of-concept study was conducted to show the value of curative conversion in immunotherapy-treated intermediate-stage HCC meeting TACE-unsuitable criteria. Methods: This study included 110 consecutive Child-Pugh A patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for unresectable and TACE-unsuitable intermediate-stage HCC at seven centers in Japan. CR rate, drug-free rate, time to CR, change in liver function, efficacy in positron emission tomography (PET)-positive HCC, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed in patients who achieved CR using resection, ablation, superselective TACE with curative intent following atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab alone. Results: Clinical or pathological CR was achieved in 38 patients (35%) (median observation period: 21.2 months). The modalities of curative conversion in 35 patients were as follows: resection, 7; ablation, 13; and superselective TACE, 15. Three patients achieved clinical CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy alone. Among the 38 CR patients, 25 achieved drug-free status. PFS was not reached, and 3 patients experienced recurrence after reaching CR. Regarding OS, there were no deaths in any of the CR patients. The albumin-bilirubin score did not deteriorate after locoregional therapy or resection. Of seven PET-positive patients who achieved CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab followed by curative conversion, five achieved drug-free status. Conclusion: The achievement of CR rate by curative conversion in patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the preceding therapy for unresectable and TACE-unsuitable intermediate-stage HCC was 35%. Overall, 23% of patients achieved drug-free status and no recurrence was observed from this patient subgroup with CR and drug-free status. Thus, achieving CR and/or drug-free status should be a therapeutic goal for patients with intermediate-stage HCC without vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread.

Introduction: Several clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus molecular-targeted agents versus TACE alone revealed no clinical benefits in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Here, we report the final OS analysis from the TACTICS trial, which previously demonstrated significant improvement in PFS with TACE plus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (NCT01217034). Methods: Patients with unresectable HCC were randomized to a TACE plus sorafenib group (N = 80) or a TACE alone group (N = 76). Patients in the combination treatment group received sorafenib 400 mg once daily for 2–3 weeks before TACE, followed by 800 mg once daily during on-demand conventional TACE sessions until time to untreatable progression. In this trial, TACE-specific PFS was used. TACE-specific PFS is defined as the time from randomization to progressive disease (PD) or death from any cause, and PD was defined as untreatable progression, caused by the inability of a patient to further receive or benefit from TACE for reasons that include intrahepatic tumor progression (25% increase vs. baseline) according to response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver, the detection of extrahepatic spread, vascular invasion, or transient deterioration of liver function to Child-Pugh C after TACE. Results: At the cut-off date of July 31, 2020, 131 OS events were observed. The median OS was 36.2 months with TACE plus sorafenib and 30.8 months with TACE alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.861; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.607–1.223; p = 0.40, ΔOS, 5.4 months). The updated PFS was 22.8 months with TACE plus sorafenib and 13.5 months with TACE alone (HR = 0.661; 95% CI, 0.466–0.938; p = 0.02). Post-trial treatments with active procedures/agents were received by 47 (58.8%) patients in the TACE plus sorafenib group and 58 (76.3%) in the TACE alone group (p = 0.01). In post hoc analysis, PFS and OS benefit were shown in HCC patients with tumor burden beyond up-to-7 criteria. Conclusions: In TACTICS trial, TACE plus sorafenib did not show significant OS benefit over TACE alone; however, clinical meaningful OS prolongation and significantly improved PFS was observed. Thus, the TACE plus sorafenib can be considered a choice of treatment in intermediate-stage HCC, especially in patients with high tumor burden. Trial Registration: NCT01217034.