MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416946081 · doi:10.3390/cancers17233870

Current Immunotherapy Strategies and Emerging Biomarkers for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2025· review· en· W4416946081 on OpenAlexafffund
Audrey Kapelanski‐Lamoureux, Anthoula Lazaris, Nicholas Meti, Peter Metrakos

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreInstitute for Research in Immunology and CancerMcGill University
FundersMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinomaImmunotherapyCurrent (fluid)CarcinomaClinical trialTumor immunologyPD-L1

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the predominant form of liver cancer, ranks as the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. With the shift from viral hepatitis to metabolically dysfunction-associated steatosis liver disease (MASLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) as primary etiologies, we aimed to review ongoing clinical trials in adult HCC patients to highlight emerging treatments, particularly for nonviral HCC cases. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrial.gov (last March 2025) for interventional trials. We included ongoing (recruiting/active/not recruiting), phase I-IV, adults (>18 years old), and HCC-focused only clinical trials. We excluded observational and interventional (biological, genetic, device, or procedure) clinical trials. RESULTS: This review highlights recent advances in HCC treatment, with a focus on the transformative role of immunotherapy. Evidence suggests that nonviral HCC, as well as HCC with MASLD/MASH background livers, may have reduced sensitivity to immunotherapy. Thus, there is a critical need for molecular insights to improve patient stratification. Moreover, we examine how new diagnostic tools, including liquid biopsies, influence treatment decisions and aid in monitoring responses. Limitations limited MASLD/MASH-specific trial data. CONCLUSIONS: We review current research and its integration into clinical practice, advancing HCC therapy toward personalized, patient-centered care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207