Sumin Lee; Jinhong Jung; Jonggi Choi; So Yeon Kim; Jin Hyoung Kim; Danbi Lee; Ju Hyun Shim; Kang Mo Kim; Young-Suk Lim; Han Chu Lee; Gi-Won Song; Jin-hong Park; Sang Min Yoon

doi:10.4143/crt.2025.076

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 58(1); 2026 > Article

Original Article Gastrointestinal cancer Combined Transarterial Chemoembolization and External Beam Radiotherapy for Identifying Surgical Candidates for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Macroscopic Vascular Invasion: A Propensity Score–Weighted Analysis: Sumin Lee^1,a), Jinhong Jung¹, Jonggi Choi², So Yeon Kim³, Jin Hyoung Kim³, Danbi Lee², Ju Hyun Shim², Kang Mo Kim², Young-Suk Lim², Han Chu Lee², Gi-Won Song⁴, Jin-hong Park¹, Sang Min Yoon¹; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2026;58(1):275-283.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2025.076
Published online: May 22, 2025

¹Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Radiology and the Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁴Division of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Asan Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Sang Min Yoon, Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: 82-2-3010-5615 E-mail: drsmyoon@amc.seoul.kr

^a)Present address: Department of Radiation Oncology, Kangwon National University Hospital, Chuncheon, Korea

• Received: January 18, 2025 • Accepted: May 20, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

2,375 Views
81 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
This study aimed to evaluate the role of hepatic resection in patients with objective responses after combined transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiotherapy (RT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI).
Materials and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed the patients treated with combined TACE and RT for HCC with MVI between 2010 and 2015. Some of the patients with objective responses underwent hepatic resection or liver transplantation; to investigate the impact of surgery, patients with objective responses who did not undergo surgery were selected as the control group. Survival outcomes were compared using a propensity score–based stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting method.
Results
Out of the 170 patients with objective responses after combined TACE and RT, 41 patients underwent surgery, including eight liver transplantations. The unweighted surgery group was younger and had a higher proportion of solitary tumors and unilateral vascular involvement. After adjustment, the 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 61.0% and 28.6% in the surgery and non-surgery groups, respectively. The most important prognostic factor for OS was surgery (adjusted Cox hazard ratio [HR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.46; p < 0.001). Complete response after TACE and RT (vs. partial response) was also a significant prognostic factor for OS (adjusted HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.61; p < 0.001). There was no surgical mortality. Four patients (9.8%) required additional surgery due to bleeding or graft failure.
Conclusion
Hepatic resection was significantly associated with improved OS in patients who showed objective responses after receiving combined TACE and RT for HCC with MVI.
Key words: Hepatocellular carcinoma, Vascular invasion, Transarterial chemoembolization, Radiotherapy, Surgery

Introduction

A substantial number of newly diagnosed hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients are found in an advanced stage, accompanied by macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI). Systemic therapies are considered a standard treatment for advanced-stage HCC in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system [1]. However, there are still limitations regarding insufficient response rates and treatment outcomes after systemic therapies, especially in patients with HCC accompanied by MVI.

Vascular invasion is not only considered a significant factor for recurrence but is also associated with a decline in hepatic function due to the interruption of portal flow. As a result, surgical treatment is generally regarded as an unsuitable option. Nevertheless, hepatic resection was attempted to improve the outcome of HCC with MVI with some promising results. In large-scale retrospective studies, the median overall survival (OS) ranged from 6.0 to 29.4 months, with a 1-year OS rate of 18.0% to 58.7% as reported [2,3]. Accordingly, the Eastern guidelines for the management of HCC recommend surgery for vascular invasion in select cases [4-6]; however, a consistent indication for identifying surgical candidates has not yet been established.

External beam radiotherapy (RT) with or without locoregional modalities, has also been widely used for HCC with MVI [7,8]. A recent randomized clinical trial demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) and OS rates with the combination of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and RT compared to sorafenib [9]. Favorable responses after TACE and RT were observed in more than half of these patients [10], and in some of these good responders, downstaging might have enabled curative resection, leading to better long-term survival. In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of hepatic resection in patients who showed a good response after combined TACE and RT for HCC with MVI.

Materials and Methods

1. Patients

We retrospectively reviewed patients who were treated with combined TACE and respiratory-gated three-dimensional conformal RT as a first-line treatment for HCC with MVI between January 2010 and December 2015 at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea). Only patients with no extrahepatic metastasis, preserved liver function of Child-Pugh classification A, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 were included in the present study population as potential surgical candidates. After the combined TACE and RT followed by several sessions of TACE, some of these patients showed a good response and eventually underwent hepatic resection or liver transplantation (LT) (i.e., surgery group). On the other hand, patients who achieved at least a partial response (PR) as the best response to TACE and RT according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) [11] but did not undergo surgery were analyzed as the non-surgery group. Other exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) double primary cancer at diagnosis; (2) isolated MVI without a definite primary HCC; (3) incomplete RT administered at less than 80% of planned dose; (4) stereotactic body RT regimen; (5) missing values of pretreatment α-fetoprotein, and (6) lost to follow-up before 3 months from the start date of RT.

