Background and Aims: Portal hypertension (PHT) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are major complication of cirrhosis which significantly contribute to morbidity and mortality. In this review, we aim to describe the consequences of both angiogenesis and inflammation in the pathogenesis of PHT and HCC, but also the difficulty to propose adapted treatment when PHT and HCC coexist in the same patients.Methods: Studies for review in this article were retrieved from the PubMed database using literature published in English until March 2021.Results: Portal hypertension occurs secondary to an increase of intrahepatic vascular resistances, the opening of portosystemic collateral vessels and the formation of neovessels, related to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Recently, bacterial translocation‐mediated inflammation was also identified as a major contributor to PHT. Interestingly, VEGF and chronic inflammation also contribute to HCC occurrence. As PHT and HCC often coexist in the same patient, management of PHT and its related complications as well as HCC treatment appear more complex. Indeed, PHT‐related complications such as significant ascites may hamper the access to HCC treatment and the presence of HCC is also independently associated with poor prognosis in patients with acute variceal bleeding related to PHT. Due to their respective mechanism of action, the combination of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab for advanced HCC may impact the level of PHT and its related complications and to date, no real‐life data are available.Conslusions: Appropriate evaluation and treatment of PHT remains a major issue in order to improve the outcome of HCC patients.

Background and Aims: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly used in patients with advanced HCC patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT). However, concerns about the risk of posttransplant rejection persist. Approach and Results: We conducted an international retrospective cohort study including 119 HCC patients who received ICIs prior to LT. We analyzed the incidence of allograft rejection, graft loss, and posttransplant recurrence with a particular focus on the washout period between the last ICI dose and LT. In this study, 24 of the 119 (20.2%) patients experienced allograft rejection with a median time to rejection of 9 days (IQR 6–10) post-LT. A linear relationship was observed between shorter washout periods and higher rejection risk. Washout periods <30 days (OR: 21.3, 95% CI: 5.93–103, p<0.001) and between 30 and 50 days (OR: 9.48, 95% CI 2.47–46.8, p=0.002) were significantly associated with higher rejection rates in the univariate analysis compared to the washout period above 50 days. Graft loss as a result of rejection occurred in 6 patients (25%) with rejection. No factors related to grafts were associated with rejection. A longer washout period was not associated with a lower recurrence-free survival posttransplantation at 36 months (71% vs. 67%, p=0.71). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a washout period longer than 50 days for ICIs before LT appears to be safe with respect to rejection risk. While these results may help guide clinical decision-making, future prospective studies are essential to establish definitive guidelines.

Background and Aims: Portal hypertension (PHT) and HCC are 2 major complications of cirrhosis that often coexist in the same patient and impact the prognosis, especially in patients with acute variceal bleeding. In this review, we aim to discuss the best strategy for PHT screening and primary prophylaxis, as well as the management of acute variceal bleeding, to improve the management of PHT in HCC patients. Results: Recent therapeutic advances observed in the management of HCC, notably through the advent of immunotherapy, have led to a clear improvement in the survival of patients. The prevention of complications related to underlying cirrhosis, such as PHT and acute variceal bleeding, is now part of the management of HCC patients. The Baveno VII conference recently redefined screening and prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis. However, data regarding the applicability of these criteria in patients with HCC have been sparse. From our point of view, the Baveno criteria are not appropriate to exclude high-risk esophageal varices (EV) in HCC patients, and endoscopy should be performed except in HCC patients with a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) ≥25 kPa, who should benefit from nonselective beta-blockers (NSSBs) without performing endoscopy. We are also in favor of using NSBBs as primary prophylaxis in patients with EV regardless of the size and with gastric varices since these patients display clinically significant PHT. Conclusions: Appropriate evaluation and treatment of PHT remain major issues in improving the outcomes of HCC patients. Many questions remain unanswered, opening the field to many areas of research.