The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Update Δσ
Open accessAbstract
Since the publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 2005, new information has emerged that requires that the guidelines be updated. The full version of the new guidelines is available on the AASLD Web site at http://www.aasld.org/practiceguidelines/Documents/Bookmarked%20Practice%20Guidelines/HCCUpdate2010.pdf. Here, we briefly describe only new or changed recommendations. AASLD, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma. In the previous guideline, groups were specified for which surveillance was likely to be cost-effective because the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence was high enough. New data on defining HCC risk have emerged for hepatitis B virus,1, 2 hepatitis C virus,3 and autoimmune hepatitis.4 Surveillance is deemed cost-effective if the expected HCC risk exceeds 1.5% per year in patients with hepatitis C and 0.2% per year in patients with hepatitis B. Analysis of recent studies show that alpha-fetoprotein determination lacks adequate sensitivity and specificity for effective surveillance (and for diagnosis).5, 6 Thus, surveillance has to be based on ultrasound examination. The recommended screening interval is 6 months. Diagnosis of HCC should be based on imaging techniques and/or biopsy.The 2005 diagnostic algorithm has been validated and the diagnostic accuracy of a single dynamic technique showing intense arterial uptake followed by "washout" of contrast in the venous-delayed phases has been demonstrated.7-9 Contrast-enhanced US may offer false positive HCC diagnosis in patients with cholangiocarcinoma and thus, has been dropped from the diagnostic techniques. The diagnostic algorithm is shown in Fig. 1. The application of dynamic imaging criteria should be applied only to patients with cirrhosis of any etiology and to patients with chronic hepatitis B who may not have fully developed cirrhosis or have regressed cirrhosis. Interpretation of biopsies and distinction between high-grade dysplatic nodules and HCC is challenging. Expert pathology diagnosis is reinforced by staining for glypican 3, heat shock protein 70, and glutamine synthetase, because positivity for two of these three stains confirms HCC.10 Diagnostic algorithm for suspected HCC. CT, computed tomography; MDCT, multidetector CT; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; US, ultrasound. The BCLC staging system (Fig. 2)11 has come to be widely accepted in clinical practice and is also being used for many clinical trials of new drugs to treat HCC. Therefore, it has become the de facto staging system that is used. The BCLC staging system for HCC. M, metastasis classification; N, node classification; PS, performance status; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; TACE, transarterial chemoembolization. The recommendations for liver transplantation have not changed. No new data have emerged that can be used to define a new limit for expanding the patient selection criteria. The usefulness of portal pressure measurement to predict the outcome of patients and define optimal candidates for resection has been validated in Japan.12 Thus, resection should remain the first option for patients who have the optimal profile, as defined by the BCLC staging system. Although resection can be performed in some of these patients with advanced liver disease, the mortality is higher and they might be better served by liver transplantation or ablation. A cohort study of radiofrequency ablation demonstrated that complete ablation of lesions smaller than 2 cm is possible in more than 90% of cases, with a local recurrence rate of less than 1%.13 These data should be confirmed by other groups before positioning ablation as the first-line approach for very early HCC. The recommendations regarding patient selection and method of administration of chemoembolization are unchanged. Radioembolization, i.e., the intra-arterial injection of yttrium-90 bound to glass beads or to resin, has been shown to induce tumor necrosis, but there are no data comparing its efficacy to transarterial chemoembolization or to sorafenib treatment for those with portal vein invasion. However, for patients who have either failed transarterial chemoembolization or who present with more advanced HCC, new data indicates the efficacy of sorafenib (a multikinase inhibitor with activity against Raf-1, B-Raf, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, c-Kit receptors, among other kinases) in prolonging life.14, 15 Sorafenib induces a clinically relevant improvement in time to progression and in survival The magnitude of the improvement in survival compares with other established molecular targeted therapies for other advanced cancers, and the associated toxicity is easily managed without treatment-related mortality. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea (sorafenib ve
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma
Llovet, J. M., Ricci, S., Mazzaferro, V., Hilgard, P., Gane, E., Blanc, J.-F., de Oliveira, A. C., Santoro, A., Raoul, J.-L., Forner, A., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0708857 · Cited by 13,097
Self-citationCheng, A.-L., Kang, Y.-K., Chen, Z., Tsao, C.-J., Qin, S., Kim, J. S., Luo, R., Feng, J., Ye, S., Yang, T.-S., et al. (2009) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70285-7 · Cited by 5,832
Cited by
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma
Galle, P. R., Forner, A., Llovet, J. M., Mazzaferro, V., Piscaglia, F., Raoul, J.-L., Schirmacher, P., & Vilgrain, V. (2018) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019 · Cited by 11,406
Rahib, L., Smith, B. D., Aizenberg, R., Rosenzweig, A. B., Fleshman, J. M., & Matrisian, L. M. (2014) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-0155 · Cited by 7,094
Kudo, M., Finn, R. S., Qin, S., Han, K.-H., Ikeda, K., Piscaglia, F., Baron, A., Park, J.-W., Han, G., Jassem, J., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30207-1 · Cited by 5,497
EASL–EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma
European Association for the Study of the Liver, & European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (2012) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2011.12.001 · Cited by 5,218
“An accepted rule is to consider any nodule larger than about 1 cm as an abnormal screening result warranting further investigation [56].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAngulo, P., Kleiner, D. E., Dam-Larsen, S., Adams, L. A., Bjornsson, E. S., Charatcharoenwitthaya, P., Mills, P. R., Keach, J. C., Lafferty, H. D., Stahler, A., et al. (2015) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.043 · Cited by 2,987
Metadata
- Authors
- Bruix, J., & Sherman, M.
- Venue
- Hepatology
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1020-1022
- ISSN
- 0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163403599
- Cited by
- 8,103
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 350.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Update Δσ. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hep.24199
- The paper
- Bruix, J., & Sherman, M. (2011). Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Update Δσ. Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.24199
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.