The presence of MVI was determined by liver dynamic computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using hepatocyte-specific contrast agent by the following criteria outlined in a previous study [9]: (1) intraluminal filling defect in a portal vein (PV), hepatic vein, or inferior vena cava continuous with the intrahepatic tumor, and (2) enhancement of the filling defect on the arterial phase, and washout on the portal or delayed phases.

2. Treatment

Initially, cisplatin-based TACE was performed. After infusing 2 mg/kg of cisplatin (Dong-A Pharmaceutical) by selective catheterization of the feeding artery, embolization was performed using an emulsion of 3-20 mL of iodized oil (Lipiodol, Guerbet) and gelfoam slurry (Upjohn). Transarterial chemotherapeutic infusion without gelfoam slurry was done according to the PV blood flow.

Respiratory-gated 3-dimensional conformal RT was initiated within 3 weeks after the first TACE. The gross tumor volume included intravascular and adjacent tumors within a 2 cm margin. A total dose of 40-45 Gy with 2.5-3 Gy per fraction was prescribed for the planning target volume, which extended 7 mm from 30%-70% of the respiratory phase internal motion of the gross tumor volume. The detailed procedures of TACE and RT were described in our previous reports [9,10,12,13]. Subsequent TACE for residual viable HCC was repeated every 6-8 weeks.

Based on the evaluation of tumor extent before each session of TACE, if it was determined to be resectable by the hepatobiliary or transplant surgeons in the multidisciplinary liver cancer team, a surgical treatment option was offered to the patient. Surgery with curative intent was considered if all viable tumors could be managed by anatomical liver resection, either alone or in conjunction with other local therapies such as radiofrequency ablation, provided that a sufficient remnant liver volume was expected. LT was also performed in selected patients when a suitable donor was available. The extent of hepatic resection was determined by the proportion of future liver remnant volume and hepatic functional reserve. Depending on the extent of PV invasion, either en bloc resection of involved PV branches without tumor thrombus exposure or thrombectomy, which includes extracting the tumor thrombus and forceful flushing to confirm complete removal, was performed.

3. Evaluation

The radiologic response of the target lesions was evaluated according to the mRECIST using dynamic liver CT or MRI after the completion of RT and before each subsequent TACE session, and the best overall response observed during follow-up was recorded. Newly developed intrahepatic and extrahepatic recurrences were defined as progression. The primary outcome measure was the comparison of OS rates between the surgery and non-surgery groups, and the secondary outcome variables included PFS rates and treatment-related toxicities. Adverse events related to RT were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) ver. 4.03. Non-classic radiation-induced liver disease was graded according to the CTCAE or by an increase of the Child-Pugh score by ≥ 2 without evidence of disease progression within 3 months after RT. The major complication after surgery was defined as events of grade 3 or higher according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [14].

4. Statistical analysis

A propensity score-based stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to minimize selection bias arising from confounding factors between the surgery and non-surgery groups. Binary logistic regression including all covariates was used to generate propensity scores that were assigned to the treatment groups. Weights for patients who underwent surgery (1/propensity score) and those who did not (1/[1−propensity score]) were calculated, and stabilized weights were then applied to reduce the variability of weights in the IPTW model [15]. Balance among covariates was evaluated using absolute standardized mean differences (SMD); an SMD of ≤ 0.2 was considered acceptable. We compared survival outcomes using a weighted log-rank test [16] and estimated the hazard ratio (HR) with a weighted Cox proportional hazard (PH) model. To mitigate the guarantee time bias caused by selecting only patients with a good response after TACE and RT, survival times were calculated 3 months after the start date of RT, corresponding to the interval between the first response assessment after RT. Also, the surgery was regarded as a time-dependent variable in the survival analyses and weighted Cox PH models because it was not performed at the same time point, and there were disease progression events before the surgery. Variables associated with survival (p ≤ 0.1) in univariable analyses were included in multivariable analyses using backward elimination for further covariate adjustment. Two-sided p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using R ver. 4.0.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://cran.r-project.org).

Results

1. Patient characteristics

Among patients treated with combined TACE and RT as a first-line treatment for MVI, 292 patients were identified with the ECOG performance status 0-2, the Child-Pugh class A liver function, and no extrahepatic metastasis. After excluding patients without radiologic response after TACE and RT, 170 were included in the final analysis. A patient selection flowchart, including minor exclusions, is depicted in Fig. 1. The comparison of baseline characteristics between non-responders, who were not included in the final cohort, and responders is presented in S1 Table.

The most common etiology of our study population was hepatitis B virus. A total of 41 patients underwent surgery, including 8 LTs. Surgery was performed at a median of 5.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 2.7 to 8.9) from the start date of RT, and additional treatments were also administered between RT and surgery (median, 2; IQR, 1 to 4). Before IPTW, the surgery group was significantly younger (median, 53 vs. 55 years; p=0.047), had a higher rate of single tumor (51.2% vs. 31.8%, p=0.039), and a higher rate of unilateral PV involvement or less (70.7% vs. 51.2%, p=0.044) than the non-surgery group. After applying the stabilized weights, all covariates were balanced, with SMDs less than 0.2 (Table 1). The distribution of propensity scores and stabilized weights of both groups is shown in S2 Fig.

