OnCo

Sign in to keep your watchlist

Your watched pages live in this browser. Sign in with an email link and OnCo keeps the same list on every device you use. Only your email address and your watchlist are stored.

Early hepatocellular carcinoma: the decisions you may face

5 treatment settings, 5 with more than one named option. Each section lays out the options the standard of care names, what each is for, the trials behind them with their recorded results, the side effects and cautions on record, and questions to ask. Built from the cancer page's standard-of-care rows; nothing here is advice for your case.

Other settings

Single tumour, preserved liver function

2 options

Hepatectomy, increasingly laparoscopic or robotic; ablation as an alternative for tumours up to 3 cm.

The options, in plain words

Thermal ablation kills a tumour with heat or cold delivered through a needle, with no incision required.

  • Outpatient, repeatable
  • Preserves organ function

Surgeons operate through small incisions using robotic arms with tremor-free precision and 3D vision.

  • Precision, shorter stay
  • Enables complex minimally invasive resections
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Size limit ~3 cm
  • Heat-sink near vessels
  • Cost
  • Loss of haptic feedback
  • Not superior for every indication
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Thermal ablation (RFA, microwave, cryo) and Robotic & minimally invasive surgery, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. For my situation (single tumour, preserved liver function), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Hepatectomy, increasingly laparoscopic or robotic; ablation as an alternative for tumours up to 3 cm.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Other settings

Within Milan criteria with cirrhosis or portal hypertension

3 options

Liver transplantation, with bridging ablation or chemoembolisation on the waiting list and downstaging for patients just outside the criteria.

The options, in plain words

Replacing the whole diseased liver cures both the cancer and the cirrhosis underneath it, for patients whose tumours are small enough.

  • Only therapy that treats cancer and cirrhosis together
  • Best long-term survival for early HCC

A catheter threaded into the artery feeding a liver tumour delivers chemotherapy and then blocks the vessel, starving the tumour from inside.

  • Liver-directed with limited systemic toxicity
  • Decades of evidence and universal availability
  • Bridges patients to transplant

Thermal ablation kills a tumour with heat or cold delivered through a needle, with no incision required.

  • Outpatient, repeatable
  • Preserves organ function
Also referenced:Bridging therapy
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Organ shortage and waiting-list dropout
  • Lifelong immunosuppression; checkpoint inhibitors before transplant risk rejection
  • Post-embolisation syndrome; hepatic decompensation in poor liver function
  • Rarely curative; repeat sessions
  • OS benefit of combinations with systemic therapy not yet shown
  • Size limit ~3 cm
  • Heat-sink near vessels
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Liver transplantation for cancer (Milan criteria and beyond), Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) and Thermal ablation (RFA, microwave, cryo), which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. For my situation (within milan criteria with cirrhosis or portal hypertension), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Liver transplantation, with bridging ablation or chemoembolisation on the waiting list and downstaging for patients just outside the criteria.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Other settings

Not suitable for surgery or ablation

2 options

Stereotactic body radiotherapy or radioembolisation.

The options, in plain words

Stereotactic body radiotherapy converges multiple beams with sub-millimetre accuracy to deliver tumour-destroying doses in one to five outpatient sessions, doing the job of surgery for inoperable early lung cancer and for metastases in liver, spine and brain. Tumour size and location limit its use, and late toxicity is a concern near the central airways.

  • Ablative doses with minimal recovery
  • Outpatient

Millions of tiny radioactive glass or resin beads are injected into the liver artery, lodging in the tumour and irradiating it from within.

  • Outpatient, single session
  • Effective in portal vein thrombosis where TACE is contraindicated
  • Radiation segmentectomy can be curative for small tumours
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Size and location limits
  • Late toxicity near central airways
  • Radioembolisation-induced liver disease
  • Failed to beat sorafenib on OS in advanced disease
  • Lung shunting excludes some patients
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between SBRT / SABR (stereotactic radiotherapy) and Radioembolisation (TARE / SIRT, yttrium-90), which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. For my situation (not suitable for surgery or ablation), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Stereotactic body radiotherapy or radioembolisation.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Other settings

After curative treatment

No proven adjuvant therapy (STORM and IMbrave050 negative in the end); antiviral therapy, alcohol abstinence and continued imaging surveillance.

