Immunotherapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic front-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, biomarkers that predict treatment success and survival remain an unmet need. Patients with HCC put on PD-(L)1-based immunotherapy were included in a training set (n = 190; 6 European centers) and a validation set (n = 102; 8 European centers). We investigated the prognostic value of baseline variables on overall survival using a Cox model in the training set and developed the easily applicable CRAFITY (CRP and AFP in ImmunoTherapY) score. The score was validated in the independent, external cohort, and evaluated in a cohort of patients treated with sorafenib (n = 204). Baseline serum alpha-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/ml (hazard ratio [HR] 1.7; p = 0.007) and C-reactive protein ≥1 mg/dl (HR, 1.7; p = 0.007) were identified as independent prognostic factors in multivariable analysis and were used to develop the CRAFITY score. Patients who fulfilled no criterion (0 points; CRAFITY-low) had the longest median overall survival (27.6 (95% CI 19.5-35.8) months), followed by those fulfilling 1 criterion (1 point; CRAFITY-intermediate; 11.3 (95% CI 8.0-14.6) months), and patients meeting both criteria (2 points; CRAFITY-high; 6.4 (95% CI 4.8-8.1) months; p <0.001). Additionally, best radiological response (complete response/partial response/stable disease/progressive disease) was significantly better in patients with lower CRAFITY score (CRAFITY-low: 9%/20%/52%/20% vs. CRAFITY-intermediate: 3%/25%/36%/36% vs. CRAFITY-high: 2%/15%/22%/61%; p = 0.003). These results were confirmed in the independent validation set and in different subgroups, including Child-Pugh A and B, performance status 0 and ≥1, and first-line and later lines. In the sorafenib cohort, CRAFITY was associated with survival, but not radiological response. The CRAFITY score is associated with survival and radiological response in patients receiving PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. The score may help with patient counseling but requires prospective validation. The immunotherapy-based regimen of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic first-line therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Biomarkers to predict treatment outcome are an unmet need in patients undergoing immunotherapy for HCC. We developed and externally validated a score that predicts outcome in patients with HCC undergoing immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockers.

It has been a long time since tumor ablation was first tested in patients with liver cancer, especially hepatocellular carcinoma. Since than it has become a first line treatment modality for hepatocellular carcinoma. Over the years, the indications of thermal ablation have expanded to colorectal cancer liver metastases and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma as well. Together with the new indication for ablation, new ablation devices have been developed as well. Among them microwave ablation shows potential in replacing radiofrequency ablation as the preferred method of thermal ablation in liver cancer. The debate whether radiofrequency or microwave ablation should be the preferred method of treatment in patients with liver cancer remains open. The main purpose of this review is to offer some answers to the question: Microwave ablation in liver tumors: a better tool or simply more power? Various clinical scenarios will be analyzed including small, medium, and intermediate size hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal cancer liver metastases and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Furthermore, the advantages, limitations, and technical considerations of MWA treatment will be provided also.

The time for battling cancer has never been more suitable than nowadays and fortunately against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) we do have a far-reaching arsenal. Moreover, because liver cancer comprises a plethora of stages-from very early to advanced disease and with many treatment options-from surgery to immunotherapy trials-it leaves the clinician a wide range of options. The scope of our review is to throw light on combination treatments that seem to be beyond guidelines and to highlight these using evidence-based analysis of the most frequently used combination therapies, discussing their advantages and flaws in comparison to the current standard of care. One particular combination therapy seems to be in the forefront: Transarterial chemoembolization plus ablation for medium-size non-resectable HCC (3-5 cm), which is currently at the frontier between Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification A and B. Not only does it improve the outcome in contrast to each individual therapy, but it also seems to have similar results to surgery. Also, the abundance of immune checkpoint inhibitors that have appeared lately in clinical trials are bringing promising results against HCC. Although the path of combination therapies in HCC is still filled with uncertainty and caveats, in the following years the hepatology and oncology fields could witness an HCC guideline revolution.

Background & Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer‐related death worldwide. Liver transplantation (LT) is a curative treatment option. We investigated survival outcomes based on recipient‐donor sex constellation (RDSC) following LT.Methods: We performed a European Liver Transplant Registry analysis, including patients from 1988 to December 2022. The cohort was split into four RDSC groups: female donor female recipient (FDFR), female donor male recipient (FDMR), male donor female recipient (MDFR) and male donor male recipient (MDMR). Survival analysis, including death with recurrence, was performed.Results: In 7601 LT for HCC with an overall median follow‐up of 22.6 months (5.8, 60.7), death was registered in 25.1% and, as primary cause of death, HCC tumour recurrence in 26.0%. There was no statistically significant difference on crude survival estimates among the different RDSC groups (log‐rank p = 0.66) with 10‐year overall survival (OS) of 54.5% in FDFR, 54.6% in FDMR, 59.1% in MDFR and 56.9% in MDMR. On multivariable analysis, RDSC showed a significant effect on OS (FDFR as reference): MDFR (aHR 0.72, p = 0.023). No significant difference was found for FDMR (aHR 0.98, p = 0.821) and MDMR (aHR 0.90, p= 0.288). Regarding overall registered causes of death, differences between RDSC groups were found in rejection (p = 0.017) and cardiovascular (p = 0.046) associated deaths.Conclusions: In female recipients undergoing LT for HCC, male donor grafts were associated with a 28% reduction of mortality compared to female donor grafts.