2. Survival outcomes and prognostic factors

Fig. 2 shows the survival outcomes of the two groups. The median follow-up duration was 27 months (range, 5 to 143 months). The adjusted 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were higher in the surgery group than in the non-surgery group (93.8% vs. 79.1%, 61.0% vs. 28.6%, 56.3% vs. 17.7%, respectively; p < 0.001 by weighted log-rank test). Adjusted median OS times of the surgery and non-surgery groups were 81.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 33.8 to not reached) and 21.5 months (95% CI, 18.9 to 27.5), respectively. The adjusted PFS rates of the surgery group were also significantly higher than those of the non-surgery group (1- and 3-year PFS rates of 49.2% vs. 35.3%, 29.7% vs. 11.8%, respectively; p=0.036 by weighted log-rank test).

In multivariable analysis using the weighted Cox PH method, the model that included maximum tumor size, radiologic response, and surgery was the most efficient in predicting OS, for which both radiologic response and surgery were identified as independent prognostic factors (the adjusted HR for surgery, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.46) (Table 2). The results of multivariable analysis before IPTW for OS are presented in S3 Table.

In a subgroup analysis according to radiologic response in which new weights were applied for each subgroup), the significant benefit in OS of surgery was maintained in the PR group (p < 0.001 by weighted log-rank test) (Fig. 3). In the complete response (CR) group, surgery initially appeared to result in higher survival rates; however, after a long-term follow-up, the intersection of the two survival curves was identified with a p-value of 0.190 using the weighted log-rank test (Fig. 3). Multivariable analysis for OS in the surgery group found no significant factors except for tumor size, which showed marginal significance (S4 Table).

3. Toxicity

There were five cases (2.9%) of grade 3 elevations of aminotransferases and 23 cases (13.5%) of a worsening Child-Pugh score by ≥ 2 within 3 months of completing RT; none of these cases resulted in hepatic failure. Grade 3 gastrointestinal bleeding was observed in three patients (1.8%). There were seven patients (17.1%) who experienced major complications within 3 months after surgery (Table 3). Two patients required laparotomy to control postoperative bleeding, and two others, including one who needed re-LT due to graft failure, required admission to the intensive care unit (Table 3). However, surgery-related mortality was not reported.

4. Sensitivity analysis

To evaluate the robustness of the observed difference in OS between the surgery and non-surgery groups, several alternative analyses were conducted: (1) to isolate the effect of hepatic resection, patients who underwent LT were excluded from the surgery group; (2) patients with missing pretreatment α-fetoprotein values, who were excluded from the current IPTW analysis, were reintegrated after filling in the missing values using the multiple imputation method; (3) alternative statistical approaches including, the use of only significantly different covariates for generation of propensity scores, and 1:1 propensity score matching instead of IPTW, were also conducted. In every sensitivity analysis, the significance of the superior OS of the surgery group remained (S5 Fig.).

Discussion

As the presence of MVI is associated with poorer prognosis among patients diagnosed with advanced-stage HCC, further efforts are needed to identify more effective treatment modalities that can enhance the survival outcomes of such cases. In the previous randomized trial evaluating TACE and RT versus sorafenib for MVI, patients treated with sorafenib did not undergo surgery due to an unsatisfactory response, while curative resection was performed in five patients (11.1%) in the TACE and RT group [9]. Despite atezolizumab/bevacizumab or lenvatinib being recommended as the standard of care for advanced HCC, they still exhibit suboptimal response rates in cases with vascular invasion [17], and cases of curative surgery following systemic therapy are rarely observed. Therefore, combined TACE and RT, which offers potential for curative surgery due to effective local control and downstaging, may still play a distinct role for these patients. In the present study, approximately 24% of good responders and 14% of all patients with MVI could benefit from surgery, similar to our previous randomized trial. The favorable response rate of RT to MVI also prevents intrahepatic tumor spread and deterioration of hepatic function by maintaining portal flow. Therefore, it might also aid in preventing disease progression and preserving hepatic function after surgery. Promising survival outcomes (median OS, 18.9 months; 1-year OS rate, 69%-75%) were also reported from studies of surgery with perioperative RT [18-20]. Moreover, a significantly increased future remnant liver volume was observed after RT with intra-arterial chemotherapy for locally advanced HCC, which might enable more patients to receive hepatic resection after downstaging [21].

The patients who underwent surgery showed significantly higher OS rates than those in the non-surgery group, even after showing a favorable response to combined TACE and RT for HCC with MVI. Though some previous studies evaluating the efficacy of surgery after downstaging with locoregional modalities have shown excellent survival outcomes [21,22], identifying suitable candidates for curative surgery after downstaging remains challenging due to the variable prognosis of HCC with MVI [12]. Considering that radiologic response based on the mRECIST after locoregional or systemic therapies was reported as a significant prognostic factor [10,23], which is consistent with the present study, including patients with a poor response to previous locoregional treatments in the control group could potentially strengthen selection bias and complicate the interpretation of the role of surgery. The higher survival rate of the surgery group in the present study is particularly noteworthy because it resulted from a comparison to a control group consisting exclusively of patients with favorable responses, which not only confirms that surgery provides an additional survival benefit in this clinical setting but also suggests that this response-based approach may help identify patients who can expect better long-term survival outcomes with surgery.