The options, in plain words

A PD-L1 blocker used in lung, liver, and bladder cancer. In 2026 it became the first drug approved based on a blood test showing leftover cancer after bladder surgery.

Bevacizumab is a humanised antibody that soaks up VEGF-A, the signal tumours use to grow new blood vessels. Approved in 2004, it partners chemotherapy in colorectal, ovarian, cervical, lung, kidney and liver cancer and glioblastoma, and adds to trifluridine/tipiracil in late-line bowel cancer; hypertension, protein in the urine and bleeding are its characteristic side effects.

People with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B get a liver ultrasound and a blood test every six months so cancer is caught while it is still curable.

  • Cheap, non-invasive
  • Stage shift toward curative options
The evidence behind it
The main trade-offs on record
Side effectAny gradeGrade 3+
Pneumonitis (immune-mediated) · Monotherapy pooled3%0.8%
Hepatitis (immune-mediated) · Monotherapy pooled1.8%0.7%
Colitis (immune-mediated) · Monotherapy pooled1%0.5%
Hypothyroidism (immune-mediated) · Monotherapy pooled4.9%0.2%

Rates from the label or pivotal trial as recorded on the product page; each grade 3+ figure links to its source.

  • Ultrasound sensitivity falls in obesity and steatosis
  • Poor adherence and under-diagnosed cirrhosis (especially MASLD)
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Atezolizumab, Bevacizumab and HCC surveillance in cirrhosis (ultrasound + AFP), which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. How closely do I match the people in IMbrave050, and does that change what the results mean for me?
    Why: Trial populations are selected; age, fitness, prior treatment and biomarkers all affect how far results carry.
  4. Which side effects of Atezolizumab are most likely for me, which are reversible, and which would make us stop?
    Why: The recorded rates below come from labels and trials; your own risk depends on dose, other medicines and your health.
  5. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  6. For my situation (after curative treatment), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: No proven adjuvant therapy (STORM and IMbrave050 negative in the end); antiviral therapy, alcohol abstinence and continued imaging surveillance.
  7. Am I a candidate for Atezolizumab, Bevacizumab, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.
  8. How do the results of IMbrave050 apply to someone like me?
    Why: Trial populations differ from individual patients; ask how closely you match.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

3 options

Six-monthly ultrasound with alpha-fetoprotein in cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis B.

The options, in plain words

People with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B get a liver ultrasound and a blood test every six months so cancer is caught while it is still curable.

  • Cheap, non-invasive
  • Stage shift toward curative options
UltrasoundStandard of care

Ultrasound uses sound waves to make live pictures; it is cheap, safe, and used to guide needles into lumps.

  • Real-time, portable, no radiation
  • Ideal biopsy guidance
MRIStandard of care

MRI uses a strong magnet and radio waves, with no ionising radiation, to picture soft tissue in finer contrast than CT, so it is the standard scan for brain tumours, prostate, rectal cancer staging, liver lesions and breast screening in high-risk women. It is slow, expensive and blurred by movement.

  • No ionising radiation
  • Best soft-tissue and brain imaging
  • Functional sequences (diffusion, perfusion)
Also referenced:Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Ultrasound sensitivity falls in obesity and steatosis
  • Poor adherence and under-diagnosed cirrhosis (especially MASLD)
  • Operator dependent
  • Cannot see through bone or air
  • Slow and expensive
  • Motion artefacts
  • Gadolinium concerns in renal impairment
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between HCC surveillance in cirrhosis (ultrasound + AFP), Ultrasound and MRI, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. For my situation (detection), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Six-monthly ultrasound with alpha-fetoprotein in cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis B.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

How to read this page. Options and results come from OnCo records with their sources; the settings are the standard-of-care rows on the cancer page, and the lines of therapy are on the sequencing grid. Where a setting names one path, the choice is usually about timing, trials and where to be treated: see expert centres. OnCo is orientation, not medical advice.