Abstract:Introduction In 2022 the BCLC staging and treatment algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) management has been updated, granting for higher flexibility and customized management with a multidisciplinary decision process in the choice of the therapeutic strategy for HCC patients as compared to the 2018 version. Aim To evaluate the ability to adhere to BCLC 2022 in daily clinical practice as compared to the BCLC 2018 and the impact on patients’ overall survival (OS). Methods We retrospectively evaluated data of 806 prospectively enrolled (year 2006 to 2022) patients with de novo HCC (Table 1) in different stages according to BCLC: 571 0-A, 133 B, 85 C and 17. First line treatment allocations were discussed by a multidisciplinary team (MTD), following updated recommendations and guidelines. All patients were followed until death or end of follow-up. Results Overall, the adherence to BCLC increased from 50% for the BCLC 2018 to 68% for the BCLC 2022 (p<0.001) considering all stages of HCC: 48% vs 71% stage 0/A (p<0.001), 50% vs 61% stage B (p=0.06), 59% vs 59% stage C (p=NS), 74% vs 74% for stage D (p=NS). Among BCLC 0/A patients, 131 (32%) were treated with TACE, which is the second choice of treatment according to BCLC 2022, while among BCLC B patients, 5 (6%) underwent LT and 10 (12%) were treated with systemic therapy, which are now considered treatment options for this stage in selected patients. The expected survival rate following the BCLC 2018 recommendations remains unchanged by adhering to the BCLC 2022 update [74.5% vs 75.2% at year 2 (p=NS) and 41.4% vs 44.6% at year 5 (p=NS), respectively]. Finally, the rate of “upward stage migration” was similar by BCLC 2022 or BCLC 2018 (12% vs 14%, p=ns), while the rate of “downward stage migration” was lower with the new one (19% vs 36%, p<0.001). Overall, the 2-year survival rate of patients treated outside the BCLC 2022 recommendations did not significantly differ from those treated according to the updated algorithm (76% vs 74.5%, p=NS). In BCLC B and BCLC C, an upward stage migration was associated to higher rates of 2-year survival (93.5% vs 60.6%, p=0.002 for BCLC B and 36.9% vs 27.4%, p=0.01 for BCLC C), while there was no difference for stage 0/A between those treated outside and those treated according to the BCLC 2022. Conclusions The BCLC 2022 updated version of HCC staging and treatment system allowed a greater adherence to the algorithm in clinical practice, mainly in the early stages, without adversely affecting the survival of patients. In the intermediate and advanced stages, the access to more radical treatment could offer a survival benefit.

Comparative analysis of subclassification models in patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (BCLC B) receiving systemic therapy

Comparative Analysis of Subclassification Systems in Patients with Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Classification B) Receiving Systemic Therapy

Factors Impacting Prognosis Prediction in BCLC Stage C and Child-Pugh Class A Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients in Prospective Clinical Trials of Systemic Therapy

Prognostic Performance of the China Liver Cancer Staging System in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Transarterial Chemoembolization.

A new sub-stage classification strategy for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Validation of models in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of Hong Kong Liver Cancer with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system in a Chinese cohort.

Improved handling of BCLC 2022 update in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in clinical practice

Comparison of Four Staging Systems in Predicting Outcomes and Guiding Option of Treatment for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The Chinese Classification System Compared with TNM Staging in Prognosis of Patients with Primary Hepatic Carcinoma after Resection.

A comparison of three different staging systems of hilar cholangiocarcinoma

A Modified Jarnagin-Blumgart Classification Better Predicts Survival for Resectable Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

Development of Hong Kong Liver Cancer staging system with treatment stratification for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Can More Aggressive Treatment Improve Prognosis in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma? A Direct Comparison of the Hong Kong Liver Cancer and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Algorithms

Comparing Real World, Personalized, Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations with BCLC Algorithm: 321-Patient Analysis

Prognosis After Resection of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Stage 0, A, and B Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Current BCLC Classification

Comparison of four current staging systems for Chinese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing curative resection: Okuda, CLIP, TNM and CUPI

Different Survival of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage C Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients by the Extent of Portal Vein Invasion and the Type of Extrahepatic Spread

Merits and boundaries of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Staging and Treatment Algorithm: learning from the past to improve the future with a novel proposal.

727 HEPATIC ARTERIAL CHEMOEMBOLIZATION FOR THE METASTATIC LIVER CARCINOID

Comparison of Different Clinical Staging Systems for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Selecting an Optimal Staging System for Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison of 9 Currently Used Prognostic Models