Part of the additional survival benefit from surgery might be due to a reduction in the tumor burden of primary HCC, enabling successful salvage treatment in case of disease progression. In contrast to the substantial difference observed in OS favoring surgery, the PFS difference between the surgery and non-surgery groups was relatively smaller than the OS difference. Moreover, the PFS of hepatic resection alone, excluding LT, was not significantly different from that of the non-surgery group (S6 Fig.). Vigorous locoregional salvage treatments for intrahepatic recurrent HCCs may improve survival outcomes [24,25]. This assumption is also consistent with the finding that the OS benefit of surgery was not evident in the CR subgroup. Patients who achieve a CR have no residual tumor burden, similar to those who undergo surgery, which may potentially allow for more effective salvage therapy. Alternatively, in patients with residual tumors, surgical reduction of tumor burden might have played a complementary role in offsetting prognostic differences associated with radiologic response. This concept aligns with recent evidence suggesting that, in certain patients who demonstrate an excellent response or achieve pathological complete necrosis following downstaging therapy, surgical resection may not confer additional survival benefits [26]. These insights support the further refinement of surgical decision-making after achieving locoregional tumor control. In this context, administering TACE and RT as an initial treatment for MVI, followed by radiologic response assessment, may aid in estimating the tumor’s inherent biology and identifying patients who are more likely to benefit from surgery. Accordingly, a salvage-oriented approach, rather than routine consolidative surgery, may represent a promising strategy for selected patients following locoregional therapy.

The extent of surgery and surgical approaches for intravascular tumors should also be considered. Chong et al. [27] reported that major resection, defined as the resection of three or more adjacent anatomical segments, showed better disease-free and disease-specific survival. [27]. However, major surgery is typically deemed feasible only if at least 40% of the total liver volume can be preserved post-surgery, making it applicable to a select group of patients. LT may also be considered as an alternative surgical option for patients with HCC who have MVI after successful downstaging with prior locoregional treatments [28,29]. In the present study, eight patients who received LT showed a long-term OS rate of 75% at 3 years. For intravascular tumors, either peeling-off resection or en bloc resection with reconstruction would be considered. En bloc resection may increase the chance of complete resection but is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Peeling-off resection is usually less demanding but has the potential to leave remnant viable cancer cells after surgery [30].

The study has several limitations. Because of its retrospective nature, there is a risk of bias from unmeasured confounders even after IPTW adjustment, including the decision on resectability, which may vary among surgeons. Failure to assess the future remnant liver volume or surgical approach could obscure the surgical outcomes. Nevertheless, it is expected that a substantial portion of bias was alleviated due to the selection of only the good response group, which is a strong prognostic factor, as well as the control group and the vigorous effort to reduce bias through analytical methods including IPTW, time-dependent analysis, and further covariate adjustment. Another limitation of this study stems from the heterogeneity of salvage treatment strategies used after combined TACE and RT or in cases of postoperative disease progression. The individualized approach complicates the incorporation of these variables into survival analysis. Lastly, we could not find any clinical factors affecting the prognosis among the surgery group. Further exploration of factors affecting the outcome after surgery will help identify explicit indications for the surgery.

In conclusion, hepatic resection was found to have a significant association with improved OS rates and acceptable toxicities in patients showing a good response after combined TACE and RT for HCC with MVI. Further studies are needed to investigate the role of surgical approaches following successful locoregional treatments for patients with advanced-stage HCC who have MVI.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (https://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2025-076_S1_Table.pdf

crt-2025-076_S2_Fig.pdf

crt-2025-076_S3_Table.pdf

crt-2025-076_S4_Table.pdf

crt-2025-076_S5_Fig.pdf

crt-2025-076_S6_Fig.pdf

NOTES

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center (#2017-0491), and the requirement for informed consent was waived considering the retrospective nature of the study.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Lee S, Yoon SM.

Collected the data: Lee S, Yoon SM.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Lee S, Jung J, Choi J, Kim SY, Kim JH, Lee D, Shim JH, Kim KM, Lim YS, Lee HC, Song GW, Park JH, Yoon SM.

Performed the analysis: Lee S, Jung J, Choi J, Yoon SM.

Wrote the paper: Lee S, Jung J, Choi J, Kim SY, Kim JH, Lee D, Shim JH, Kim KM, Lim YS, Lee HC, Song GW, Park JH, Yoon SM.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Joon Seo Lim from the Scientific Publications Team at Asan Medical Center for his editorial assistance in preparing this manuscript.

Fig. 1.

Patient selection flow chart. AFP, α-fetoprotein; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; MVI, macrovascular invasion; PD, progressive disease; RT, radiotherapy; SBRT, stereotactic body radiotherapy; SD, stable disease; TACE, transarterial chemoembolization.

Fig. 2.

Overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) of the surgery and non-surgery groups. Crude (solid line) and weighted survival curves (dashed line) of each group are presented. The number at risk was different from the number of original sizes of each group because the survival analysis was conducted in a time-dependent manner.

Fig. 3.

Subgroup analysis of overall survival according to radiologic response by the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; complete response (A) and partial response groups (B). Crude (solid line) and weighted survival curves (dashed line) of each group are presented. The number at risk was different from the number of original sizes of each group because the survival analysis was conducted in a time-dependent manner.

Table 1.

Baseline patient characteristics

Variable	Before IPTW				After IPTW
Variable	Non-surgery (n=129)	Surgery (n=41)	p-value	SMD	Non-surgery (n=128.8)	Surgery (n=42.4)	p-value	SMD
Age (yr)	55 (49-60)	53 (48-58)	0.047	0.333	54.0 (48.0-59.0)	54.4 (49.0-59.1)	0.883	0.027
Sex
Male	112 (86.8)	37 (90.2)	0.758	0.108	112.6 (87.5)	37.9 (89.6)	0.746	0.066
Female	17 (13.2)	4 (9.8)			16.1 (12.5)	4.4 (10.4)
ECOG PS
0-1	127 (98.4)	39 (95.1)	0.527	0.190	126.1 (97.9)	41.5 (98.0)	0.960	0.007
2	2 (1.6)	2 (4.9)			2.7 (2.1)	0.8 (2.0)
Viral etiology
Hepatitis B virus	113 (87.6)	37 (90.2)	0.857	0.084	113.3 (88.0)	36.3 (85.7)	0.781	0.067
Non-hepatitis B virus	16 (12.4)	4 (9.8)			15.5 (12.0)	6.1 (14.3)
Maximum tumor diameter (cm)	7.5 (5.1-10.4)	8.0 (6.2-10.3)	0.657	0.055	7.5 (5.0-10.4)	8.0 (5.4-10.4)	0.950	0.015
No. of tumors
Single	41 (31.8)	21 (51.2)	0.039	0.402	46.8 (36.3)	13.3 (31.3)	0.579	0.106
Multiple	88 (68.2)	20 (48.8)			82.0 (63.7)	29.1 (68.7)
Extent of tumor
Unilobar	69 (53.5)	27 (65.9)	0.226	0.254	73.0 (56.7)	20.7 (48.9)	0.465	0.157
Bilobar	60 (46.5)	14 (34.1)			55.7 (43.3)	21.7 (51.1)
Type of tumor
Nodular	30 (23.3)	9 (22.0)	> 0.99	0.031	29.4 (22.9)	10.3 (24.3)	0.883	0.033
Infiltrative/Diffuse	99 (76.7)	32 (78.0)			99.3 (77.1)	31.1 (75.7)
Extent of vascular invasion
Unilateral	66 (51.2)	29 (70.7)	0.044	0.409	71.9 (55.9)	22.7 (53.5)	0.832	0.047
More than unilateral	63 (48.8)	12 (29.3)			56.8 (44.1)	19.7 (46.5)
Bile duct invasion
No	123 (95.3)	38 (92.7)	0.792	0.113	122.4 (95.1)	39.8 (93.9)	0.789	0.053
Yes	6 (4.7)	3 (7.3)			6.3 (4.9)	2.6 (6.1)
AFP (ng/mL)^a)	1,260 (102-15,955)	689 (126-19,617)	0.917	0.024
Log₁₀AFP (ng/mL)	3.10 (2.01-4.20)	2.84 (2.10-4.29)	0.917	0.012	3.11 (1.98-4.21)	3.26 (1.85-4.29)	0.998	0.001
Radiation dose (EQD2) (Gy)	41.7 (36.5-46.9)	41.7 (36.5-48.8)	0.271	0.191	41.7 (36.5-46.9)	41.7 (36.5-42.3)	0.640	0.100
Tumor response
PR	72 (55.8)	22 (53.7)	0.951	0.043	71.1 (55.3)	25.5 (60.3)	0.636	0.101
CR	57 (44.2)	19 (46.3)			57.6 (44.7)	16.8 (39.7)

Values are presented as median (IQR) or number (%). AFP, α-fetoprotein; CR, complete response; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; EQD2, equivalent dose in 2 Gy; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; IQR, interquartile range; PR, partial response; SMD, standardized mean difference. The EQD2 of 41.7 Gy with an alpha-beta ratio of 10 corresponds to 40 Gy in 16 fractions.

^a) Analyzed using logarithmic transformation because the amount of unit change of the variable was small.

Table 2.

Univariable and multivariable analyses of prognostic factors for overall survival after IPTW

Variable (reference)	Univariable		Multivariable
Variable (reference)	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Age	1.00 (0.98-1.02)	0.938	-	-
Male sex	0.65 (0.34-1.23)	0.185	-	-
ECOG PS (0-1)	1.37 (0.91-2.08)	0.134	-	-
Viral etiology (HBV)	0.89 (0.43-1.85)	0.753	-	-
Maximum tumor diameter (cm)	1.06 (1.00-1.12)	0.054	1.05 (1.00-1.10)	0.078
No. of tumors (single)	0.99 (0.66-1.50)	0.979	-	-
Extent of tumor (unilobar)	1.24 (0.82-1.88)	0.312	-	-
Type of tumor (nodular)	1.46 (0.84-2.54)	0.180	-	-
Extent of vascular invasion (unilateral PV)	1.02 (0.68-1.54)	0.919	-	-
Bile duct invasion (none)	0.70 (0.28-1.76)	0.451	-	-
Log₁₀AFP (ng/mL)	1.08 (0.93-1.26)	0.308	-	-
Radiation dose (EQD2) (Gy)	1.01 (0.97-1.04)	0.759	-	-
Tumor response (PR)	0.51 (0.33-0.77)	0.001	0.41 (0.27-0.61)	< 0.001
Surgery (non-surgery)^a)	0.36 (0.21-0.62)	< 0.001	0.28 (0.17-0.46)	< 0.001

Values in the parentheses were set as the reference for categorical variables. AFP, α-fetoprotein; CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; EQD2, equivalent dose in 2 Gy; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HR, hazard ratio; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; PR, partial response; PV, portal vein.

^a) Since the surgery was not performed at the same time point, it was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Table 3.

Major surgical complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification

Grade	Patient	Surgery	Occurrence	Complication	Procedure
IIIa	51/M	Extended left lobectomy	POD #11	Complicated fluid collection	Aspiration
IIIa	60/M	LDLT	POD #22	Hematoma	Percutaneous drainage
IIIa	59/M	Right lobectomy with bile duct resection	POD #10	Fluid collection	Percutaneous drainage
IIIb	49/M	LDLT	POD #1	Bleeding	Laparotomy
IIIb	58/M	Right posterior segmentectomy	POD #3	Bleeding	Laparotomy
IV	50/M	DDLT and concurrent kidney transplantation	POD #3	Bleeding and anastomosis leak of kidney	Anastomosis repair of kidney and ICU care
IV	46/M	DDLT	POD #20	Graft failure	Re-DDLT and ICU care

DDLT, deceased donor liver transplantation; ICU, intensive care unit; LDLT, living donor liver transplantation; POD, postoperative day.

REFERENCES

1. Reig M, Forner A, Rimola J, Ferrer-Fabrega J, Burrel M, Garcia-Criado A, et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: the 2022 update. J Hepatol. 2022;76:681–93. Article PubMed PMC
2. Wang K, Guo WX, Chen MS, Mao YL, Sun BC, Shi J, et al. Multimodality treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: a large-scale, multicenter, propensity matching score analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e3015PubMed PMC
3. Kokudo T, Hasegawa K, Matsuyama Y, Takayama T, Izumi N, Kadoya M, et al. Survival benefit of liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma associated with portal vein invasion. J Hepatol. 2016;65:938–43. Article PubMed
4. Cheng S, Chen M, Cai J, Sun J, Guo R, Bi X, et al. Chinese expert consensus on multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus (2018 edition). Liver Cancer. 2020;9:28–40. Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Hasegawa K, Takemura N, Yamashita T, Watadani T, Kaibori M, Kubo S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma: the Japan Society of Hepatology 2021 version (5th JSH-HCC guidelines). Hepatol Res. 2023;53:383–90. Article PubMed PDF
6. Korean Liver Cancer Association; National Cancer Center Korea. 2022 KLCA-NCC Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Liver Cancer. 2023;23:1–120. Article PubMed PMC PDF
7. Kim E, Jang WI, Yang K, Kim MS, Yoo HJ, Paik EK, et al. Clinical utilization of radiation therapy in Korea between 2017 and 2019. Radiat Oncol J. 2022;40:251–9. Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Jin S, Choi WM, Shim JH, Lee D, Kim KM, Lim YS, et al. Subclassification of advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma with macrovascular invasion: combined transarterial chemoembolization and radiotherapy as an alternative first-line treatment. J Liver Cancer. 2023;23:177–88. Article PubMed PMC PDF
9. Yoon SM, Ryoo BY, Lee SJ, Kim JH, Shin JH, An JH, et al. Efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization plus external beam radiotherapy vs sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma with macroscopic vascular invasion: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:661–9. Article PubMed PMC
10. Jung J, Joo JH, Kim SY, Kim JH, Choi J, Lee D, et al. Radiologic response as a prognostic factor in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with macroscopic vascular invasion after transarterial chemoembolization and radiotherapy. Liver Cancer. 2022;11:152–61. Article PubMed PMC PDF
11. Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30:52–60. Article PubMed PMC
12. Kim YJ, Jung J, Joo JH, Kim SY, Kim JH, Lim YS, et al. Combined transarterial chemoembolization and radiotherapy as a first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with macroscopic vascular invasion: necessity to subclassify Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C. Radiother Oncol. 2019;141:95–100. Article PubMed
13. Yoon SM, Lim YS, Won HJ, Kim JH, Kim KM, Lee HC, et al. Radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma invading the portal vein: long-term patient outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:2004–11. Article PubMed
14. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96. PubMed
15. Austin PC. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med. 2014;33:1242–58. Article PubMed PMC PDF
16. Xie J, Liu C. Adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test with inverse probability of treatment weighting for survival data. Stat Med. 2005;24:3089–110. Article PubMed
17. Park J, Lee YB, Ko Y, Park Y, Shin H, Hur MH, et al. Comparison of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis. J Liver Cancer. 2024;24:81–91. Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Li N, Feng S, Xue J, Wei XB, Shi J, Guo WX, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma with main portal vein tumor thrombus: a comparative study comparing hepatectomy with or without neoadjuvant radiotherapy. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18:549–56. Article PubMed PMC
19. Wei X, Jiang Y, Zhang X, Feng S, Zhou B, Ye X, et al. Neoadjuvant three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: a randomized, open-label, multicenter controlled study. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:2141–51. Article PubMed PMC
20. Sun J, Yang L, Shi J, Liu C, Zhang X, Chai Z, et al. Postoperative adjuvant IMRT for patients with HCC and portal vein tumor thrombus: an open-label randomized controlled trial. Radiother Oncol. 2019;140:20–5. Article PubMed
21. Lee HS, Choi GH, Choi JS, Kim KS, Han KH, Seong J, et al. Surgical resection after down-staging of locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma by localized concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3646–53. Article PubMed PDF
22. Hamaoka M, Kobayashi T, Kuroda S, Iwako H, Okimoto S, Kimura T, et al. Hepatectomy after down-staging of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus using chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2017;44:223–8. Article PubMed
23. Lencioni R, Montal R, Torres F, Park JW, Decaens T, Raoul JL, et al. Objective response by mRECIST as a predictor and potential surrogate end-point of overall survival in advanced HCC. J Hepatol. 2017;66:1166–72. Article PubMed
24. Criss CR, Makary MS. Salvage locoregional therapies for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2023;29:413–24. Article PubMed PMC
25. Lin YM, Fellman BM, Taiji R, Paolucci I, Silva JA, Koay EJ, et al. Salvage locoregional therapy following progression after radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with improved outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg. 2023;27:1867–75. Article PubMed PDF
26. Choi M, Han DH, Kim KS, Choi JS, Kim BK, Kim SU, et al. Is liver resection still required for patients who have predictive factors for complete pathologic necrosis after downstaging treatments of locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2025;51:109349.Article PubMed
27. Chong JU, Choi GH, Han DH, Kim KS, Seong J, Han KH, et al. Downstaging with localized concurrent chemoradiotherapy can identify optimal surgical candidates in hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:3308–15. Article PubMed PDF
28. Soin AS, Bhangui P, Kataria T, Baijal SS, Piplani T, Gautam D, et al. Experience with LDLT in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein tumor thrombosis postdownstaging. Transplantation. 2020;104:2334–45. Article PubMed
29. Jeong Y, Shin MH, Yoon SM, Song GW, Kim KH, Ahn CS, et al. Liver transplantation after transarterial chemoembolization and radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with vascular invasion. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:275–83. Article PubMed PDF
30. Peng SY, Wang XA, Huang CY, Li JT, Hong DF, Wang YF, et al. Better surgical treatment method for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24:4527–35. Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Multimodal deep learning model for predicting prognosis following radiotherapy-based combination therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma
Haoming Xia, Qizhen Huang, Ziyue Huang, Ziqi Zhou, Yongyi Zeng, Jingguang Ma, Xiangyu Fan, Yechong Huang, Yuexi Dong, Haitao Zhao, Gong Li, Jitao Wang, Shizhong Yang, Jiahong Dong
Cancer Letters.2026; 636: 218122. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Combined Transarterial Chemoembolization and External Beam Radiotherapy for Identifying Surgical Candidates for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Macroscopic Vascular Invasion: A Propensity Score–Weighted Analysis

Cancer Res Treat. 2026;58(1):275-283. Published online May 22, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2025.076

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Fig. 1. Patient selection flow chart. AFP, α-fetoprotein; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; MVI, macrovascular invasion; PD, progressive disease; RT, radiotherapy; SBRT, stereotactic body radiotherapy; SD, stable disease; TACE, transarterial chemoembolization.

Fig. 2. Overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) of the surgery and non-surgery groups. Crude (solid line) and weighted survival curves (dashed line) of each group are presented. The number at risk was different from the number of original sizes of each group because the survival analysis was conducted in a time-dependent manner.

Fig. 3. Subgroup analysis of overall survival according to radiologic response by the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; complete response (A) and partial response groups (B). Crude (solid line) and weighted survival curves (dashed line) of each group are presented. The number at risk was different from the number of original sizes of each group because the survival analysis was conducted in a time-dependent manner.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Variable	Before IPTW				After IPTW
Variable	Non-surgery (n=129)	Surgery (n=41)	p-value	SMD	Non-surgery (n=128.8)	Surgery (n=42.4)	p-value	SMD
Age (yr)	55 (49-60)	53 (48-58)	0.047	0.333	54.0 (48.0-59.0)	54.4 (49.0-59.1)	0.883	0.027
Sex
Male	112 (86.8)	37 (90.2)	0.758	0.108	112.6 (87.5)	37.9 (89.6)	0.746	0.066
Female	17 (13.2)	4 (9.8)			16.1 (12.5)	4.4 (10.4)
ECOG PS
0-1	127 (98.4)	39 (95.1)	0.527	0.190	126.1 (97.9)	41.5 (98.0)	0.960	0.007
2	2 (1.6)	2 (4.9)			2.7 (2.1)	0.8 (2.0)
Viral etiology
Hepatitis B virus	113 (87.6)	37 (90.2)	0.857	0.084	113.3 (88.0)	36.3 (85.7)	0.781	0.067
Non-hepatitis B virus	16 (12.4)	4 (9.8)			15.5 (12.0)	6.1 (14.3)
Maximum tumor diameter (cm)	7.5 (5.1-10.4)	8.0 (6.2-10.3)	0.657	0.055	7.5 (5.0-10.4)	8.0 (5.4-10.4)	0.950	0.015
No. of tumors
Single	41 (31.8)	21 (51.2)	0.039	0.402	46.8 (36.3)	13.3 (31.3)	0.579	0.106
Multiple	88 (68.2)	20 (48.8)			82.0 (63.7)	29.1 (68.7)
Extent of tumor
Unilobar	69 (53.5)	27 (65.9)	0.226	0.254	73.0 (56.7)	20.7 (48.9)	0.465	0.157
Bilobar	60 (46.5)	14 (34.1)			55.7 (43.3)	21.7 (51.1)
Type of tumor
Nodular	30 (23.3)	9 (22.0)	> 0.99	0.031	29.4 (22.9)	10.3 (24.3)	0.883	0.033
Infiltrative/Diffuse	99 (76.7)	32 (78.0)			99.3 (77.1)	31.1 (75.7)
Extent of vascular invasion
Unilateral	66 (51.2)	29 (70.7)	0.044	0.409	71.9 (55.9)	22.7 (53.5)	0.832	0.047
More than unilateral	63 (48.8)	12 (29.3)			56.8 (44.1)	19.7 (46.5)
Bile duct invasion
No	123 (95.3)	38 (92.7)	0.792	0.113	122.4 (95.1)	39.8 (93.9)	0.789	0.053
Yes	6 (4.7)	3 (7.3)			6.3 (4.9)	2.6 (6.1)
AFP (ng/mL)^a)	1,260 (102-15,955)	689 (126-19,617)	0.917	0.024
Log₁₀AFP (ng/mL)	3.10 (2.01-4.20)	2.84 (2.10-4.29)	0.917	0.012	3.11 (1.98-4.21)	3.26 (1.85-4.29)	0.998	0.001
Radiation dose (EQD2) (Gy)	41.7 (36.5-46.9)	41.7 (36.5-48.8)	0.271	0.191	41.7 (36.5-46.9)	41.7 (36.5-42.3)	0.640	0.100
Tumor response
PR	72 (55.8)	22 (53.7)	0.951	0.043	71.1 (55.3)	25.5 (60.3)	0.636	0.101
CR	57 (44.2)	19 (46.3)			57.6 (44.7)	16.8 (39.7)

Variable (reference)	Univariable		Multivariable
Variable (reference)	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Age	1.00 (0.98-1.02)	0.938	-	-
Male sex	0.65 (0.34-1.23)	0.185	-	-
ECOG PS (0-1)	1.37 (0.91-2.08)	0.134	-	-
Viral etiology (HBV)	0.89 (0.43-1.85)	0.753	-	-
Maximum tumor diameter (cm)	1.06 (1.00-1.12)	0.054	1.05 (1.00-1.10)	0.078
No. of tumors (single)	0.99 (0.66-1.50)	0.979	-	-
Extent of tumor (unilobar)	1.24 (0.82-1.88)	0.312	-	-
Type of tumor (nodular)	1.46 (0.84-2.54)	0.180	-	-
Extent of vascular invasion (unilateral PV)	1.02 (0.68-1.54)	0.919	-	-
Bile duct invasion (none)	0.70 (0.28-1.76)	0.451	-	-
Log₁₀AFP (ng/mL)	1.08 (0.93-1.26)	0.308	-	-
Radiation dose (EQD2) (Gy)	1.01 (0.97-1.04)	0.759	-	-
Tumor response (PR)	0.51 (0.33-0.77)	0.001	0.41 (0.27-0.61)	< 0.001
Surgery (non-surgery)^a)	0.36 (0.21-0.62)	< 0.001	0.28 (0.17-0.46)	< 0.001

Grade	Patient	Surgery	Occurrence	Complication	Procedure
IIIa	51/M	Extended left lobectomy	POD #11	Complicated fluid collection	Aspiration
IIIa	60/M	LDLT	POD #22	Hematoma	Percutaneous drainage
IIIa	59/M	Right lobectomy with bile duct resection	POD #10	Fluid collection	Percutaneous drainage
IIIb	49/M	LDLT	POD #1	Bleeding	Laparotomy
IIIb	58/M	Right posterior segmentectomy	POD #3	Bleeding	Laparotomy
IV	50/M	DDLT and concurrent kidney transplantation	POD #3	Bleeding and anastomosis leak of kidney	Anastomosis repair of kidney and ICU care
IV	46/M	DDLT	POD #20	Graft failure	Re-DDLT and ICU care

Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics

Analyzed using logarithmic transformation because the amount of unit change of the variable was small.

Table 2. Univariable and multivariable analyses of prognostic factors for overall survival after IPTW

Since the surgery was not performed at the same time point, it was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Table 3. Major surgical complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification

DDLT, deceased donor liver transplantation; ICU, intensive care unit; LDLT, living donor liver transplantation; POD, postoperative day.